By their fruits July 2015

[RonO]

The usual disclaimers: this is just a means of providing an easy way for
anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk. You can use
Google to look up the activity of these posters and gain access to as
many of their posts as you would want to read. I only go back through
active threads for the last couple of weeks, so I may miss some posters.
These are random posts. I just pick what comes up, and if the post is
too extremely biased I usually pick another so that I can't be accused
of cherry picking. So, anyone interested has to use Google to obtain
more posts to get a better idea of the state of things on this
newsgroup. These are just the fruit, in the biblical sense, of
ID/creationism that are currently posting. I do not claim that they are
representative of the average ID/creationist.

There are some Newbies, but I don't know how many are the same person
using different accounts.

someone:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gudeS48dvuc/E4HSJuG-gQUJ

jonathan:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/63fZNMVC5ow/qqS18Df3uLMJ

Bill:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/tX4puYmxMJI/df8Uxj6uAyQJ

Kalkidas:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/68csQauFIRgJ

dcl:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/MTiBYJwb3pcJ

Ray:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rthNUkRo6aM/i0NN8sJXXmMJ

leila:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4mb59z25Eqg/lTUKE7vIVWUJ

grassoempreen:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4mb59z25Eqg/kikQ7aq3HW4J

willem:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/O1d1I8ck-BY/qtrWPEuOScMJ

Glenn:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/vmPv89K1faUJ

Dale:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/8aPEZtlnS0kJ

passer:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/WQrU07ksvTgJ

blinking?: post and run
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2nXO24srO88/yL1tWOmQ5HwJ

Nyikos:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/75a6kiibitY/kvkoR_KjM28J

R.Dean:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/z48uox3kISM/8OxjbSWu19IJ

Jeffrey:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RUNCSsm9Rnw/bRYkVTPqdtIJ

Otangelo Grasso:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_4IJEw1k3Iw/gCj2bCHXR5kJ

So a lot of newbies and several single post posters, but a longer list
than is usual. If there is a single poster that is responsible for
multiple newbies they might want to fess up and list their accounts just
so they can't be accused of hiding from kill files.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Nashton: Just posted. About the last of the old timers not listed.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/d-7PF0c_PTk/xefjOIeHFukJ

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...

[snip]

"This is just a means of providing an easy way for

anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."

And then:

"I do not claim that they are representative of the average
ID/creationist"

So which is it?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RonO]

On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> [snip]
>
> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>
> And then:
>
> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
> ID/creationist"
>
> So which is it?

As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument. You know that I
was talking about TO (where did I post this?) My guess is that this is
all you can think of to do because of that fact. Just think what it
would be like if IDiots really had some type of valid argument. Reality
is pretty sad for IDiots at this time. Kalk just demonstrates it
constantly.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:mn687h$5o9$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
>> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
>> ID/creationist"
>>
>> So which is it?
>
> As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument. You know that I
> was talking about TO (where did I post this?) My guess is that this is
> all you can think of to do because of that fact. Just think what it
> would be like if IDiots really had some type of valid argument. Reality
> is pretty sad for IDiots at this time. Kalk just demonstrates it
> constantly.
>

Have you been inhaling chicken genes, Ron?

[jonathan]

On 7/3/2015 7:43 AM, RonO wrote:

> The usual disclaimers: this is just a means of providing an easy way for
> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk. You can use
> Google to look up the activity of these posters and gain access to as
> many of their posts as you would want to read. I only go back through
> active threads for the last couple of weeks, so I may miss some posters.
> These are random posts. I just pick what comes up, and if the post is
> too extremely biased I usually pick another so that I can't be accused
> of cherry picking. So, anyone interested has to use Google to obtain
> more posts to get a better idea of the state of things on this
> newsgroup. These are just the fruit, in the biblical sense, of
> ID/creationism that are currently posting. I do not claim that they are
> representative of the average ID/creationist.
>
> There are some Newbies, but I don't know how many are the same person
> using different accounts.
>

> jonathan:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/63fZNMVC5ow/qqS18Df3uLMJ



How in the world does my post above relate to creationism
in any way, shape or form? Chasing windmills again?

My post is trying to claim evidence of self-organization (EVOLUTION)
is seen in those pics.

Quite the opposite of a creationist claim, but since you didn't
look at the pics, obviously, or even read any of the follow up
responses in my thread, you wouldn't know that.

You claim to represent the 'factual' side of the debate yet
fail to check your facts before spewing.

Nice try, but no cigar.


Jonathan



s

[Kalkidas]

"Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn6bd1$jon$1...@dont-email.me...

It's funny to see him write about "reality". LOL.

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 7:46:23 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> The usual disclaimers: this is just a means of providing an easy way for
> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk. You can use
> Google to look up the activity of these posters and gain access to as
> many of their posts as you would want to read. I only go back through
> active threads for the last couple of weeks, so I may miss some posters.
> These are random posts. I just pick what comes up, and if the post is
> too extremely biased I usually pick another so that I can't be accused
> of cherry picking. So, anyone interested has to use Google to obtain
> more posts to get a better idea of the state of things on this
> newsgroup. These are just the fruit, in the biblical sense, of
> ID/creationism that are currently posting. I do not claim that they are
> representative of the average ID/creationist.
>
> There are some Newbies, but I don't know how many are the same person
> using different accounts.

> ttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/68csQauFIRgJ
>
> dcl:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/MTiBYJwb3pcJ

>
>
> So a lot of newbies and several single post posters, but a longer list
> than is usual. If there is a single poster that is responsible for
> multiple newbies they might want to fess up and list their accounts just
> so they can't be accused of hiding from kill files.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Ron,

Is there some point you were trying to make? If so, it did not survive the tranfer from your head to your keyboard. What "fruit" does my linked post show?

(post in its entirety):
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 5:16:49 PM UTC-4, dcl...@qis.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:51:49 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, I've got an idea! Just retain the ethical standards of organized
> > religion but pretend they really come from atheism! Oh, wait....
>
>
> Or religions could invert the process you assert, adopting humanist ethics and then claim these to be religious.
>
> Everyone who claims God to be Good has done this.

[Nashton]

On 2015-07-03 12:04 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
>> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
>> ID/creationist"
>>
>> So which is it?
>
> As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument.

He asked you a simple question and all you can spew is vitriol?

[Nashton]

An expression including the word "petard" comes effortlessly to mind.

[RonO]

I think that the IDiots make their own case, as you can see in this
thread. Do you need a bigger hint?

It would be nice if some valid science passed through the heads of the
ID/creationists that made the list, but that seems to be a forlorn hope.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

What is hilarious is that Nast is probably the most intimately
knowledgeable about his own petard. Projection is a way of life for NashT.

Where is that science, and why is it OK to continue to pretend?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

QUOTE:

These are random posts. I just pick what comes up, and if the post is
too extremely biased I usually pick another so that I can't be accused
of cherry picking.

END QUOTE:

Would you rather that I look for your poetic nonsense in defense of IDiocy?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Poor Glenn and his chickens. The mirror just isn't enough for some
people. Do you even remember when you gave up on your alternative? Why
did you give up on finding any valid arguments.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/3/2015 12:09 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-07-03 12:04 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
>>> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>>>
>>> And then:
>>>
>>> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
>>> ID/creationist"
>>>
>>> So which is it?
>>
>> As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument.
>
> He asked you a simple question and all you can spew is vitriol?

The sad thing is that the facts are vitriol to guys like you. Did he
have a valid point? Make one if you can considering what newsgroup you
are posting in. This is turning out better than I expected. Not one
case where some substantial argument is being put up. Where are the
IDiot alternatives? Where is the scientific support for these
alternatives that no on is willing to put forward. Why is it always
this lame? Posters don't even have to look up more of your posts to get
a good idea of just what goes on to support the lost cause.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You know what is LOL stupid? When was the last time that you got a
valid argument that you are willing to support from the ID perps that
sold you the creationist ID scam? How much junk have you gotten from
them that has just blown up in your face when you have repeated the
nonsense? That is your reality and I wouldn't be laughing about it.
Why would anyone go to the guys that lied to them about the science of
intelligent design for their creationist arguments?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn687h$5o9$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
>> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
>> ID/creationist"
>>
>> So which is it?
>
> As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument. You know that I
> was talking about TO (where did I post this?)

No, I didn't. I thought you were contradicting yourself out of
self-righteous zeal, as usual.

>My guess is that this is all you can think of to do because of that
>fact. Just think what it would be like if IDiots really had some type
>of valid argument.

Maybe if you'd actually read my posts instead of just blindly adding
them to your compilations, you'd change your assessment.

Oh, wait, no you wouldn't, since you're not here to weigh evidence, just
to destroy it. In any other field that would be a crime.

> Reality is pretty sad for IDiots at this time. Kalk just demonstrates
> it constantly.

Whatever that means....

[dcl...@qis.net]

As you have not succeeded in spelling out a thesis, much less tying my post in to it, much more than a "hint" is necessary turn your post into something intelligable.

Being able to read, understand, summarize, and state a thesis are all preconditions before one can do "valid science", and so far your post does not demonstrate you have the ability to do any of these.

[RonO]

On 7/3/2015 12:55 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:mn687h$5o9$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mn5see$fkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> "This is just a means of providing an easy way for
>>> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk."
>>>
>>> And then:
>>>
>>> "I do not claim that they are representative of the average
>>> ID/creationist"
>>>
>>> So which is it?
>>
>> As with nearly all your IDiocy you have no argument. You know that I
>> was talking about TO (where did I post this?)
>
> No, I didn't. I thought you were contradicting yourself out of
> self-righteous zeal, as usual.

As usual you were wrong and in context the two were consistent.

>
>> My guess is that this is all you can think of to do because of that
>> fact. Just think what it would be like if IDiots really had some type
>> of valid argument.
>
> Maybe if you'd actually read my posts instead of just blindly adding
> them to your compilations, you'd change your assessment.
>
> Oh, wait, no you wouldn't, since you're not here to weigh evidence, just
> to destroy it. In any other field that would be a crime.

Getting lame lies from the ID perps isn't any type of cogent arguments.
Why not think before you post the ID perp junk? I think that we both
know who can't weigh the evidence.

Why didn't you put up your alternative and the science that backs it up?
It wouldn't have been the usual creationist alternative, and it would
have, at least, that going for it. Why isn't it necessary for you to
back up your alternative so that anyone could see if it was any better
than what you claim isn't good enough. That is why all the pretenders
are so lame. When it comes right down to the essentials, guys like you
seem to understand that you have nothing by comparison. What you do
instead is why I make these lists. Anyone can use Google and go to the
right corner of your post and pull down the menu and look up "Show
Activity." They can get access to a lot of your old posts and anyone
can make up their own minds as to what you do, and make any conclusions
that they want from that experience.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:b21eea02-5c15-4615...@googlegroups.com...

Oooh, that's really going to piss him off. Watch out, or he'll start
calling you a "perp".

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn6irl$lng$1...@dont-email.me...

No. Only one of us knows.

> Why didn't you put up your alternative and the science that backs it
> up?

See? You never read my posts.

> It wouldn't have been the usual creationist alternative, and it would
> have, at least, that going for it.

How do you know that if, as you claim, I never "put up" an alternative?

> Why isn't it necessary for you to back up your alternative so that
> anyone could see if it was any better than what you claim isn't good
> enough. That is why all the pretenders are so lame. When it comes
> right down to the essentials, guys like you seem to understand that
> you have nothing by comparison. What you do instead is why I make
> these lists.

No. You make these lists solely to mock and insult people. Even your
cronies can see that. Which is why they hardly ever comment on them.
Only your intended victims respond, just to let you know that you've
failed to frighten them away. You vastly overestimate your terror
status.

> Anyone can use Google and go to the right corner of your post and pull
> down the menu and look up "Show Activity." They can get access to a
> lot of your old posts and anyone can make up their own minds as to
> what you do, and make any conclusions that they want from that
> experience.

No. You're the only one who does the Google collecting thing. It's
rather anal-retentive, don't you think?

[dcl...@qis.net]

I think that by Ron O's fruits here, we are getting to know him.

He substitutes ideology for reading, ad hominems for reasoning, and insults for discussion.

On some issues, and in some posts, he seems to be able to read, understand, and reason. But in the presence of opinions that he suspects disagree with his, these skills are often overwritten but the set above.

[RonO]

You are one of the newbies unless you have just changed your account.
Can you spell out the state of IDiocy at this time? Think of it as a
thesis. Do you know the years of IDiotic history? I would expect that
to be enough.

Since you may be new, the title of this thread has the Biblical meaning.
Look it up. Madman had a fit when he found out what the thread was
about. For myself it is just a way to keep track of the ID/creationist
and/or anti science posters. It has come in handy at times when I
needed to look up some old posts, but mainly it is just a public
service. Before newbies or lurkers get too badly burned by believing
the wrong people, I give them a chance to become less ignorant.

In their own way the posters listed are the fruit of the ID/creationist
movement that is pretty much belly up at this time. Since there are
still scientific creationist organizations around, no one expects IDiocy
or other forms of creationism to die any time soon, but no one expects
much out of them either.

You can use this opportunity to determine if you want to keep going
because the regular posters like Glenn, Kalk, NashT, Ray, Nyikos, Bill,
Dean, and jonathan are essentially what you have to look forward to
becoming if you stick with the denial. You can use the links to get to
Google and go to the right of their post and pull down the menu. Select
"show activity" and you will be given links to a lot of old threads and
posts for that poster. Not all posts are available, but you can go to
the threads and get more of what that poster posted in that thread.

Look up as many of their posts as you can stand to read. I only provide
you with the tools, I can't make you less ignorant.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Well, that explains why you keep going back to the guys that lied to you
about the ID science.

>
>> Why didn't you put up your alternative and the science that backs it
>> up?
>
> See? You never read my posts.

Demonstrate that you have some type of argument.

>
>> It wouldn't have been the usual creationist alternative, and it would
>> have, at least, that going for it.
>
> How do you know that if, as you claim, I never "put up" an alternative?

Because lace your junk with allusions to your faith, that doesn't seem
to be the usual creationist junk when you talk about the Vedas.

>
>> Why isn't it necessary for you to back up your alternative so that
>> anyone could see if it was any better than what you claim isn't good
>> enough. That is why all the pretenders are so lame. When it comes
>> right down to the essentials, guys like you seem to understand that
>> you have nothing by comparison. What you do instead is why I make
>> these lists.
>
> No. You make these lists solely to mock and insult people. Even your
> cronies can see that. Which is why they hardly ever comment on them.
> Only your intended victims respond, just to let you know that you've
> failed to frighten them away. You vastly overestimate your terror
> status.

I make these lists so that anyone can determine the facts for
themselves. Why do you consider it to be mockery? Shouldn't that tell
you something? Why would access to the facts frighten anyone away? Do
you even understand what you are arguing?

>
>> Anyone can use Google and go to the right corner of your post and pull
>> down the menu and look up "Show Activity." They can get access to a
>> lot of your old posts and anyone can make up their own minds as to
>> what you do, and make any conclusions that they want from that
>> experience.
>
> No. You're the only one who does the Google collecting thing. It's
> rather anal-retentive, don't you think?

It has come in handy when I have to demonstrate what a liar one of the
people on the lists consistently is. Why are you left with making
negative comments about me instead of demonstrating that you actually
have a vaild reason to make the negative comments? Isn't is sad what
you are stuck doing? Wouldn't you rather have a credible argument?

Why is this all that you can do? Why is what you are doing reasonable
in the face of reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn6l4k$cc$1...@dont-email.me...

You want a fight, so we give you a fight. You started it, we finish it.
Stop with the gratuitous insults and maybe you'll get some more respect.

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn6kbl$sim$1...@dont-email.me...

RonO doesn't care about actual ideas. He reads just enough of your posts
to decide if he can accuse you of being an IDiot or a creationist. If
you even slightly lean favorably toward *any* idea shared by ID
advocates or creationists, from then on, you're a "perp" or a "rube", no
matter what you write.

[RonO]

What fight? You haven't even gotten into the ring. Where is your
alternative? Where is the science that backs it up? Diddle farting
around making believe that you are doing something constructive is not
fighting much of anything except your shadow.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn6o49$dh8$1...@dont-email.me...

Say on, loser!

[RonO]

So no actual argument, again. You are just making my case for me. You
could put up your alternative and the science that backs it up, but that
doesn't seem to be a viable option. Why is that?

If dcl looked up your old posts how many times would he find you
presenting junk that you got from the ID perps, and not being able to
defend it? Why would anyone go to a source that obviously lied to you
about having the ID science? Who would do it over and over again as if
something was going to be different? In all these years how many valid
arguments have you gotten from that source, and how many blew up in your
face? Give a rough ratio estimate. I am assuming that the ratio isn't
infinite and that maybe one argument may have amounted to something. Is
it over 50 to 1 by now?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

That alternative still seems to be missing. You are making my case for
me. Why keep ramming your head into the wall over this, when it is
obvious that what you are doing is senseless? Elementary school rejects
would have better comebacks. Do you even know what point you would be
trying to make acting like this?

Ron Okimoto

[Jimbo]

Expecting Kalkidas to recognize a valid evidence-based argument when
he sees one may be overly optomistic. He says he can objectively
distinguish between false and true religious statements. This
'objective' method is simple: you merely have to dedicate yourself to
Lord Krishna and follow the beliefs and rituals laid out in the Vedas.
Then it will all be perfectly clear to you. What could be more
objective than that? Empirical evidence? It can't hold a candle to the
divinely inspired stories in the Rig Veda! That's where you'll find
all true science!

[dcl...@qis.net]

I am still waiting for a thesis, and any explanation of how my post ties into it.

Your calling me a liar, idiot, and ignorent, as a substitue for the above, demontrates that you are committed to an anti-reasoning, anti-science stance. Thanks for this thread to warn newbies exactly what you are.

[RonO]

What post are you talking about?

What do you not get about this thread? I believe that I clearly
explained it to you.

What thesis do I have to present? When was I supposed to have called
you a liar? I don't know what you are talking about.

Ron Okimoto

[dcl...@qis.net]

a) My post, which you linked in your OP, and which I reposted in this thread, and which is present at the bottom of this page.

b) No thesis, lots of insults, links to random threads. Nope, I have no idea what you think you might be accomplishing. I have pointed out what you HAVE been accomplishing though.

c) You called me a liar when you asserted that everyone you had linked is a liar. Here are your words:

"It has come in handy when I have to demonstrate what a liar one of the
people on the lists consistently is. Why are you left with making
negative comments about me instead of demonstrating that you actually
have a vaild reason to make the negative comments? Isn't is sad what
you are stuck doing? Wouldn't you rather have a credible argument?"

>
> >>>>>

[RonO]

What did you not get about my claim that I pick the posts at random as I
find them. I could have waited until I found some of your creationist
claims, why would that be better?

> b) No thesis, lots of insults, links to random threads. Nope, I have no idea what you think you might be accomplishing. I have pointed out what you HAVE been accomplishing though.

You missed the point of the thread. I explained it to you, read the
initial post again and then read what I wrote to you.

> c) You called me a liar when you asserted that everyone you had linked is a liar. Here are your words:
>
> "It has come in handy when I have to demonstrate what a liar one of the
> people on the lists consistently is. Why are you left with making
> negative comments about me instead of demonstrating that you actually
> have a vaild reason to make the negative comments? Isn't is sad what
> you are stuck doing? Wouldn't you rather have a credible argument?"

I wasn't talking about you. Stick around and you will likely find out
who I was talking about. Someone that needs years old junk to deny over
and over. You only started posting in June, how could past By their
fruits threads have come in handy in your case? I think the threads
started back in 2008 or 2009, and the poster that I am talking about
didn't start posting to TO again until 2010.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:05:03 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>I wasn't talking about you. Stick around and you will likely find out
>who I was talking about. Someone that needs years old junk to deny over
>and over. You only started posting in June, how could past By their
>fruits threads have come in handy in your case? I think the threads
>started back in 2008 or 2009, and the poster that I am talking about
>didn't start posting to TO again until 2010.

Is the Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a pipe? Or Professor Plum
in the library with a knife?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[dcl...@qis.net]

No, I did not "get" that you had linked to random posts, then insulted the posters you had linked. I still don't "get" it.

[Ray Martinez]

Observation of design seen in species and nature as a whole.

The fact above relegates your "questions," seen above, as proof that you are horribly deluded and dishonest.

Based on said observation there is no evidence supporting any kind of evolution: micro, macro, common descent.

Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

[RonO]

That is called reading impairment. Not my problem.

[RonO]

It was suicide, the black knight, in the dining room, with a banana.

[dcl...@qis.net]

Still cannot explain your thesis.

Still insulting posters instead.

Yes, this really is your problem.

[RonO]

What thesis is required of me? Lay it out so that it is understandable.
There seems to be no thesis needed on may part.

>
> Still insulting posters instead.

The truth may be insulting, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the truth.

>
> Yes, this really is your problem.

Your problem seems to be that you have no issue to actually discuss in a
meaningful way. That seems to be a much more major problem than someone
telling you the truth and laying out reality as it actually is.

If you think that anything that I have said is false, just demonstrate
it. Whining doesn't seem to be the answer. Just calling the truth
insulting gains what? It doesn't alter the reality that you live in.

One IDiot success and we would have something to discuss, but all you
have are centuries of failure. It was the creationists that ran the ID
scam on other creationists. Why don't you find that insulting? These
guys didn't just over hype their junk, but when it came time to put up
or shut up they ran a stupid bait and switch scam on their own
creationist support base. No one ever got the promised ID science.
What did they get instead? The saddest thing is that it has worked for
over a decade, and there are still IDiots that support them.

If you are insulted by that reality, you are expressing your displeasure
to the wrong person.

Ron Okimoto

[dcl...@qis.net]

I have already demonstrated that there is no "truth" in this thread. You have no thesis, and cannot explain one. You back up your list with unsupported generalizations (fallacy), backed up by insults (another fallacy). That you then decalre yourself to be a truthgiver, shows you to have an ideologue's mindset, not a pragmatic empiricist's, as you are looking for TRUTH, not working hypotheses.

If you understood reasoning at all you would know that with every post I have highlighted these failings of your thread, and your thinking.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:2071abda-90b4-49d1...@googlegroups.com...

RonO will never fairly consider opposing ideas. He's a knee-jerk,
pavlovian reactionary stooge for scientism. It's a simple motivation:
revenge for real or imagined trauma. He wants to destroy certain people
and gloat about their downfall. This is a symptom of PTSD.

[Bill Rogers]

I'm not sure about all that, but I do find these "By their fruits" threads patronizing, unpleasant, and not very useful. But that's just me. And like everybody, I have the option to ignore them.

[Kalkidas]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:546e2af5-dded-4fbe...@googlegroups.com...

I just don't like bullies.

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:11:09 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> > <dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
> > >

> > > I have already demonstrated that there is no "truth" in this thread.
> > > You have no thesis, and cannot explain one. You back up your list
> > > with unsupported generalizations (fallacy), backed up by insults
> > > (another fallacy). That you then decalre yourself to be a truthgiver,
> > > shows you to have an ideologue's mindset, not a pragmatic
> > > empiricist's, as you are looking for TRUTH, not working hypotheses.
> > >
> > > If you understood reasoning at all you would know that with every post
> > > I have highlighted these failings of your thread, and your thinking.
> >
> > RonO will never fairly consider opposing ideas. He's a knee-jerk,
> > pavlovian reactionary stooge for scientism. It's a simple motivation:
> > revenge for real or imagined trauma. He wants to destroy certain people
> > and gloat about their downfall. This is a symptom of PTSD.
>
>
> I'm not sure about all that, but I do find these "By their fruits" threads patronizing, unpleasant, and not very useful. But that's just me. And like everybody, I have the option to ignore them.
> >

The TO introduction calls for polite and reasoned debate, as much as possible. It also rationalizes/justifies flaming of posters who regularly violate these principles. Ron O's thread strikes me as a prototypical example of the sort of disrespectful and irrational posting that the TO FAQ justifies the flaming of.

I have not flamed Ron O, despite the defense of this practice in the intro. I replied because I consider it to be good practice to respond when one is addressed. I spelled out his reasoing errors, as I am an eternal optimist relative to the possibility of opening closed minds. Also, the intro tends to support the flaming of posters who do NOT respond, so ignoring him was not obviously proper site etiquette.

Several posters here, in several threads, have basically melted down into insults, lies, and fallacies in debate with me. What is proper site etiquette relative to these posters going forward?

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 10:51:08 AM UTC-7, dcl...@qis.net wrote:
> <...>

> Several posters here, in several threads, have basically melted down into insults, lies, and fallacies in debate with me. What is proper site etiquette relative to these posters going forward?

As you look around in this group, you will observe that insults, lies and
fallacies are common coin in many if not all extended exchanges. So much so
that it's futile (in my opinion) to get too outraged about it.

[RonO]

Making false statements seems to be a strange way to establish any
truth. I still see no thesis that I have to put up. What do you not
get about this thread. It is as if you never read the original post and
my explanation to you. If the truth is an insult who's problem is that?
The issue obviously is that I put up a means for anyone that wants to
make up their own mind about this issue, and for some reason you object
to giving people that opportunity. It is weird that you even object to
my taking random posts instead of cherry picking the posts that would
make my case for me. It is about as fair as I can be with the situation
as it currently stands. Just look at what your fellow creationist
managed to do in this thread. Any cogent counters? Any real science to
discuss.

> If you understood reasoning at all you would know that with every post I have highlighted these failings of your thread, and your thinking.
>

My guess is that you are poorly qualified to identify anyone elses
failings. What is weird is what you claim to be failings is being fair.
Just because being fair doesn't matter in this instance is no excuse
for saying that one of the failings of this thread is the non
judgemental part. Should I go through all the lame posts and pick the
lamest of the lame? I have my opinion backed up by years of experience,
and anyone can get a little of that experience by taking advantage of
this thread.

Everyone would benefit by increasing the proportion of relevant well
thought out material, but use this thread to see what you get instead.

Ron Okimoto

[Dana Tweedy]

On 7/6/15 1:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 12:36:20 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

snip

>>>
>>> You want a fight, so we give you a fight. You started it, we finish it.
>>> Stop with the gratuitous insults and maybe you'll get some more respect.
>>
>> What fight? You haven't even gotten into the ring. Where is your
>> alternative? Where is the science that backs it up?
>
> Observation of design seen in species and nature as a whole.

No one has ever made such an observation, Ray. There is an appearance
of design, but design itself has never been observed in regards to how
species came about.

>
> The fact above relegates your "questions," seen above, as proof that you are horribly deluded and dishonest.

Since the "fact" you rely on is not a fact, but your own assumption,
your "proof" disappears.

>
> Based on said observation there is no evidence supporting any kind of evolution: micro, macro, common descent.

Which is entirely illogical. Even if one were to observe an act of
design in regards to species, that would not invalidate all the evidence
of genetic change happening in populations throughout the world. You
give an excellent example of the fallacy of non sequitur.


DJT

[jillery]

All he has to do is look in a mirror.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:51:50 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>I just don't like bullies.

So you have no mirrors in your house?

[jillery]

It shouldn't surprise anyone on T.O. that you try to claim the high
ground while hanging out in the mud pits.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:04:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:51:50 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>>I just don't like bullies.

>So you have no mirrors in your house?

Perhaps; perhaps not; he never claimed to like what he sees
in the mirror. But it's almost certain that his own posts
destroyed any IronyMeters he may have possessed.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

On 7/3/2015 6:43 AM, RonO wrote:
> The usual disclaimers: this is just a means of providing an easy way for
> anyone to check out the state of the ID/creationist junk. You can use
> Google to look up the activity of these posters and gain access to as
> many of their posts as you would want to read. I only go back through
> active threads for the last couple of weeks, so I may miss some posters.
> These are random posts. I just pick what comes up, and if the post is
> too extremely biased I usually pick another so that I can't be accused
> of cherry picking. So, anyone interested has to use Google to obtain
> more posts to get a better idea of the state of things on this
> newsgroup. These are just the fruit, in the biblical sense, of
> ID/creationism that are currently posting. I do not claim that they are
> representative of the average ID/creationist.
>
> There are some Newbies, but I don't know how many are the same person
> using different accounts.
>

> someone:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gudeS48dvuc/E4HSJuG-gQUJ
>
> jonathan:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/63fZNMVC5ow/qqS18Df3uLMJ
>
> Bill:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/tX4puYmxMJI/df8Uxj6uAyQJ
>
> Kalkidas:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/68csQauFIRgJ
>
> dcl:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/UG_8uQCLSIY/MTiBYJwb3pcJ
>
> Ray:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rthNUkRo6aM/i0NN8sJXXmMJ
>
> leila:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4mb59z25Eqg/lTUKE7vIVWUJ
>
> grassoempreen:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4mb59z25Eqg/kikQ7aq3HW4J
>
> willem:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/O1d1I8ck-BY/qtrWPEuOScMJ
>
> Glenn:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/vmPv89K1faUJ
>
> Dale:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/8aPEZtlnS0kJ
>
> passer:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QrmwnfvDRio/WQrU07ksvTgJ
>
> blinking?: post and run
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2nXO24srO88/yL1tWOmQ5HwJ
>
> Nyikos:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/75a6kiibitY/kvkoR_KjM28J
>
> R.Dean:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/z48uox3kISM/8OxjbSWu19IJ
>
> Jeffrey:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RUNCSsm9Rnw/bRYkVTPqdtIJ
>
> Otangelo Grasso:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_4IJEw1k3Iw/gCj2bCHXR5kJ

>
> So a lot of newbies and several single post posters, but a longer list
> than is usual. If there is a single poster that is responsible for
> multiple newbies they might want to fess up and list their accounts just
> so they can't be accused of hiding from kill files.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>

Eddie is posting again:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/srrtRVlJ3U8/6Dob_s_gS6MJ