Kavanaugh could undo everything

[Oxyaena]

If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice it could turn
the Court sharply right and undo everything we have fought to achieve
over the last few decades, including such things as teaching creationism
in schools, mandatory prayer and Bible readings in school, the
overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, more decisions like *Citizens United*, and
a whole host of other things that could get curtailed. Fortunately not
all hope is lost, Alaska Natives have cranked up the pressure
hundredth-fold on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who owes her reelection to Alaska
Natives, why are they doing this? Because Kavanaugh's track record isn't
friendly to the Indigenous Peoples of the United States, as well as how
his track record on federal power and climate change could irreparably
damage the Alaska Natives' way of life or even their very existence as a
people, given that Alaska is *already* experiencing the effects of
climate change.

While a Court that swings sharply to the right would be disastrous, no
one would experience it more than Native Americans, under a Presidency
that hates Native Americans (and anyone else who's not white) with a
passion. One only hopes that Murkowski sees the writing on the wall.

Of huge concern to this newsgroup is the potential reversal of many of
the decisions that have been won against the Religious Right, and if
Kavanaugh is confirmed we may very well start seeing creationism in
schools again. Think about that. I don't want my kids learning that
garbage, do you?
--
"The last Christian died on the Cross." - Friedrich Nietzschie

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Ridiculous.. 1.If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be one justice out of 9.

2. The Supreme Ct cannot issue advisory opinions.It can only issue rulings on active disputes that come before it. It cannot go back and change or overrule cases decided in the past. That means no changes can be made in established law unless a case comes before it in which the rulings in past cases are relevant.

[jonathan]

Can't wait for the hearing next Monday 10:00 am when
Kavanaugh get's his lying rapist ass handed to him
in front of 100 million viewers.

For anyone into politics, it doesn't get any more
dramatic.

And if he comes off as lying he's not gonna make it
Susan Collins has already said if he's lying he's
unqualified.

His accuser is a Dr. and has corroborating evidence
and has passed a lie detector test by an FBI agent
last month.

Plus the third person in the room is on record as
having battled alcoholism including blackouts and
has stated Kavanaugh drank to excess too.

They need to have the third person Mark Judge
testify, else it'll be a circus. They need to
have the FBI investigate for a couple of
weeks before the hearing takes place.



"As Ford describes the attack, another student was
in the room at the time, Kavanaugh’s classmate Mark Judge.
Judge’s denial relies on his assertion that he “never
saw Brett act that way.” However, Slate points out
that Judge has written about his struggle with
alcoholism, including black-out drunkenness, fictionalizing
the name of the school he attended and referring to
another individual who he names “Bart O’Kavanaugh,”
who partook in enough alcohol to vomit in someone
else’s vehicle and pass out."
https://hillreporter.com/brett-kavanaughs-accuser-comes-forward-with-corroborating-data-takes-polygraph-lie-detector-7306

[vtand...@gmail.com]

It's not her decision to make.It's her word against his.

>
> His accuser is a Dr. and has corroborating evidence
> and has passed a lie detector test by an FBI agent
> last month.

What corroborating evidence?Lie detector tests are not admissable as evidence in court.

>
> Plus the third person in the room is on record as
> having battled alcoholism including blackouts and
> has stated Kavanaugh drank to excess too.

Drinking is not illegal and that was 40 years ago.
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:22:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>Can't wait for the hearing next Monday 10:00 am when
>Kavanaugh get's his lying rapist ass

Guilt by declaration and trial by unconfirmed leak; I love
it.

You outdo even yourself.
--

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

[zencycle]

Expanding on the issue of creationism in schools - It's frightening to think that the concept of 'religious freedom' could be extended include the right to discriminate. Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this by his "there were good people on both side" argument (make no mistake, that was as much about religion as it was race).

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Apparently, you evolutionists, for all your labelling of others as "ignorant", have not read the US Constitution.
The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.
The Pres cannot interpret laws or interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Ct can do that.

Moreover, any action by the President, even his executive orders, are subject to review by the Supreme Court. The SC can strike down any law made by Congress and any action taken by the President.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <5587ce5b-de0f-40e1...@googlegroups.com>,

Explaining how US law works to people here isn't that productive. You
need to actually explain this to POTUS.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:50:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:15:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, eh, little boy?

> >
> > Expanding on the issue of creationism in schools - It's frightening to think that the concept of 'religious freedom' could be extended include the right to discriminate. Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this by his "there were good people on both side" argument (make no mistake, that was as much about religion as it was race).
> >
> > "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/
>
> Apparently, you evolutionists, for all your labelling of others as "ignorant", have not read the US Constitution.
> The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.

"Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this" in no way even implies that the president can make laws.

> The Pres cannot interpret laws or interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Ct can do that.

Actually, the president acts by his interpretation of laws and the constitution. This is where the power of his executive authority lies. I think you need to retake your 6th grade civics course. Comments like yours are more proof that your mother did all of your homework for you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice it could turn
> the Court sharply right and undo everything we have fought to achieve
> over the last few decades, including such things as teaching creationism
> in schools,

It is legal in private schools (so much the worse for them) but it
is pure Leftist propaganda to imply that Kavanaugh is a far-right
fool who thinks creationism in state-supported schools
doesn't conflict with the first Amendment.

Active promotion of a religion-based delusion by public schools
can easily be construed as working towards the establishment of
a religion based cult.

> mandatory prayer and Bible readings in school,

The huge exaggeration involved in "mandatory" boggles the mind.

> the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*,

At worst, it would mean putting the decision back in the hands
of state legislatures and governors. And there's not a snowball's
chance in hell that the "blue" states will be any more anti-abortion
than the majority that decided Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

And it is doubtful that more than ten states will go so far
as to ban second and third trimester abortions, and they would
have to make an exception for threat to the life of the mother
or permanent impairment of major physical, bodily function,
otherwise they would lose big-time at every federal court
level, including SCOTUS.

"physical, bodily" is not redundant. When partial birth abortion
was legal in Kansas, there were over a hundred of them reported
each year past the 21st month, and all but one was for "mental"
bodily function. There was a box for "physical" and it was only
checked once in all that time.

> more decisions like *Citizens United*,

...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
George Soros, and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
marriage.

Back in 1969, there was an article by Malcolm Muggeridge in Esquire
magazine titled something like "The Great Liberal Death Wish." This bit
by you may well qualify.

> a whole host of other things that could get curtailed. Fortunately not
> all hope is lost, Alaska Natives have cranked up the pressure
> hundredth-fold on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who owes her reelection to Alaska
> Natives, why are they doing this?

<snip undocumented claims about Kavanaugh wrt them and wrt climate change>

> under a Presidency
> that hates Native Americans (and anyone else who's not white) with a
> passion.

This comes closer to violating Godwin's law than anything I
wrote in Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
or its spinoff, Subject: OT: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)

> Of huge concern to this newsgroup is the potential reversal of many of
> the decisions that have been won against the Religious Right, and if
> Kavanaugh is confirmed we may very well start seeing creationism in
> schools again. Think about that. I don't want my kids learning that
> garbage, do you?

What kids? for that matter, were you really telling the truth
when you claimed to be married to a paleontologist? If you were,
why are you posting to sci.bio.paleontology and not he?


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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> "physical, bodily" is not redundant. When partial birth abortion
> was legal in Kansas, there were over a hundred of them reported
> each year past the 21st month,

Bad case of absent-mindedness here: I meant past the 21st week.

> and all but one was for "mental"
> bodily function. There was a box for "physical" and it was only
> checked once in all that time.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/19/18 8:01 AM, zencycle wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:50:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:15:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
>
> Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, eh, little boy?
>
>>>
>>> Expanding on the issue of creationism in schools - It's frightening to think that the concept of 'religious freedom' could be extended include the right to discriminate. Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this by his "there were good people on both side" argument (make no mistake, that was as much about religion as it was race).
>>>
>>> "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/
>>
>> Apparently, you evolutionists, for all your labelling of others as "ignorant", have not read the US Constitution.
>> The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.
>
> "Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this" in no way even implies that the president can make laws.
>
>> The Pres cannot interpret laws or interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Ct can do that.
>
> Actually, the president acts by his interpretation of laws and the constitution. This is where the power of his executive authority lies. I think you need to retake your 6th grade civics course. Comments like yours are more proof that your mother did all of your homework for you.

You are assuming that he has completed 6th grade already. The facts on
which to base such an assumption are not in evidence.

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

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>
> > more decisions like *Citizens United*,
>
> ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
> George Soros, and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
> rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
> marriage.

Should have been

"...which took off all financial constraints on right-wing manipulators like
the Koch brothers, NRA, russian oligarchs, and the innumerable corporations deeply against LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."

There....fixed it for you.

[Tim Norfolk]

Or perhaps you were thinking of elephants?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

He was in business for 50 years and had lots of lawsuits. He knows.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Actually, I went to law school for a year.
HAHAHAHAHA!

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 8:05:03 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:50:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:15:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
>
> Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, eh, little boy?
>
> > >
> > > Expanding on the issue of creationism in schools - It's frightening to think that the concept of 'religious freedom' could be extended include the right to discriminate. Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this by his "there were good people on both side" argument (make no mistake, that was as much about religion as it was race).
> > >
> > > "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/
> >
> > Apparently, you evolutionists, for all your labelling of others as "ignorant", have not read the US Constitution.
> > The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.
>
> "Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this" in no way even implies that the president can make laws.
>
> > The Pres cannot interpret laws or interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Ct can do that.
>
> Actually, the president acts by his interpretation of laws and the constitution. This is where the power of his executive authority lies.

WRONG. Any action he takes can be struck down by the Supreme Ct..
The DC Circuit Ct did this to obama.

YOU are stupid.
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Supreme Court is not necessarily independent. The tendency is for justices
to drift (excepting conservative radicals Thomas and Scalia) from ideology
of their president over a decade or so. A recently approved justice could
do much damage to precedent. The majority could tip and *stare decisis* on
same sex marriage, abortion, and the joke that is true religious freedom
go out the window. Misogynistic theocracy could be just around the corner.
And some women voted for this by electing a pussy grabber as their
executive agent. Sad.

We need a Pussy Riot.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Where is the evidence to prove this?

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/media/PrefChange.pdf

Souter became more liberal as part of the troika and Kennedy had surprising
effects.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You are making generalizations about the writings of legal scholars.
I don't buy it. In addition, when you talk about SC justices, you are generalizing about numerous votes over decades on issues which are very different.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative"are too general and not useful.
Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic Senator. She votes with big business on economic issues and with the far left on gun control.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

It's all right here


The doctrine of judicial review allows the federal courts to rule whether laws and actions by the executive or legislative branches are constitutional. ... If the president or Congress acts in such a way that goes beyond what is held in the Constitution, it would be the Supreme Court that could stop them.
The doctrine of judicial review allows what? | Study.com

https://study.com/academy/answer/the-doctrine-of-judicial-review-allows-what.html

[*Hemidactylus*]

Still depends on ideological commitment of said court. You are talking
ideals. In reality justices may opine based on biases upon which they were
evaluated.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

There are 9 justices. Are you claiming they all have the same biases?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <ee6fe17e-7d33-4fff...@googlegroups.com>,

Being in business for 50 years hardly provides evidence that one
understands government.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You didn't read my entire comment.
It does if you spent as much time in different courts as he has.
Just running for President of the US requires knowledge of government.
He just appointed an appeals judge to the Supreme Court and submitted his selection to the Senate for confirmation. That means he has read the Constitution. He has submitted legislation to Congress for passing, which means he has read the Constitution.

Are you intentionally blind?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <59c77d74-d7e9-42e5...@googlegroups.com>,

This doesn't follow. If a business man has been a successful litigant in
numerous courts, that only indicates that he has a lawyer who
understands the relevant case law. It tells us nothing about the
business man himself.

And understanding the relevant case law is entirely distinct from
understanding the processes whereby laws are created and/or amended. One
can be an expert in torts without having any particular expertise in
constitutional law.

> Just running for President of the US requires knowledge of government.

In an ideal world, this would be true. But we live in the actual world,
in which the skill set needed to run a campaign is almost entirely
distinct from the skill set required to govern.

> He just appointed an appeals judge to the Supreme Court and submitted his
> selection to the Senate for confirmation. That means he has read the
> Constitution. He has submitted legislation to Congress for passing, which
> means he has read the Constitution.

No, that means he has appointed a judge and submitted legislation. It
means nothing else beyond that.

With respect to the constitution, he may have read it, but he does not
appear to have understood it (or, if he did, he doesn't actually care
what it says). He certainly shows no evidence that he actually
understands the separation of powers or the limited role of the
executive branch.

> Are you intentionally blind?

Are you intentionally obtuse?

[Burkhard]

Obviously not, them being appointed at different times by different
presidents, and have different ideological commitments.

But since decisions do not require unanimity, that hardly matters. In
the US, there has been a steady increase in 5-4 split decisions - they
made up only 2% of decisions between 1800 and 1940, it was up to 20% in
2014, and is now approaching 1/4th of decisions. The majority is decided
along party lines (party determined by party of appointing president).
Not all of them - exceptions included Young v. United Parcel Service,
and of course Roberts is sometimes a swing voter, even though a
conservative by instinct. Some of the unanimous votes in highly
politicised issues were also surprising, such as V.L. v. E.L,or the
unusual alliances in Lockhart v. United States.

I would not necessarily call these commitments "biases", but they do
express strong political, philosophical and ethical commitments.

The problem with Kavanaugh is in my view less that he's likely to
overturn established precedents, inc. Roe. His attitude to precedents
seems to be mainstream, from the hearing.

The problem with him is that he promotes an extreme vision of the theory
of unitary executive That;s incidentally one that the libertarian side
of the conservatives hate, and that's where you find also most of the
conservative never-trumpers, Trump's a big state, interventionist
authoritarian with little respect for personal liberties, including
property rights, and is also not a friend of federalism 9or anything
else that prevents him from doing what he wants to) Faced with an
interventionist president, judges willing to call him out are needed,
not those like Kavanaugh who subscribe to a doctrine of maximum
deference of the court to executive decisions.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2018 2:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip horseshit]

>
>
>> mandatory prayer and Bible readings in school,
>
> The huge exaggeration involved in "mandatory" boggles the mind.

Tell me what you think of when you hear the word "mandatory", hmm?

>
>
>> the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*,
>
> At worst, it would mean putting the decision back in the hands
> of state legislatures and governors. And there's not a snowball's
> chance in hell that the "blue" states will be any more anti-abortion
> than the majority that decided Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
>
> And it is doubtful that more than ten states will go so

You underestimate the power of Conservative stupidity. Misogynist.

>
>
>> more decisions like *Citizens United*,
>
> ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
> George Soros,

Why do I even bother with right-wing pigs such as yourself.

> and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
> rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
> marriage.

There's only one word to describe this pile of shit you've smeared
across my computer screen:

"Homophobic".

>
> Back in 1969, there was an article by Malcolm Muggeridge in Esquire
> magazine titled something like "The Great Liberal Death Wish." This bit
> by you may well qualify.

You're pathetic.

>
>
>> a whole host of other things that could get curtailed. Fortunately not
>> all hope is lost, Alaska Natives have cranked up the pressure
>> hundredth-fold on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who owes her reelection to Alaska
>> Natives, why are they doing this?
>
>
> <snip undocumented claims about Kavanaugh wrt them and wrt climate change>

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/406671-alaskas-largest-native-organization-strongly-opposes-kavanaugh\

Read and weep. You obviously never read the news, do you?

>
>
>> under a Presidency
>> that hates Native Americans (and anyone else who's not white) with a
>> passion.
>
> This comes closer to violating Godwin's law than anything I
> wrote in Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
> or its spinoff, Subject: OT: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)

Bullshit.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/donald-trumps-long-history-of-clashes-with-native-americans/2016/07/25/80ea91ca-3d77-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a50bf11c6169

I highly doubt you'll even click on that link.

>
>
>> Of huge concern to this newsgroup is the potential reversal of many of
>> the decisions that have been won against the Religious Right, and if
>> Kavanaugh is confirmed we may very well start seeing creationism in
>> schools again. Think about that. I don't want my kids learning that
>> garbage, do you?
>
> What kids? for that matter, were you really telling the truth
> when you claimed to be married to a paleontologist? If you were,
> why are you posting to sci.bio.paleontology and not he?
>

Didn't I tell you that I am a paleontologist?

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

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Neal Degrasse Tyson

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Right, and I'm Napoleon Bonaparte..

[Oxyaena]

What makes you doubt it? I`m obviously far more knowledgeable about
evolution and paleontology than you are, if my replies to you are any
indication. Is it the fact that I`m unwilling to give out any
compromising personal information, right down to my own identity? Maybe,
but I have my reasons.

[Oxyaena]

That, and it means he has a third-grader's understanding of governance,
since they teach you the very basics of US governance in third grade.
"The President appoints judges who are then confirmed by the Senate."
When I was in high school I knew more about governance than he currently
does.

>
> With respect to the constitution, he may have read it, but he does not
> appear to have understood it (or, if he did, he doesn't actually care
> what it says). He certainly shows no evidence that he actually
> understands the separation of powers or the limited role of the
> executive branch.

His violation of the emoluments clause, anyone? There's literally tons
of things he can be impeached upon, but Congress has sold their souls
out to the devil that is The Donald and Mother Russia and don't care for
the American people, at least most of the Republicans don't. One only
hopes that with the democrats poised to take control of the House in
November at least something changes.

>
>> Are you intentionally blind?
>
> Are you intentionally obtuse?

The answer would be "yes", just in case you're wondering.


>
> Andre

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <pnvt86$a0m$1...@news.albasani.net>,

I'll take your word for it. All I remember from grade three was lengthy
discussions of the purpose of Trudeau (the Elder)'s pending patriation
of the constitution and why we had to have a governor-general. The only
place where US governance was discussed was on Schoolhouse Rock.

>
> >
> > With respect to the constitution, he may have read it, but he does not
> > appear to have understood it (or, if he did, he doesn't actually care
> > what it says). He certainly shows no evidence that he actually
> > understands the separation of powers or the limited role of the
> > executive branch.
>
>
> His violation of the emoluments clause, anyone? There's literally tons
> of things he can be impeached upon, but Congress has sold their souls
> out to the devil that is The Donald and Mother Russia and don't care for
> the American people, at least most of the Republicans don't. One only
> hopes that with the democrats poised to take control of the House in
> November at least something changes.

As an outsider, I must say it is utterly mystifying how willing
republican legislators are to overlook trump's complete disregard for
the ethical standards normally associated with the office. I can sort of
understand why his base ignores these things (apart from the fact that
Fox doesn't tell them about them), but I'd assume that legislators would
be more concerned about the long term effects that this
look-the-other-way policy will have on the reputation of the GOP.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You are overbearing, dishonest, and intolerant.
You are a propagandist dedicated to promoting one view at all all costs.

I don't trust you to tell the truth.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Trump supporters like him because he is a businessman and not a politician.
He is blunt and straightforward. He keeps his promises or does his damndest trying to keep them. He is a refreshing change from chronic liars like Obama who lie all the time and promise things they never deliver. People are sick of the bullshit and dirty tricks of the Democrats now. I got sick of them in 1985..

[zencycle]

Not as stupid as someone who thinks the statement "Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this" implies that the president can make laws.

And not as stupid as someone who thinks congress and the president don't act based on _their_ interpretation of the constitution. It's pretty clear why you dropped out of law school - you didn't quite get the point that SCOTUS (or _any_ court) doesn't rule on anything that isn't a subject of litigation. IF no one challenged Trumps muslim ban, it would have been in effect, regardless of whether it was constitutional or not.

[zencycle]

So you dropped out of law school, your parents must be so proud.....

[Peter Nyikos]

No, but thanks for bringing this in the direction of on-topic
discussion. The following lists a whole menagerie of mammals
by average gestation period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammalian_gestation_durations

As you can see, the average Indian elephant doesn't quite make it past
the 20th month: 617 days. Of course, there may be lots of cases of
"overdue" babies. But the African elephant can, on the average,
even make it into the 22nd month: 645 days; and I'd expect a number
to make it into the 23rd month as well.

And the African elephant is the "champion" of this list. The only
whale listed is the sperm whale and its average is a "mere" 535
days. [1] Not even twice the human average,listed as 270 days. [2]


[1] Don't ask me how they found out. Your guess is at least as
good as mine, and may be a lot better.

[2] Now why is that number evenly divisible by 10? No source is
given for it. But then, this is Wikipedia -- what do you expect?

There are a number of other peculiarities of that list. Why isn't
minimum and maximum listed for humans and elephants, but is listed
for sperm whales? Someone could write a pretty meaty essay for
a class in applied statistics just by carefully analyzing that
webpage, IMO.


The connection with creationism vs evolution? I'm not sure,
but maybe someone reading this can come up with a good one.

The best I can think of offhand is this: why would a creator
that makes man in its image and likeness arrange for human neonates
to be so helpless when an elephant-level gestation could have
produced a baby who is (1) ready to stand up and walk, and
(2) looks much more like the sort of baby almost everyone finds cute,
and some adorable?

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

Oxyaena has just begun to probe you Mr. V. Wait till you see how inept
she is at discussion -- as opposed to "book learning".

> You are overbearing, dishonest, and intolerant.
> You are a propagandist dedicated to promoting one view at all all costs.

Very true. And your skepticism is well founded. Take a look at what
a bumbler and fumbler Oxyaena can be when the two of us do a
flame-free back-and-forth in sci.bio.paleontology:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/wA3EJfvKogY/9peplE_5BgAJ
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e033811d-9194-43c3...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Penguin, kangaroo

It's a long post, but well worth studying in detail. Oxyaena really
tied herself up in knots, and her reply (to which I haven't replied yet)
is no better. In particular, Oxyaena took the words "book learning"
with excruciating literalness, even though it is in scare quotes
the way I wrote it, just as I did above.

> I don't trust you to tell the truth.

Your skepticism is eminently well founded.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > >
> > > > "physical, bodily" is not redundant. When partial birth abortion
> > > > was legal in Kansas, there were over a hundred of them reported
> > > > each year past the 21st month,
> > >
> > > Bad case of absent-mindedness here: I meant past the 21st week.
> > >
> > >
> > > > and all but one was for "mental"
> > > > bodily function. There was a box for "physical" and it was only
> > > > checked once in all that time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > Or perhaps you were thinking of elephants?
>
> No, but thanks for bringing this in the direction of on-topic
> discussion. The following lists a whole menagerie of mammals
> by average gestation period:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammalian_gestation_durations
>
> As you can see, the average Indian elephant doesn't quite make it past
> the 20th month: 617 days.

More absent-mindedness: I should have written "past the 21st month",
but in this case it is not relevant since I used that figure above.


But the absent-mindedness persisted: the month numbers should be
jacked up by 1 below, too:

> Of course, there may be lots of cases of
> "overdue" babies. But the African elephant can, on the average,
> even make it into the 22nd month: 645 days; and I'd expect a number
> to make it into the 23rd month as well.

The usual cause of this kind of absent-mindedness is that one's
mind is focused on the big picture, and doesn't pay concerted
attention to details.

[Oxyaena]

Explaining why all of the above is complete and utter horseshit would be like casting pearls before swine, and once again you're engaging in your campaign of character assassination against me by trying to portray me as incompetent when I am not.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You are a Prof. of Mathematics? We work in similar professions. I'm a CPA(retired)

I went to law school for a year, which is where I learned about law and government. I spent 6 years in the US Navy as an officer.

[Oxyaena]

If one wants to see how inept Peter is at discussion, just go the my
refutations on his abiogenesis bull on the thread mentioned below, where
I gave several meaty replies, almost all of which Peter refuses to
respond to, just like he refuses to respond to my post refuting his bull
above.

>> You are overbearing, dishonest, and intolerant.
>> You are a propagandist dedicated to promoting one view at all all costs.
>
> Very true. And your skepticism is well founded. Take a look at what
> a bumbler and fumbler Oxyaena can be when the two of us do a

Once again, you're lying about my competence. Fuck you. I hastily
recommend to the readers of this thread to look up the "Did Dawkins
Inadvertently Advocate Design", in which Peter fails to give a credible
response to any of my posts refuting his claptrap, including a link to a
paper I cited from PubMed summarizing what we do and don't know about
abiogenesis.

Peter loves to continually beat upon his victims' heads their mistakes,
yet he never acknowledges his own, like when he said "atheists are
trying to keep people from studying abiogenesis", and then continually
shifted the goal posts to avoid confronting his own dishonesty. What a
hypocritical fuck.

> flame-free back-and-forth in sci.bio.paleontology:
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/wA3EJfvKogY/9peplE_5BgAJ
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <e033811d-9194-43c3...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Penguin, kangaroo
>
> It's a long post, but well worth studying in detail. Oxyaena really
> tied herself up in knots, and her reply (to which I haven't replied yet)
> is no better. In particular, Oxyaena took the words "book learning"
> with excruciating literalness, even though it is in scare quotes
> the way I wrote it, just as I did above.

Then what the hell was "book learning" supposed to mean, asshole? You
are often intentionally vague and confusing just so you can fuck with
your victims.

>
>
>> I don't trust you to tell the truth.
>
> Your skepticism is eminently well founded.

It's *extremely* ironic for a noted pathological liar to advise another
pathological liar about my supposed dishonesty. Fuck you.

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

[Oxyaena]

On 9/20/2018 9:00 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>
>>>> "physical, bodily" is not redundant. When partial birth abortion
>>>> was legal in Kansas, there were over a hundred of them reported
>>>> each year past the 21st month,
>>>
>>> Bad case of absent-mindedness here: I meant past the 21st week.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and all but one was for "mental"
>>>> bodily function. There was a box for "physical" and it was only
>>>> checked once in all that time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> Or perhaps you were thinking of elephants?
>
> No, but thanks for bringing this in the direction of on-topic
> discussion.

Says the guy who posted an off-topic post with the extremely offensive
header line "Below 50 IQ simulator". One wonders what actual people with
IQs below fifty would think of that, they'd probably punch the douche
bag in the face for his sheer asshattery.

[Oxyaena]

So you support Trump's tariffs? You support Trump's separation of
immigrant children from their parents? You support Trump's undermining
of American democracy? You support Trump's tax cuts, which only served t
make the rich richer and the poor poorer? You support Trump's blatant
partial repeal of Dodd-Frank? You support Trump ruining our image
abroad?? You support Trump interfering in the probe against him? You
support Trump's criminal activities? You support Trump's traitorous
affairs with Russia? You support Trump's repeal of the mandatory
insurance coverage, thus making several million people in the US go
without health insurance? You support Trump's blatant disregard of our
allies? You support Trump's extremely shoddy record with climate change?

There's tons more I could list, but I feel I've made my point. You're
pathetic.

[Oxyaena]

I remember him stating somewhere that he did indeed drop out of law
school. Somehow he thinks being a college dropout enables him to be an
intellectual match for the likes of us people who actually do know what
we're talking about on talk.origins. Pure Dunning-Kruger.

[Oxyaena]

Your affinity for psychological projection is unmatched, with only the
likes of Nyikos himself even coming close to matching your brilliance.
Congratulations, you have won the coveted title of "dipshit", a title
onl Nyikos has had the honor of holding beforehand.

>
> I don't trust you to tell the truth.

Psychological projection noted.

[zencycle]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> You are a Prof. of Mathematics? We work in similar professions. I'm a CPA(retired)

cpa = university math professor....ferfuckssake....

[Peter Nyikos]

Oxyaena reacted predictably: she used the principle that there
is no need to refute anything a person utters if you can persuade people
to pay no attention to what that person utters. In this case,
she's hoping to dissuade you from reading the long linked post.

If you do read it, Oxyaena could come under the rubric of a
common Army threat that I relate below, as far as you are concerned.

>
> You are a Prof. of Mathematics? We work in similar professions.

In general terms, yes, but I am a theoretical mathematician most of the time,
although I have done some nice applied mathematics on several levels,
whereas I would suppose that you are very much on the applied side.

> I'm a CPA(retired)
>
> I went to law school for a year, which is where I learned about law and government.

Could you explain to me how "actionable" is generally used?
The Merriam-Webster definition goes:

actionable: subject to or affording ground for an action or suit at law

I tend to read it as "...for an action or suit at law that the
plaintiff has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning."

And that's the way I've used it up to now, when I say that
libels in talk.origins are not legally actionable, because too
few people read talk.origins for someone to be able to show
damage to their reputations in the big outside world.

But if you inform me otherwise, I'll use the term differently.

> I spent 6 years in the US Navy as an officer.

I took ROTC for 4 years as an undergrad, and I got my Ph.D.
in another 4 years at Carnegie-Mellon University in 1971.

I spent the next two academic years in the US Army as a "First Louie"
with the second year doing applied math for the Biomedical Laboratory
in Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. Last time I looked, it was part
of Aberdeen Proving Ground, with which it merged just after I
left active duty.

I was in the Chemical Corps. What was your branch of the Navy?


I've had good experience with former military on Usenet. One was
an enlisted man ("e.m." as we called them then, "soldier" as the
term became afterwards) to whom I gave tips early in 1994 on how to deal with
scoundrels in talk.abortion who were very similar in behavior
to Oxyaena and other scoundrels here in talk.origins.

It was from him that I finally learned what visual image a
common threat in ROTC summer camp went with. The threat was,

"If you ___________________, your ass is grass."

He explained that "your ass" is an example of a common literary
device called a synecdoche, where a part ("your ass") represents
the whole (you). So, using another literary device, the threat means:

"If you ___________________, you'll be pushing up daisies."

Of course, even if you translate these figures of speech, the
threat is only figurative, not literal.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I think it's safe to say that you're full of shit and can be suitably
IGNORED.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/20/18 5:03 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]

>>
> Trump supporters like him because he is a businessman and not a politician.

The money Trump started with was a gift from his family, and he could
have made more money with it if he had put it in the back to earn
interest, rather than going into business with it. You probably already
know he has filed for bankruptcy six times. As you yourself noted, he
has been in court multiple other times too, including for fraud, and
been found at fault in at least some of those cases.

Which raises the question, why do Trump supporters like an incompetent
and dishonest businessman?

> He is blunt and straightforward. He keeps his promises or does his damndest trying to keep them.

Interestingly, Trump's supporters before the election told me that they
supported him *despite* his promises. "Those horrible things are just
to appeal to his base," they said. "Don't worry, he won't try to follow
through with them."

> He is a refreshing change from chronic liars like Obama who lie all the time and promise things they never deliver.

Really?!? Trump tells on average three whoppers a day. He as already
told more substantive lies than all other presidents combined since news
services started keeping track of such things.

> People are sick of the bullshit and dirty tricks of the Democrats now.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Richard Nixon?


Here's a nonpartisan website you should bookmark and refer to frequently
in order to alleviate your gullibility: www.politifact.com

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

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

It's no surprise that you include V as one of your strange bedfellows.
Your behaviors have much in common.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/19/18 4:57 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/19/18 8:01 AM, zencycle wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:50:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:15:02 PM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
>>>
>>> Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, eh, little boy?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Expanding on the issue of creationism in schools - It's frightening to think that the concept of 'religious freedom' could be extended include the right to discriminate. Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this by his "there were good people on both side" argument (make no mistake, that was as much about religion as it was race).
>>>>>
>>>>> "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, you evolutionists, for all your labelling of others as "ignorant", have not read the US Constitution.
>>>> The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.
>>>
>>> "Trump has already shown his willingness to go along with this" in no way even implies that the president can make laws.
>>>
>>>> The Pres cannot interpret laws or interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Ct can do that.
>>>
>>> Actually, the president acts by his interpretation of laws and the constitution. This is where the power of his executive authority lies. I think you need to retake your 6th grade civics course. Comments like yours are more proof that your mother did all of your homework for you.
>>
>> You are assuming that he has completed 6th grade already. The facts on
>> which to base such an assumption are not in evidence.
>

> Actually, I went to law school for a year.
> HAHAHAHAHA!

The evidence you have given so far leads me not to believe you ever went
to law school. I am willing to accept that you graduated from high
school, but only because I have seen too many other cases of woeful
public education.

[Burkhard]

the serial bankrupteur who left in his wake ruined lives when he did not
fulfill his side of the bargain? The guy who ran the fraudulent "Trump
university"? You must be joking

[Mark Isaak]

Peter,

We all know that you like insulting people. But do you honestly doubt
that Oxyaena is a paleontologist qualified to hold a professional job in
that field?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> It's no surprise that you include V as one of your strange bedfellows.

You actually admitted once that "strange bedfellows" means any two people
who have attacked you.

By that standard, zencycle is a strange bedfellow of mine.

> Your behaviors have much in common.

That remains to be seen, and I already learned a few months
after I first encountered you that your word is not to
be trusted. In fact, I caught you lying about something
when the plain truth that contradicted your lie was
right up there in the text that had been repeated from
earlier posts.

Oxyaena did that recently in sci.bio.paleontology,
so that is one more thing she has in common with you
now, besides being throughly dishonest when it suits her
to be.

However, one thing Oxyaena does NOT have in common with you
is cunning. Inter alia, it has made you a formidable propagandist.

On the other hand, if it weren't for Martin Harran, Oxyaena
would be the most clumsily dishonest regular in talk.origins.

On the other hand, if it weren't for John Harshman, you
would be the most cunningly dishonest regular in talk.origins.

But even John Harshman is only an also-ran in one respect:
you are the most dangerously dishonest person in talk.origins.


And, unless I keep on being a "goddamn moralizer," or another
rises to take my place, you will wear those laurels more and more proudly
and effectively, turning talk.origins into the kind of hellhole
talk.abortion became by 2007.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/20/18 6:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:30:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>> On 9/20/2018 6:14 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:10:03 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/19/2018 2:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Oxyaena had written:

Nobody knows that, because it isn't true. I explained a bit about what I
am really like here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/dViCPwjJCQAJ

Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52619a39-4e2c-45fe...@googlegroups.com>


What's more, you are one of less than ten regulars who would have
the chutzpah to say what you've just said.


On the other hand, I am pretty sure that none of the following regulars
(many still active) would say anything so stupid about others' "knowledge"
about me:

Arkalen, Burkhard, Walter Bushell, Steven Carlip, Robert Carnegie, Joe Cummings,
deadrat, R. Dean, Mike Dworetsky, Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde,
Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, JWS, Kalkidas, George Kaplan, Nick Keighley,
J.J.Lodder, Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Tim Norfolk, Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib,
Dana Tweedy, walksalone, zencycle

> But do you honestly doubt
> that Oxyaena is a paleontologist qualified to hold a professional job in
> that field?

I do, for several reasons, one being that she relies way too much
on Wikipedia and popular science articles even for paleontology.
Another is that she is ill at ease discussing technicalities like
the pteroid bone of pterosaurs. [Do you know what a pterosaur is?
Just checking.]


If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I would direct
you to the following thread.

Flight mechanics in pterosaurs and birds.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ%5B1-25%5D

If it didn't cramp your style to look, you would see that the
OP was by Oxyaena, but the heavy lifting was all done by myself.
Even after I prodded her, Oxyaena came up with a goose egg.

Oxyaena's unimpressive OP was completely taken from Wikipedia, as
Oxyaena later admitted, even though it LOOKS as though it
were taken from a scholarly book. Not a word of it was hers.


There are other reasons, but I will only go into them
in reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.


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

[Oxyaena]

On 9/20/2018 3:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's no surprise that you include V as one of your strange bedfellows.
>
> You actually admitted once that "strange bedfellows" means any two people
> who have attacked you.
>
> By that standard, zencycle is a strange bedfellow of mine.

Zencycle just accused you of playing word games in a response to me, and
he implicitly agreed with me that you're a troll.

>
>
>> Your behaviors have much in common.
>
> That remains to be seen, and I already learned a few months
> after I first encountered you that your word is not to
> be trusted. In fact, I caught you lying about something
> when the plain truth that contradicted your lie was
> right up there in the text that had been repeated from
> earlier posts.
>
> Oxyaena did that recently in sci.bio.paleontology,
> so that is one more thing she has in common with you
> now, besides being throughly dishonest when it suits her
> to be.

What was I "lying" about? Can you even back up *any* of these
unsupported libelous assertions you've posted here?

>
> However, one thing Oxyaena does NOT have in common with you
> is cunning. Inter alia, it has made you a formidable propagandist.

I remember you saying that I was "growing more cunning" several years
back. Why the change in heart? Is it because you know your charges are
complete horseshit? I think so.

>
> On the other hand, if it weren't for Martin Harran, Oxyaena
> would be the most clumsily dishonest regular in talk.origins.

I've caught you lying more times than I can count, including multiple
times about my competence.

>
> On the other hand, if it weren't for John Harshman, you
> would be the most cunningly dishonest regular in talk.origins.

Harshman has nothing to do with this post. You're a troll.

>
> But even John Harshman is only an also-ran in one respect:
> you are the most dangerously dishonest person in talk.origins.
>
>
> And, unless I keep on being a "goddamn moralizer," or another
> rises to take my place, you will wear those laurels more and more proudly
> and effectively, turning talk.origins into the kind of hellhole
> talk.abortion became by 2007.

"Take up my sword, V, be the troll that talk.origins and
sci.bio.paleontology deserve." Gee, your last protege Glenn failed
miserably, let's see how you do with V. I`m not looking forward to it.


>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

How about the innumerable times we've discussed technicalities such as
the taeniodont from the Maastrichtian I informed you about which you had
no idea existed, or for the weight classes of various Pre-and-Post
K-Pg mammals, or the extinction ratios of clades affected by the K-Pg
extinction event? You conveniently left those out.

>
>
> If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I would direct
> you to the following thread.
>
> Flight mechanics in pterosaurs and birds.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ%5B1-25%5D
>
> If it didn't cramp your style to look, you would see that the
> OP was by Oxyaena, but the heavy lifting was all done by myself.
> Even after I prodded her, Oxyaena came up with a goose egg.
>
> Oxyaena's unimpressive OP was completely taken from Wikipedia, as
> Oxyaena later admitted, even though it LOOKS as though it
> were taken from a scholarly book. Not a word of it was hers.
>

You do in fact realize that what you've said was complete horseshit. I
sad only part of it was lifted from Wikipedia, most of it was written
with my own knowledge. That OP of mine was fairly intelligently written,
and most of it wasn't lifted from any popular science work. Once again,
I've caught you lying red-handed. Also, how do you expect someone who
specializes in paleomammalogy to be a pterosaur enthusiast, I've always
held a disdain for dinosaurs and anything Mesozoic in general, but I
will still read up on the bare minimum in order to stay up to date. The
Cenozoic is my passion.

>
> There are other reasons, but I will only go into them
> in reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

LOL! Look who's talking. You leveled, by my count, 5 insults at the GOP.
It is noteworthy that the GOP has millions of people in it, most of whom
you know nothing about and have never met. Yet, you felt no shame at insulting all of them and when I asked you for proof of your accusation, you were able to produce none.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:30:03 PM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >

> > > more decisions like *Citizens United*,
> >
> > ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like

> > George Soros, and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ

> > rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
> > marriage.
>

> Should have been
>
> "...which took off all financial constraints on right-wing manipulators like
> the Koch brothers, NRA, russian oligarchs, and the innumerable corporations deeply against LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
>
> There....fixed it for you.

You made your case much harder by putting in "LBGTQ rights" instead
of just talking about privileges, and practically killed your case AFAIK
by your unthinking "intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
Show me a major corporation that has actually pressured a high level
executive to resign because he voted for same-sex marriage.

Even without those handicaps, I doubt that the entities
you have listed are any more influential than the ones I've given.
And to the manipulators of the public, let me add the New York Times,
The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, and the major TV networks except for Fox
and C-Span.

Also, there are community organizers hard at work in
various parts of the country putting Saul Alinsky's _Rules for Radicals_
into practice. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were great fans of
Saul Alinsky, and Obama's main political experience prior to
becoming an Illinois State Legislator was as a community organizer.

Peter Nyikos

[vtand...@gmail.com]

The phrase does not refer at all to your chances of winning.. It is more
restrictive than that. It means you lack the basic elements for that particular cause of action, be it slander, libel, negligence, fraud, breach of contract or whatever.

>
>
>
> > I spent 6 years in the US Navy as an officer.
>
> I took ROTC for 4 years as an undergrad, and I got my Ph.D.
> in another 4 years at Carnegie-Mellon University in 1971.
>
> I spent the next two academic years in the US Army as a "First Louie"
> with the second year doing applied math for the Biomedical Laboratory
> in Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. Last time I looked, it was part
> of Aberdeen Proving Ground, with which it merged just after I
> left active duty.
>
> I was in the Chemical Corps. What was your branch of the Navy?

I was at sea on a Navy warship, a Surface Warfare Officer. I occupied billets as Main Propulsion Asst(engineering), Personnel Officer, and Legal Officer.

>
>
> I've had good experience with former military on Usenet. One was
> an enlisted man ("e.m." as we called them then, "soldier" as the
> term became afterwards) to whom I gave tips early in 1994 on how to deal with
> scoundrels in talk.abortion who were very similar in behavior
> to Oxyaena and other scoundrels here in talk.origins.

I post mostly in alt.atheism. I am one of the few theists who post there, a Conservative Jew. That group is full of very dishonest, very antisocial and very bitter atheists. The few assholes you have here are, I am surprised, are worse than the ones we have there, although you have fewer of them.


I learned a few very valuable things from the enlisted sailors I commanded aboard ship.

1.Never argue with a liar, a drunk, or a crazy person. You will get nowhere.
That's why I usually don't read the posts of Oxyaena and jillian. I refuse to waste my time bickering and that's all they do.

2.Do not argue with most women. They want to keep the conversation going even if there is nothing more to say. My sister, niece and grand niece are exceptions.My Mother was one, too.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:30:03 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/20/2018 7:58 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:30:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/20/2018 6:14 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:10:03 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/2018 2:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> [snip horseshit]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> mandatory prayer and Bible readings in school,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The huge exaggeration involved in "mandatory" boggles the mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me what you think of when you hear the word "mandatory", hmm?

Teachers being forced to teach creationism, and not being allowed
to teach that evolution is as well established a fact as any in biology.

Unlike Scopes in the famous "monkey trial," who was set up
just as the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade.

"Roe" later became an ardent pro-lifer, and got started along that
route because she got no sympathy from the abortion rights
fanatics who used her but plenty from pro-lifers.

> >>>>>> the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At worst, it would mean putting the decision back in the hands
> >>>>> of state legislatures and governors. And there's not a snowball's
> >>>>> chance in hell that the "blue" states will be any more anti-abortion
> >>>>> than the majority that decided Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it is doubtful that more than ten states will go so

You snipped the rest of the paragraph and what followed
after that, coward. Here is what it said:

as to ban second and third trimester abortions, and they would
have to make an exception for threat to the life of the mother
or permanent impairment of major physical, bodily function,
otherwise they would lose big-time at every federal court
level, including SCOTUS.

"physical, bodily" is not redundant. When partial birth abortion
was legal in Kansas, there were over a hundred of them reported

each year past the 21st month, and all but one was for "mental"

bodily function. There was a box for "physical" and it was only
checked once in all that time.

========================= end of repost ===================

> >>>>
> >>>> You underestimate the power of Conservative stupidity.

It is conservative stupidity that allowed things to go that
far in Kansas. George Tiller bragged about having done more
than 10,000 abortions past the 24th week in about ten years.



> Misogynist.

This from someone who posted me giving an after dinner speech
praising Mary Ellen Rudin to the high heavens.

Your kindred spirits in talk.abortion were those who kept
stoutly denying that forced (coerced, to be precise)
abortion existed in China. They were still doing it
in 2008 when I posted an account from NPR, which is completely
free of misogynists.

A woman whose cunning and dishonest posting habits were hauntingly
similar to those of jillery gave "Three Cheers" for an abortionist
named Tucker under whose negligent treatment a woman died.

Her name was Susan Garvin, and she hated people who helped
victims sue doctors like that. She was more of a misogynist
than any pro-lifer I ever saw posting to talk.abortion,
except for a Nigerian who supported Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Guess who ELSE long resisted saying anything negative about
FGM? Your staunch supporter Mark Isaak, who after a great
deal of attacks by me for being a hypocrite, finally said
he "did not condone" FGM but gave no indications as to what
penalties he would approve of. I gave detailed penalties,
including stiff penalties for the most invasive one, the "Pharaonic".

But you will never call Mark Isaak a misogynist, will you, hypocrite?

> >>>>>> more decisions like *Citizens United*,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
> >>>>> George Soros,
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do I even bother with right-wing pigs such as yourself.

You are so used to anyone to the right of Barack Obama and to
the left of Joe Lieberman a "moderate" that you
can no longer recognize a true moderate, like myself, when you see one.

> >>>>
> >>>>> and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
> >>>>> rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
> >>>>> marriage.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's only one word to describe this pile of shit you've smeared
> >>>> across my computer screen:

Honesty. And I'm sure you will look upon what I wrote about Mark
Isaak right now as even worse shit.


> >>>> "Homophobic".

You'll have even less luck making that trumped-up charge stick
than Mark Isaak had, because you lack his cunning. He's pretty
close to jillery among the most cunningly dishonest people in
talk.origins, but not very close to his doting occasional supporter,
John Harshman.

<snip of things to be dealt with later>

> >>>> Didn't I tell you that I am a paleontologist?
> >>>
> >>> Right, and I'm Napoleon Bonaparte..
> >>>
> >>
> >> What makes you doubt it? I`m obviously far more knowledgeable about
> >> evolution and paleontology than you are, if my replies to you are any
> >> indication.
> >
> > You are overbearing, dishonest, and intolerant.
> > You are a propagandist dedicated to promoting one view at all all costs.

Unable to make headway against these true accusations the way
I made headway against "Misogynist" and can against "Homophobe,"
you now trot out your Okimoto-style kind of Pee Wee Hermanism:

> Your affinity for psychological projection is unmatched,

Besides being an example of a Pee Wee Hermanism, this is
also a dirty debating tactic I identified many years ago as:

The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy

This can be a one-shot thing or it can be frequently employed for
a long time until the payoff comes.

The first phase consists of making [and in some cases often repeating]
a carefully chosen, unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation
about a person--call him/her X-- of which the accuser is (or is
plannng to be) guilty.

The payoff comes when the guilty party earns the accusation,
Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person X is
indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
score on "the irony meter", etc.

================== end of description =========================

> with only the
> likes of Nyikos himself even coming close to matching your brilliance.
> Congratulations, you have won the coveted title of "dipshit", a title
> onl Nyikos has had the honor of holding beforehand.

Anyone can say such things about anyone else. The trick is to back them
up, and you are too far off in la-la land to even try.

Remember what I said to Wolffan about generic insults? That's
all you've got going for you here.

> >
> > I don't trust you to tell the truth.
>
> Psychological projection noted.

Polly want a cracker?


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On the other hand, I am pretty sure that none of the following regulars
>(many still active) would say anything so stupid about others' "knowledge"
>about me:
>
>Arkalen, Burkhard, Walter Bushell, Steven Carlip, Robert Carnegie, Joe Cummings,
>deadrat, R. Dean, Mike Dworetsky, Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde,
>Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, JWS, Kalkidas, George Kaplan, Nick Keighley,
>J.J.Lodder, Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Tim Norfolk, Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib,
>Dana Tweedy, walksalone, zencycle

As I noted before, that's only because they have better things to do.

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's no surprise that you include V as one of your strange bedfellows.

>> Your behaviors have much in common.
>

>You actually admitted once that "strange bedfellows" means any two people
>who have attacked you.

IIRC I said that appears to be the one characteristic you look for.
The other things they have in common with you strongly correlate with
that.

>By that standard, zencycle is a strange bedfellow of mine.

So you admit you consider V to be a potential strange bedfellow. Is
anybody surprised.

>That remains to be seen, and I already learned a few months
>after I first encountered you that your word is not to
>be trusted. In fact, I caught you lying about something
>when the plain truth that contradicted your lie was
>right up there in the text that had been repeated from
>earlier posts.

The above is another example of you spewing your Big Lies. Back up
your bald assertions or retract, asshole.

<snip irrelevant spew about other posters>

[zencycle]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:20:03 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 2.Do not argue with most women. They want to keep the conversation going
> even if there is nothing more to say.

So we can add misogyny to the list of your character flaws. Figures.....

[zencycle]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:30:03 PM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> > >
> > > ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
> > > George Soros, and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
> > > rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
> > > marriage.
> >
> > Should have been
> >
> > "...which took off all financial constraints on right-wing manipulators like
> > the Koch brothers, NRA, russian oligarchs, and the innumerable corporations deeply against LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
> >
> > There....fixed it for you.
>
> You made your case much harder by putting in "LBGTQ rights" instead
> of just talking about privileges

You wrote "rights" as well, asshat. Besides that, what "privledges" are LBGTQ people asking for? They're asking for the same rights you already have - you have a problem with that?

, and practically killed your case AFAIK
> by your unthinking "intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
> Show me a major corporation that has actually pressured a high level
> executive to resign because he voted for same-sex marriage.

This is probably the first time I've seen you post with a valid point - I can't think of (and couldn't find) any case where an executive was forced to resign because they supported lgbtq rights. However, your post didn't state "corporations that forced executives to resign for supporting LGBTQ rights", it said "corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex marriage."

So, as usual, your shifting of goalposts duly noted.

That said, There is a pretty hefty list of companies that have opposed LGBTQ rights legislation/gvt policies, and gone so far as to file lawsuits over the issue. For further reading, try the 2018 HRC CEI for a rather expansive list which includes each comapies fortune 1000 rating:

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI-2018-FullReport.pdf?_ga=2.238234752.1605090192.1537532256-536027414.1537532256

> Even without those handicaps, I doubt that the entities
> you have listed are any more influential than the ones I've given.

You didn't give any, and you seriously think the Koch brothers and the NRA are _less_ influential than Soros? Get a grip.

> And to the manipulators of the public, let me add the New York Times,
> The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, and the major TV networks except for Fox
> and C-Span.

Fox news doesn't manipulate the public!?!?!?!? What fucking drugs are you on?

For that matter, NYT reporting is complete, fair, and balanced, their op-ed pages are slanted. NPR is the most balanced reporting you'll find in this country. HINT: just because a news article doesn't excoriate the political left, doesn't mean it's biased - the fact that you wrote 'with the exception of fox news' clearly indicates you don't get that.

WaPo I'll agree is pretty heavily slanted, but the major broadcasters are simply ratings whores - people like you seem to willingly forget the ad nauseam coverage of the clinton scandals.

> Also, there are community organizers hard at work in
> various parts of the country putting Saul Alinsky's _Rules for Radicals_
> into practice. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were great fans of
> Saul Alinsky, and Obama's main political experience prior to
> becoming an Illinois State Legislator was as a community organizer.

A) liberal/left community organisations were at _best_ not affected by citizens united. At worst it has opened up corporate and large pockets against them.

B) not all community organizers are are liberal/left - or are you suggesting grass roots activism is bad for democracy?

C) further shifting of goalposts duly noted.

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:14:52 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>1.Never argue with a liar, a drunk, or a crazy person. You will get nowhere.
>That's why I usually don't read the posts of Oxyaena and jillian. I refuse to waste my time bickering and that's all they do.

Of course, you reply to both regularly, so your comment above is a
stupid lie.

And it's your replies which qualify as bickering, as illustrated by
your comment above, and your series of pointless serial pastes of
uncommented cites.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/20/18 1:19 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> We all know that you like insulting people.
>

> Nobody knows that, because it isn't true. [...]

I expected you to think that, but I must reiterate one of my mother's
pearls of wisdom: Actions speak louder than words.

>> But do you honestly doubt
>> that Oxyaena is a paleontologist qualified to hold a professional job in
>> that field?
>
> I do, for several reasons, one being that she relies way too much
> on Wikipedia and popular science articles even for paleontology.
> Another is that she is ill at ease discussing technicalities like
> the pteroid bone of pterosaurs. [Do you know what a pterosaur is?
> Just checking.]
>
>
> If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I would direct
> you to the following thread.
>
> Flight mechanics in pterosaurs and birds.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ%5B1-25%5D

I only browsed it quickly, but I did not see anything in it that relates
to Oxyaena or pterosaurs. Did you get the right link, or did you post
that one to reinforce my belief that you enjoy insulting people? (The
link shows that in the extreme.)

> If it didn't cramp your style to look, you would see that the
> OP was by Oxyaena, but the heavy lifting was all done by myself.
> Even after I prodded her, Oxyaena came up with a goose egg.

Thank you for answering. And yes, of course I know what pterosaurs are.

But I find your reason more of an excuse. Most paleontologists, as
members of any other field, would specialize, and a specialist in, say,
foraminifera would not be expected to know much more about pterosaurs
than a layperson. Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
informal as this, carries no blame; and popular science articles have
communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in

reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.

[Mark Isaak]

If you know that a group of people routinely tortures innocent children,
is it an insult to say that they are bad people? If you know that
people *support* that group, is it an insult to say that the supporters
are bad, too?

Just asking.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/20/18 1:56 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>
> >> We all know that you like insulting people.

You were barking up the wrong tree here, Mark. Your words should have
been addressed to the likes of Oxyaena.

> > LOL! Look who's talking. You leveled, by my count, 5 insults at the GOP.

And I suppose your system of morality, besides finding libel perfectly
all right if done by you or Oxyaena, also considers insults leveled
at people perfectly OK if they are justified -- unless those insults
are by people whom you've decided to be an implacable foe of, like myself.

You think that documenting libel by you calls for me
to undergo psychiatric treatment. If you deny this, tell me
just why you keep advising me to undergo it.

> > It is noteworthy that the GOP has millions of people in it, most of whom
> > you know nothing about and have never met. Yet, you felt no shame at
> > insulting all of them and when I asked you for proof of your accusation,
> > you were able to produce none.
>
> If you know that a group of people routinely tortures innocent children,
> is it an insult to say that they are bad people?

I know of only one group of people who routinely torture innocent
children: those doctors who do D&E abortions on unborn children
able to feel pain, without giving them a general anesthetic beforehand.

D&E abortion is the abortion of choice beyond the 1st trimester,
and it is every bit as barbaric as the medieval executions by
drawing and quartering.

"able to feel pain" has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt
for prematurely born children at 20 weeks, hence the many
"fetal pain" state laws which ban abortions at 20 weeks and beyond,
except when the life of the mother is seriously endangered
by a continuation of the pregnancy.

Since you take great care to be politically correct, I assume
you approve of the way Planned Parenthood and other "progressive"
groups are fighting these laws tooth and nail.

On the other hand, you do support laws against cruelty to animals,
don't you?

By the way, I believe "20 weeks" is too generous for abortionists
doing this barbaric procedure. It should be lowered to at least
the gestational age when surgeons give anesthesia before doing
fetal surgery.

> If you know that
> people *support* that group, is it an insult to say that the supporters
> are bad, too?

I do believe you support the right to do D&E abortions without
giving general anesthesia its victims beyond 20 weeks gestational age,
so I don't think it is an insult to call you bad, as well as
being a hypocrite if you favor laws against cruelty to animals.

FTR, I am very much in favor of laws against cruelty to animals, and
against the killing of elephants, cetaceans and anthropoid apes.
I was even a member of PETA before I discovered that they
routinely "put down" dogs, cats, etc. that are turned over to them
for humane treatment.


> Just asking.

You have my answer. If you are so much out of touch with reality
that you think GOP leaders torture innocent children, then
maybe you should check whether any of the abortionists described above
are members of the GOP.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

FWIW the GG link above directed me to the start of the topic "John
Harshman Shows His True Colors". Posted by Nyikos the peter, the very
first sentence of the very first post is this:
***************************
John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be.
***************************

I suppose artful sophistry could interpret that as a compliment, but
it sure sounds like an insult to me.

And Oxyaena didn't participate in that topic.

And there is no topic in T.O. with the specified title.

These facts affirm your expressed suspicions. So on a hunch, I
checked S.B.P., and the topic exists there. Not sure why GG didn't
show it instead, but that's one reason to avoid GG urls as citations.

So chances are the S.B.P topic is the one to which Nyikos the peter
meant. However, he has admitted he restrains his compulsions more
there than here, so it's not a relevant counter to your criticism.

>> If it didn't cramp your style to look, you would see that the
>> OP was by Oxyaena, but the heavy lifting was all done by myself.
>> Even after I prodded her, Oxyaena came up with a goose egg.
>
>Thank you for answering. And yes, of course I know what pterosaurs are.
>
>But I find your reason more of an excuse. Most paleontologists, as
>members of any other field, would specialize, and a specialist in, say,
>foraminifera would not be expected to know much more about pterosaurs
>than a layperson. Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
>informal as this, carries no blame; and popular science articles have
>communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
>reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in
>reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.

--

[Oxyaena]

Obviously his explanation is flawed, but could you list those other
reasons to me, just out of curiosity?

[Oxyaena]

On 9/21/2018 2:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/18 1:56 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We all know that you like insulting people.
>
> You were barking up the wrong tree here, Mark. Your words should have
> been addressed to the likes of Oxyaena.

Says the guy who calls me an ignoramus on a weekly basis. Says the guy
who calls everything I write "schoolmarmish". Says the guy who insists
I`m insane. Says the guy who libels me every day. Says the guy who's
called me a "Useful Idiot" multiple times. Grow up.

>
>
>>> LOL! Look who's talking. You leveled, by my count, 5 insults at the GOP.
>
> And I suppose your system of morality, besides finding libel perfectly
> all right if done by you or Oxyaena,

How exactly did I supposedly libel you? You've never been able to back
up this assertion of yours, as with all of your other empty threats and
mindless insults.

> also considers insults leveled
> at people perfectly OK if they are justified -- unless those insults
> are by people whom you've decided to be an implacable foe of, like myself.

You're pathetic.

>
> You think that documenting libel by you calls for me
> to undergo psychiatric treatment. If you deny this, tell me
> just why you keep advising me to undergo it.

"Libel"? Fuck you. You *do* need help.

[snip misogynistic bullcrap]

[Oxyaena]

On 9/21/2018 9:00 AM, zencycle wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:30:03 PM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...which took off all financial constraints on leftist manipulators like
>>>> George Soros, and the innumerable corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ
>>>> rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex
>>>> marriage.
>>>
>>> Should have been
>>>
>>> "...which took off all financial constraints on right-wing manipulators like
>>> the Koch brothers, NRA, russian oligarchs, and the innumerable corporations deeply against LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
>>>
>>> There....fixed it for you.
>>
>> You made your case much harder by putting in "LBGTQ rights" instead
>> of just talking about privileges
>
> You wrote "rights" as well, asshat. Besides that, what "privledges" are LBGTQ people asking for? They're asking for the same rights you already have - you have a problem with that? >

He does.

> , and practically killed your case AFAIK
>> by your unthinking "intolerant of anyone supporting same-sex marriage."
>> Show me a major corporation that has actually pressured a high level
>> executive to resign because he voted for same-sex marriage.
>
> This is probably the first time I've seen you post with a valid point - I can't think of (and couldn't find) any case where an executive was forced to resign because they supported lgbtq rights. However, your post didn't state "corporations that forced executives to resign for supporting LGBTQ rights", it said "corporations deeply supportive of LBGTQ rights and privileges and intolerant of anyone objecting to same-sex marriage."
>
> So, as usual, your shifting of goalposts duly noted.

Get used to it.

>
> That said, There is a pretty hefty list of companies that have opposed LGBTQ rights legislation/gvt policies, and gone so far as to file lawsuits over the issue. For further reading, try the 2018 HRC CEI for a rather expansive list which includes each comapies fortune 1000 rating:
>





> https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI-2018-FullReport.pdf?_ga=2.238234752.1605090192.1537532256-536027414.1537532256
>
>> Even without those handicaps, I doubt that the entities
>> you have listed are any more influential than the ones I've given.
>
> You didn't give any, and you seriously think the Koch brothers and the NRA are _less_ influential than Soros? Get a grip.
>
>

Nyikos hasn't gotten a grip since he first started posting to Usenet in
the early 90's. And do you *really* think he's going to answer your
question?

>> And to the manipulators of the public, let me add the New York Times,
>> The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, and the major TV networks except for Fox
>> and C-Span.
>
> Fox news doesn't manipulate the public!?!?!?!? What fucking drugs are you on?
>
> For that matter, NYT reporting is complete, fair, and balanced, their op-ed pages are slanted. NPR is the most balanced reporting you'll find in this country. HINT: just because a news article doesn't excoriate the political left, doesn't mean it's biased - the fact that you wrote 'with the exception of fox news' clearly indicates you don't get that.
>
> WaPo I'll agree is pretty heavily slanted, but the major broadcasters are simply ratings whores - people like you seem to willingly forget the ad nauseam coverage of the clinton scandals.
>
>> Also, there are community organizers hard at work in
>> various parts of the country putting Saul Alinsky's _Rules for Radicals_
>> into practice. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were great fans of
>> Saul Alinsky, and Obama's main political experience prior to
>> becoming an Illinois State Legislator was as a community organizer.
>
> A) liberal/left community organisations were at _best_ not affected by citizens united. At worst it has opened up corporate and large pockets against them.
>
> B) not all community organizers are are liberal/left - or are you suggesting grass roots activism is bad for democracy?
>
> C) further shifting of goalposts duly noted.
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/20/18 1:19 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> We all know that you like insulting people.
> >
> > Nobody knows that, because it isn't true. [...]
>
> I expected you to think that, but I must reiterate one of my mother's
> pearls of wisdom: Actions speak louder than words.

Did your mother say that people who accuse criminals of crimes
enjoy insulting people?

If not, did she tell you that people who report playground bullies
to the principal of the school enjoy insulting people?

You are a highly dishonest cyberbully, as are jillery, Oxyaena,
Hemidactylus, and a number of other people who aren't posting
to this "Kavanaugh could undo everything" thread.

On the other hand, I have never seen any signs that
Andre G. Isaak, vtandovsky, or zencycle are cyberbulliss.
The last named has been rather rough with me, but I think
his rougness is done in good faith.

Your libel that I am in favor of denying fundamental rights to gays
was definitely not done in good faith, because you snipped
something that directly contradicted the use of the plural;
and I was only calling the privilege of having the word
"marriage" on a civil union license a "right" was to humor you.

I have no objection to a civil union license that says
it gives the two being united "all the rights that a
marriage license gives."

Lawyers would have no trouble with jerks like you who say
that the placement of the word "marriage" denies the fundamental
right to have the word in a different place. And if you
tell a car dealer that there is no need for a "Parts Department"
because it doesn't include parts of the inventory such
as the new and used (excuse me, I mean pre-owned) cars,
you can expect the same kind of quizzical look from them.


By the way, did your mother tell you to gag someone who wants
to explain why comments of yours were highly misleading
to a whole crowd of onlookers? That's what you did with
your [...] up there, depriving onlookers of what a highly
misleading piece of hypocrisy your "Actions speak louder
that words" was.

That was the same kind of stunt you pulled when you posted
your libel above. This one didn't have the same effect, but
it did make you look like you were taking the moral high
road rather than the moral low road that you actually took.
And it had that much in common with your earlier libel.

> >> But do you honestly doubt
> >> that Oxyaena is a paleontologist qualified to hold a professional job in
> >> that field?
> >
> > I do, for several reasons, one being that she relies way too much
> > on Wikipedia and popular science articles even for paleontology.
> > Another is that she is ill at ease discussing technicalities like
> > the pteroid bone of pterosaurs. [Do you know what a pterosaur is?
> > Just checking.]
> >
> >
> > If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I would direct
> > you to the following thread.
> >
> > Flight mechanics in pterosaurs and birds.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ%5B1-25%5D

I clicked on the wrong link. It should have been:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.bio.paleontology/ugxDMt49BXo/ynQP4Rl5AgAJ

I apologize for the error.

> > If it didn't cramp your style to look, you would see that the
> > OP was by Oxyaena, but the heavy lifting was all done by myself.
> > Even after I prodded her, Oxyaena came up with a goose egg.
>
> Thank you for answering. And yes, of course I know what pterosaurs are.
>
> But I find your reason more of an excuse. Most paleontologists, as
> members of any other field, would specialize, and a specialist in, say,
> foraminifera would not be expected to know much more about pterosaurs
> than a layperson.

Oxyaena posts almost exclusively on vertebrates, especially mammals.
But when she does an OP, one would expect her to pick a topic which she is
somewhat familiar with. As I wrote and you snipped:

Oxyaena's unimpressive OP was completely taken from Wikipedia, as
Oxyaena later admitted, even though it LOOKS as though it
were taken from a scholarly book. Not a word of it was hers.

Namely, she gave the book as a source in the OP without
noting that the bibliographic details for the source
were also copied from Wikipedia.

> Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
> informal as this, carries no blame;

Oxyaena is even inept at following links within Wikipedia.
If you are curious, I can document that too. Right now
I don't want to distract you from the thread I descrbed
above.

> and popular science articles have
> communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
> reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in
> reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.

I am not an implacable foe of yours. Any time you show signs of
stopping being a cyberbully -- not just towards me but towards
newcomers to talk.origins -- we will be able to get along amicably,
just as I did with Howard Hershey, whom I gave a clean bill of health
after he cleaned up his act.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/18 1:19 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter,
>> >>
>> >> We all know that you like insulting people.
>> >
>> > Nobody knows that, because it isn't true. [...]
>>
>> I expected you to think that, but I must reiterate one of my mother's
>> pearls of wisdom: Actions speak louder than words.
>
>Did your mother say that people who accuse criminals of crimes
>enjoy insulting people?

Did your mother say that people are criminals before they are
convicted?

<snip remaining spew>

[Oxyaena]

Do you ever get tired of lyinh?

> were taken from a scholarly book. Not a word of it was hers.

Once again, you lie. I said I ripped the citation from Wiki, nothing
else. I wrote it all myself, you libelous fuck.

>
> Namely, she gave the book as a source in the OP without
> noting that the bibliographic details for the source
> were also copied from Wikipedia.
>
>
>> Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
>> informal as this, carries no blame;
>
> Oxyaena is even inept at following links within Wikipedia.

How the Hell do you know that? You're insulting me for no reason/

> If you are curious, I can document that too. Right now
> I don't want to distract you from the thread I descrbed
> above.
>
>
>> and popular science articles have
>> communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
>> reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in
>> reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.
>
> I am not an implacable foe of yours. Any time you show signs of
> stopping being a cyberbully -- not just towards me but towards
> newcomers to talk.origins -- we will be able to get along amicably,
> just as I did with Howard Hershey, whom I gave a clean bill of health
> after he cleaned up his act.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

[Mark Isaak]

The main one was that comparisons of another person to oneself mean
nothing when coming from a narcissist. The lack of relevance of the
(mistaken) link was another.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/21/2018 3:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip personal attacks on Mark]

Bullshit, all I admitted to was that I lifted the cite off of Wikipedia.
All of the words in that OP were mine. Once again I catch you libeling
me. Go fuck yourself, you libelous cretin.

>
> Namely, she gave the book as a source in the OP without
> noting that the bibliographic details for the source
> were also copied from Wikipedia.

I had no need to, it served my point regardless.

>
>
>> Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
>> informal as this, carries no blame;
>
> Oxyaena is even inept at following links within Wikipedia.

And you know this how? Once again you prove you have no fucking clue
what the hell you're talking about.

> If you are curious, I can document that too.

You're an idiot, you can't document shit.

>
>> and popular science articles have
>> communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
>> reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in
>> reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.
>
> I am not an implacable foe of yours. Any time you show signs of
> stopping being a cyberbully -- not just towards me but towards
> newcomers to talk.origins

V is a cyberbully troll who's been repeatedly shown why he's wrong on
damn near everything but handwaves and ignores all evidence to the
contrary, just like yourself. Fuck you, you cyberbully son of a fucking
whore.

>-- we will be able to get along amicably,
> just as I did with Howard Hershey, whom I gave a clean bill of health
> after he cleaned up his act.

"Cleaned up his act"? The only person who's act needs to be cleaned is
yours, you fucking Machiavellian psychopath.

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

[Oxyaena]

I would have to concur with you on that, Peter shows all the textbook
signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/21/18 12:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/18 1:19 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> We all know that you like insulting people.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows that, because it isn't true. [...]
>>
>> I expected you to think that, but I must reiterate one of my mother's
>> pearls of wisdom: Actions speak louder than words.
>
> Did your mother say that people who accuse criminals of crimes
> enjoy insulting people?
>
> If not, did she tell you that people who report playground bullies
> to the principal of the school enjoy insulting people?

If you think someone has committed a crime, the proper thing to do is
report them to the police, not insult them. I am surprised that that
needs to be said.

> You are a highly dishonest cyberbully, as are jillery, Oxyaena,
> Hemidactylus, and a number of other people who aren't posting
> to this "Kavanaugh could undo everything" thread.
>
> On the other hand, I have never seen any signs that
> Andre G. Isaak, vtandovsky, or zencycle are cyberbulliss.
> The last named has been rather rough with me, but I think
> his rougness is done in good faith.

You are aware that you also are a cyberbully, are you not?

> Your libel that I am in favor of denying fundamental rights to gays
> was definitely not done in good faith, because you snipped
> something that directly contradicted the use of the plural;
> and I was only calling the privilege of having the word
> "marriage" on a civil union license a "right" was to humor you.
>
> I have no objection to a civil union license that says
> it gives the two being united "all the rights that a
> marriage license gives."

I have never libeled you. You have given me good reason to consider you
a homophobe, and your arguments against such a charge usually only
reinforce my opinion. I consistently see you argue for different legal
treatment of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriage. I freely acknowledge
that you do not see your own views in such a light (which itself is part
of the problem), but that does not mean you are blameless. The fact
that others have independently come to the same conclusion I have
indicates I am not merely imagining things.

When I see you state that homosexual marriage deserves exactly the same
social and legal treatment as heterosexual marriage, then I will
withdraw my consideration of you as a homophobe. (Tentatively;
statements on other LGBT issues could reinstate such a charge.)

> Lawyers would have no trouble with jerks like you who say
> that the placement of the word "marriage" denies the fundamental
> right to have the word in a different place. And if you
> tell a car dealer that there is no need for a "Parts Department"
> because it doesn't include parts of the inventory such
> as the new and used (excuse me, I mean pre-owned) cars,
> you can expect the same kind of quizzical look from them.

I cannot make any sense out of that.

> By the way, did your mother tell you to gag someone who wants
> to explain why comments of yours were highly misleading
> to a whole crowd of onlookers? That's what you did with
> your [...] up there, depriving onlookers of what a highly
> misleading piece of hypocrisy your "Actions speak louder
> that words" was.

Now you are simply raving. I did not gag you and could not even if I
tried. But I have no responsibility to spread your words.

The evidence I find does not support your claim. For example, I could
not find the phrase "flight mechanics of pterosaurs and birds" in any
current Wikipedia articles nor in the Aug. 19 or 24 article on
pterosaurs. I believe you are mistaken and owe Oxyaena an apology.

>> Use of Wikipedia is a convenience, and in a venue as
>> informal as this, carries no blame;
>
> Oxyaena is even inept at following links within Wikipedia.
> If you are curious, I can document that too. Right now
> I don't want to distract you from the thread I descrbed
> above.

FWIW, I typically find your "documentation" virtually impossible to follow.

>> and popular science articles have
>> communication advantages that technical articles lack. There are other
>> reasons why your explanation is flawed, but I will only go into them in
>> reply to people who aren't implacable foes of mine.
>
> I am not an implacable foe of yours.

You sure give that impression.

> Any time you show signs of
> stopping being a cyberbully -- not just towards me but towards
> newcomers to talk.origins -- we will be able to get along amicably,
> just as I did with Howard Hershey, whom I gave a clean bill of health
> after he cleaned up his act.

I shall endeavor to do better. I hope you will too.

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 3:35:02 AM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
> If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice it could turn
> the Court sharply right and undo everything we have fought to achieve
> over the last few decades, including such things as teaching creationism
> in schools, mandatory prayer and Bible readings in school, the
> overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, more decisions like *Citizens United*, and

> a whole host of other things that could get curtailed. Fortunately not
> all hope is lost, Alaska Natives have cranked up the pressure
> hundredth-fold on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who owes her reelection to Alaska

> Natives, why are they doing this? Because Kavanaugh's track record isn't
> friendly to the Indigenous Peoples of the United States, as well as how
> his track record on federal power and climate change could irreparably
> damage the Alaska Natives' way of life or even their very existence as a
> people, given that Alaska is *already* experiencing the effects of
> climate change.
>
> While a Court that swings sharply to the right would be disastrous, no
> one would experience it more than Native Americans, under a Presidency

> that hates Native Americans (and anyone else who's not white) with a

> passion. One only hopes that Murkowski sees the writing on the wall.

>
> Of huge concern to this newsgroup is the potential reversal of many of
> the decisions that have been won against the Religious Right, and if
> Kavanaugh is confirmed we may very well start seeing creationism in
> schools again. Think about that. I don't want my kids learning that
> garbage, do you?

> --
> "The last Christian died on the Cross." - Friedrich Nietzschie

Where is the mod over this blatantly off topic political rant about a supreme court justice?

[satoshi]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-6, jonathan wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 2:37 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Ridiculous.. 1.If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be one justice out of 9.
> >
> > 2. The Supreme Ct cannot issue advisory opinions.It can only issue rulings on active disputes that come before it. It cannot go back and change or overrule cases decided in the past. That means no changes can be made in established law unless a case comes before it in which the rulings in past cases are relevant.
> >
>
>
>
> Can't wait for the hearing next Monday 10:00 am when
> Kavanaugh get's his lying rapist ass handed to him
> in front of 100 million viewers.
>
> For anyone into politics, it doesn't get any more
> dramatic.
>
> And if he comes off as lying he's not gonna make it
> Susan Collins has already said if he's lying he's
> unqualified.
>
> His accuser is a Dr. and has corroborating evidence
> and has passed a lie detector test by an FBI agent
> last month.
>
> Plus the third person in the room is on record as
> having battled alcoholism including blackouts and
> has stated Kavanaugh drank to excess too.
>
> They need to have the third person Mark Judge
> testify, else it'll be a circus. They need to
> have the FBI investigate for a couple of
> weeks before the hearing takes place.
>
>
>
> "As Ford describes the attack, another student was
> in the room at the time, Kavanaugh’s classmate Mark Judge.
> Judge’s denial relies on his assertion that he “never
> saw Brett act that way.” However, Slate points out
> that Judge has written about his struggle with
> alcoholism, including black-out drunkenness, fictionalizing
> the name of the school he attended and referring to
> another individual who he names “Bart O’Kavanaugh,”
> who partook in enough alcohol to vomit in someone
> else’s vehicle and pass out."
> https://hillreporter.com/brett-kavanaughs-accuser-comes-forward-with-corroborating-data-takes-polygraph-lie-detector-7306

sounds like some underage kids were at a 'party' and she went into a room with another guy and what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZUV_0_e8PY

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/21/18 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/18 1:56 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We all know that you like insulting people.
>
> You were barking up the wrong tree here, Mark. Your words should have
> been addressed to the likes of Oxyaena.
>
>
>>> LOL! Look who's talking. You leveled, by my count, 5 insults at the GOP.
>
> And I suppose your system of morality, besides finding libel perfectly
> all right if done by you or Oxyaena, also considers insults leveled
> at people perfectly OK if they are justified -- unless those insults
> are by people whom you've decided to be an implacable foe of, like myself.
>
> You think that documenting libel by you calls for me
> to undergo psychiatric treatment. If you deny this, tell me
> just why you keep advising me to undergo it.

No, I think you could benefit from psychiatric treatment for other
reasons, one of them being your need to invoke other people into
discussions they have no part of.

>>> It is noteworthy that the GOP has millions of people in it, most of whom
>>> you know nothing about and have never met. Yet, you felt no shame at
>>> insulting all of them and when I asked you for proof of your accusation,
>>> you were able to produce none.
>>
>> If you know that a group of people routinely tortures innocent children,
>> is it an insult to say that they are bad people?
>
> I know of only one group of people who routinely torture innocent
> children: those doctors who do D&E abortions on unborn children
> able to feel pain, without giving them a general anesthetic beforehand.

The Trump administration made it policy for ICE to separate young
children from their families, for periods ranging from days to a
lifetime. They did this with the expressed intent of causing enough
distress to discourage immigration. Those families included people
legally seeking asylum. And if you don't think pulling a three-year-old
away from its mother by force is not torture, you live in a universe I
want no part of.

So now you know of another group which routinely tortured innocent
children, at least until courts ordered them to stop. Also, the
conditions in which the children were kept were often substandard. At
least one died due to refusal of medical care. Also, it didn't work;
the conditions refugees are escaping from are so bad that people are
willing to risk the conditions they encounter in and on the way to the
US, so the policy had no effect on immigration rates.

> D&E abortion is the abortion of choice beyond the 1st trimester,
> and it is every bit as barbaric as the medieval executions by
> drawing and quartering.

> [...] > I do believe you support the right to do D&E abortions without

> giving general anesthesia its victims beyond 20 weeks gestational age,
> so I don't think it is an insult to call you bad, as well as
> being a hypocrite if you favor laws against cruelty to animals.

I don't know how you know that, since I don't know it myself, and I
don't believe I have ever commented on the issue. Nor will I do so now;
the thread is off-topic enough already.

[satoshi]

On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 4:05:02 PM UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/21/18 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 9/20/18 1:56 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We all know that you like insulting people.
> >
> > You were barking up the wrong tree here, Mark. Your words should have
> > been addressed to the likes of Oxyaena.
> >
> >
> >>> LOL! Look who's talking. You leveled, by my count, 5 insults at the GOP.
> >
> > And I suppose your system of morality, besides finding libel perfectly
> > all right if done by you or Oxyaena, also considers insults leveled
> > at people perfectly OK if they are justified -- unless those insults
> > are by people whom you've decided to be an implacable foe of, like myself.
> >
> > You think that documenting libel by you calls for me
> > to undergo psychiatric treatment. If you deny this, tell me
> > just why you keep advising me to undergo it.
>
> No, I think you could benefit from psychiatric treatment for other
> reasons, one of them being your need to invoke other people into
> discussions they have no part of.

I know someone who projects his own illness onto others, constantly accusing them of having the problem ...

[Oxyaena]

Aspiring Supreme Court Justice. And if you didn't notice this is
somewhat on-topic because Kavanaugh could undo the cases ruling against
the teaching of creationism in schools. Besides you've posted plenty of
off-topic nonsense already, right dipshit?

[satoshi]

I can conceive of several alternative ideas to what may have happened in that room, fully taking into acct her actions.

First, there were underage kids at a drinking party. She went to the room.
Now, maybe she thought she was going to get that drunk guy, her being slightly inebriated, thought he was that guy but then realized it wasn't.
H was just steppin up for his friend who was too drunk to perform for her.
Or, she saw the drunk guy was in the room about to fall on them and screamed. Recall, her memory is years later, she may have been likely buzzed herself, and the recall is decades later with a head doctor. She may believe what happened, but other ideas can easily account for this juvenile episode.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

O Good! That disorder is listed in the DSM V ,the diagnostic and statistical manual of the American Psychiatric Assn. The problem is that book is only supposed to be used for diagnosis by trained Psychiatrists.. That means they went to medical school and did a residency in Psychiatry. Please tell us where
you went to med school and where you did your residency.

What do you call someone who pretends to be something they are not? A FRAUD.

[Oxyaena]

[snip horseshit]

> What do you call someone who pretends to be something they are not? A FRAUD.
>

Like yourself? "I know all about law because I flunked law school." Grow up.

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in

it or not." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> [snip horseshit]
> > What do you call someone who pretends to be something they are not? A FRAUD.
> >
>
> Like yourself? "I know all about law because I flunked law school." Grow up.
>
> --

Show us the following

1)Proof that I flunked out of law school, or

2)Proof that I said I flunked out

3)Where I said "I know all about law.."

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:44:09 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> continued to ejaculate his

repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>> You are a highly dishonest cyberbully, as are jillery, Oxyaena,
>> Hemidactylus, and a number of other people who aren't posting
>> to this "Kavanaugh could undo everything" thread.

I had no idea you thought not posting to something off-topic qualified
anybody as a cyberbully. Of course, you automatically exclude
yourself from said personal definition. You wouldn't be true to
yourself if you didn't claim special privilege.

[jillery]

Nyikos the peter wouldn't be true to himself if he didn't mention
multiple issues which had nothing to do with this froup, the topic he
posted them in, or anything anybody said in it.

[jillery]

Yes, you see its image every time you look in a mirror. So at least
you know you're not a vampire, if that's any comfort.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 03:40:52 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:


My bad. I replied to Mark Isaak's reply to Nyikos the peter. I
regret the error. The header should be:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his

[Oxyaena]

On 9/22/2018 3:12 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> [snip horseshit]
>>> What do you call someone who pretends to be something they are not? A FRAUD.
>>>
>>
>> Like yourself? "I know all about law because I flunked law school." Grow up.
>>
>> --
>
> Show us the following
>
> 1)Proof that I flunked out of law school, or

Stop lying. Just because you delete something from GG doesn't mean that
we can't see it.

>
> 2)Proof that I said I flunked out
>
> 3)Where I said "I know all about law.."
>

[Oxyaena]

On 9/20/2018 9:47 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>

>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's no surprise that you include V as one of your strange bedfellows.
>>> Your behaviors have much in common.
>>
>> You actually admitted once that "strange bedfellows" means any two people
>> who have attacked you.
>
>
> IIRC I said that appears to be the one characteristic you look for.
> The other things they have in common with you strongly correlate with
> that.
>

The same standard applies to me as well, he first befriended V in a
response to V trolling me with his usual bullshit, cue the usual libel.



>
>> By that standard, zencycle is a strange bedfellow of mine.
>
>
> So you admit you consider V to be a potential strange bedfellow. Is
> anybody surprised.
>

Nope.

>
>> That remains to be seen, and I already learned a few months
>> after I first encountered you that your word is not to
>> be trusted. In fact, I caught you lying about something
>> when the plain truth that contradicted your lie was
>> right up there in the text that had been repeated from
>> earlier posts.
>
>
> The above is another example of you spewing your Big Lies. Back up
> your bald assertions or retract, asshole.

Did anyone else notice he, as usual, failed to specify what said "lie" was?


>
> <snip irrelevant spew about other posters>

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[jillery]

That is how Nyikos the peter practices his Big Lies with his
characteristic repetitive irrelevant spew. He posts in multiple and
unrelated topics a vague allusion to some imagined wrong. And if he
doesn't get enough attention with that, he posts in multiple and
unrelated topics bald assertions which he claims proves his vague
allusion. And if he doesn't get enough attention with that, he posts
in multiple and unrelated topics cites to posts which he claims proves
his bald assertions. And the cites are almost always either to those
previous posts described above, or to other posts which have nothing
to do with his bald assertions. Only a small fraction of his cites
might have something to do with his bald assertions, if one were
willing to wade through the obfuscating crap he posted in them. And
of that fraction of a fraction of a fraction of relevant information
only proves his allusion to be illusion, a fart in a windstorm.

[Oxyaena]

I've adopted the principle of not following any so called
"documentation" Nyikos provides because it'll almost always turn out to
be bullshit and irrelevant.

[satoshi]

So now you have assessed what your problem is.