Quote from Jillery "This NG is not about Evolution"

[Jonathan]

Jillery...


"T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"



Is life a system? Does it evolve?



Systematics and the Origin of Species from the Viewpoint
of a Zoologist is a book written by zoologist and
evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr that was first published
in 1942 by Columbia University Press. The book became
one of the canonical publications on the modern
evolutionary synthesis.

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

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jillery...
>
>
> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"

This is correct. **

> Is life a system? Does it evolve?

The truth or falsehood of the above statement does not
affect the prior (correct) statement.

** well, I think it's correct, and that *makes* it correct for
everyone.

--D.

--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

[Jonathan]

On 10/2/2016 8:14 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jillery...
>>
>>
>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>
> This is correct. **
>

Funny the faq doesn't say that.



Talk.origins Faq

What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup?

Answer The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide
a forum for discussion of issues related to biological
and physical origins.

See the talk.origins Newsgroup Welcome FAQ.


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

>
>> Is life a system? Does it evolve?


>
> The truth or falsehood of the above statement does not
> affect the prior (correct) statement.
>

Can't you even answer a shit simple question?

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 8:14 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jillery...
>>>
>>>
>>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>>
>> This is correct. **
>>
>
>
>
> Funny the faq doesn't say that.

Again, it's not the talk.origins FAQ.

> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>

That site is not affiliated with the newsgroup.

>>
>>> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
>>
>> The truth or falsehood of the above statement does not
>> affect the prior (correct) statement.
>
> Can't you even answer a shit simple question?

I don't have to answer it! I get to make wonderful blanket
ex cathedra, a priori statements that are by definition correct!

I hope the above fact does not bother you unduly.

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:03:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Jillery...
>
>
>"T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>
>
>
>Is life a system? Does it evolve?

Since you act like an idiot, I treat you like one.

I fixed your topic title so you look less stupid *and* dishonest.
That's the best I can do, but you don't make it easy. The rest is up
to you.

You're welcome.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:16:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Rule #1: The boss is always right.

Rule #2: If the boss is wrong, refer to Rule #1.

[Jonathan]

I'm going to debate like you do.


You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...

"T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"

Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
a misguided troll would do was...


"This NG is not about Evolution in general"


Who could possibly mistake one for the other
and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
facts ends this debate right here and now with
your embarrassing loss.

[Jonathan]

On 10/2/2016 8:26 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2016 8:14 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jillery...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>>>
>>> This is correct. **
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Funny the faq doesn't say that.
>
> Again, it's not the talk.origins FAQ.
>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>>
>
> That site is not affiliated with the newsgroup.
>

Since you didn't provide a link to the FAQ or
cite the posting policy, I'll cite the charter
for this ng which states...correct me if I'm
wrong...


"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for
discussion of the scientific, religious, and political
issues pertaining to various theories of the origins
and development of life and the universe.

Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions
over a large number of topics are covered, all relating
back to the main purpose of the group.

Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
permit unrestricted discussions,..."
http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html



I submit war, which I have clearly shown to be
defined as a 'complex adaptive system' most
certainly qualifies as on-topic. See the
cited evidence below, which btw is by
no means an exhaustive list, but what a quick
five minute search returns...

>>>
>>>> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
>>>
>>> The truth or falsehood of the above statement does not
>>> affect the prior (correct) statement.
>>
>> Can't you even answer a shit simple question?
>
> I don't have to answer it! I get to make wonderful blanket
> ex cathedra, a priori statements that are by definition correct!
>
> I hope the above fact does not bother you unduly.
>

A debate should be about the central point, not
merely an exercise in semantics.

I'll repeat the evidence for the central point
of this debate concerning whether the politics
of war, or war itself, is on-topic.

Do you have an opinion, or not, on the subject
at hand? Perhaps I should ask if anyone in this
scientifically backwards ng even knows what a
'complex adaptive system' is?

I eagerly await anyone that can argue the science
but sadly I'm always disappointed in this ng.




excerpts~




Theories of Military Science
Lecture Series No. 2

An Organic Approach to Waging War:
Evolutionary Lesson Learned


As the title of this paper suggests the author approaches
and analyses war from an evolutionary, hence biological
perspective.

Biological evolution and war certainly share similarities,
but to approach the latter in an evolutionary framework
requires a shift from mechanics to biology that
emphasizes dynamics over statics, time-prone over time-free
reality, probabilities and chance over determinism, and
variation and diversity over uniformity. Although the two
phenomena cannot be equated with each other, in an
evolutionary framework war can be seen as a complex
optimization problem.
http://uni-nke.hu/downloads/konyvtar/kovasz/jobbagy_angol.pdf





Complex Adaptive Systems-based
Toolkit for Dynamic Plan
Assessment

Stephen Ho, Marc Richards, and Paul Gonsalves
Charles River Analytics
Cambridge, Massachusetts


The military battlespace can be seen as an amalgamation of a
large number of simpler entities or military units organized
in a specific hierarchy, each with its own understanding
of the overall mission, knowledge of operational doctrine,
and local perception of the threat environment. Though orders
and guidance emanate down through the chain of command, it
is the actions at the lower levels (i.e. the individual agents)
where we see the combat occurring. It is through the chaotic
and adaptive behavior of the individual agents or players
that the emergence of global behavior is induced.


The Complex Adaptive Systems-based Toolkit (CAST) for Dynamic
Plan Assessment will support Air Force air campaign operations
through the integration of combat agent behavior models,
effects-based operations environment models, and a
complex adaptive systems simulation engine.
http://necsi.edu/events/iccs6/viewpaper.php?id=113


Using Complexity Science to Search for Unity
in the Natural Sciences

Eric J. Chaisson
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/IC2J_v4n2_03_Phister.pdf








SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES

Complex Adaptive Systems and the
Development of Force Structures for the
United States Air Force



Abstract


This analysis presents a theory of complex adaptive systems
and demonstrates that force structures are examples
of such systems.

This discussion advances the proposition that force structures
and the strategic environments they create are complex
adaptive systems. That is, force structures are comprised
of diverse, interdependent, adaptive elements
interacting nonlinearly and exhibiting systemic behaviors
including emergence, coevolution, and path dependence
across multiple scales.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/aupress/digital/pdf/paper/dp_0018_murphy_complex_adaptive_systems.pdf



Colonel Murphy’s Complex Adaptive Systems and the
Development of Force Structures for the United States
Air Force received the 2012 USAF Historical Foundation
award for the best School of Advanced Air and
Space Studies







If You Can’t Beat Them, Kill Them:
Complex Adaptive Systems Theory and the Rise in
Targeted Killing

excerpts

Examining the connection between the government’s detention
and targeted killing policies, this Article argues that
attempts to remove the “stain” of Guantánamo Bay
have created what might be an even greater crisis.

Specifically, while civil libertarians have claimed success
in executive and judicial efforts to grant detainees
greater protections, this success has produced
an unintended incentive for the government to kill
rather than capture individuals involved in the
war on terror. This perverse outcome has occurred
not as a result of a foreseeable linear process
whereby one phenomenon caused the other, but rather
as an unanticipated reaction to changes thrust
into the nonlinear dynamic systems of warfare
and national security law.
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=shlr






CAS in War, Bureaucratic
Machine in Peace:


From the reconnaissance, air supremacy, and strategic
bombardment lessons of the First and Second World Wars
to recent experiences in the Gulf War and Operation
Allied Force with stand-off precision engagement and
parallel system-wide attacks on enemy leverage points,
the US Air Force has learned to minimize force-on-force
encounters by first removing an enemy’s ability to resist.

In essence, the enemy and the Air Force are thought of as
“complex adaptive systems.” Complex adaptive systems
(CAS) are defined here as nonlinear systems made up of
multiple interacting agents that are sufficiently different
from each other that their behavior will not be exactly the same
in all conditions (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1998: 18)
....
Many of the characteristics of CAS can be found in military
writings from over 2,500 years ago by the famous Chinese
General Sun-tzu (1963). According to Sun-tzu, “to win
one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not
the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting
is the acme of skill” (Sun-tzu, 1963: 77). He described
warfare as a process of “ceaseless change” and warned
that his principles should be used fluidly in response
to actual confrontation with the enemy.

http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/edent/holt.pdf






s


> --D.
>

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:52:56 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/2/2016 9:09 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:03:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jillery...
>>>
>>>
>>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
>>
>>
>> Since you act like an idiot, I treat you like one.
>>
>> I fixed your topic title so you look less stupid *and* dishonest.
>> That's the best I can do, but you don't make it easy. The rest is up
>> to you.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>
>
>
>I'm going to debate like you do.

I'm not debating anything or anybody here. OTOH my impression is you
don't even know what the word means.

>You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...
>
>
> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"

I said I fixed your topic title so you didn't look stupid and
dishonest. But I'm glad you finally figured out what I actually
wrote. It sure took you long enough.

>Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
>the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
>obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
>a misguided troll would do was...
>
>
> "This NG is not about Evolution in general"

Which is in fact closer to what I actually wrote than your original
idiotic, missing the point, changing the topic, deliberate attempt to

attempt to misquote for obviously and idiotic self serving reasons

only a misguided troll would do, which was:

"This NG is not about Evolution"

Clearly you substituted "evolving systems" with "Evolution", the
differences being unimportant here, so I followed your lead. But you
also deleted "in general", which substantially changed the meaning
into something that is obviously and completely wrong.

>Who could possibly mistake one for the other
>and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
>facts ends this debate right here and now with
>your embarrassing loss.

So you still think there's no meaningful difference between

"T.O. is not about evolving systems in general"

and

"This NG is not about Evolution"

It's no wonder your major talent you show here is to open mouth,
insert foot, shoot it off.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 06:50:07 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

That about sums it up. And it's ubiquitous throughout
Usenet.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 9:09 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:03:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jillery...
> >>
> >>
> >> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
> >
> >
> > Since you act like an idiot, I treat you like one.
> >
> > I fixed your topic title so you look less stupid *and* dishonest.

Note the use of the word "dishonest," Jonathan. Jillery has very
strong double standards for that word, among the more obvious
of which is her being in "do as I say, not as I do" mode.

I expect a Pee Wee Hermanism from jillery in reply to this, i.e., a sort
of "I know you are, but what am I?". But it will be all bluff:
she will be unable to back up her claim with evidence as strong
as what I showed in the following post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>

> > That's the best I can do, but you don't make it easy. The rest is up
> > to you.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
>
>
>
> I'm going to debate like you do.
>
>
> You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...
>
>
> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>
>
> Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
> the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
> obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
> a misguided troll would do was...
>
>
> "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
>
>
> Who could possibly mistake one for the other
> and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
> facts ends this debate right here and now with
> your embarrassing loss.

That's a clever imitation of jillery's style, Jonathan, but if it's any
more than that, I'd like to see an explanation of what you
believe to be the most important difference between the two
quotes.

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

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/2/2016 9:09 PM, jillery wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:03:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jillery...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
>> >
>> >
>> > Since you act like an idiot, I treat you like one.
>> >
>> > I fixed your topic title so you look less stupid *and* dishonest.

>> > That's the best I can do, but you don't make it easy. The rest is up
>> > to you.
>> >
>> > You're welcome.
>> >
>

>Note the use of the word "dishonest," Jonathan. Jillery has very
>strong double standards for that word, among the more obvious
>of which is her being in "do as I say, not as I do" mode.

Since you have no idea what honesty means, anything you say about it
is meaningless.

>> I'm going to debate like you do.
>>
>>
>> You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...
>>
>>
>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>>
>>
>> Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
>> the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
>> obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
>> a misguided troll would do was...
>>
>>
>> "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
>>
>>
>> Who could possibly mistake one for the other
>> and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
>> facts ends this debate right here and now with
>> your embarrassing loss.
>
>That's a clever imitation of jillery's style, Jonathan, but if it's any
>more than that, I'd like to see an explanation of what you
>believe to be the most important difference between the two
>quotes.

Apparently you're hustling another strange bedfellow de jour. I hope
George doesn't get jealous... or insulted.

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

Apparently that school has low standards for their faculty. Or did
you get tenure before they were accredited?

[jonathan]

I wasn't talking bout T.O. but about this ng~

Just pointing out her predilection for
debating only meaningless semantic
details instead of the heart of the
matter.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 3 October 2016 23:09:48 UTC+3, jonathan wrote:
> On 10/3/2016 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >>

<snip>

> >>
> >> You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...
> >>
> >>
> >> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
> >>
> >>
> >> Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
> >> the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
> >> obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
> >> a misguided troll would do was...
> >>
> >>
> >> "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
> >>
> >>
> >> Who could possibly mistake one for the other
> >> and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
> >> facts ends this debate right here and now with
> >> your embarrassing loss.
> >
> > That's a clever imitation of jillery's style, Jonathan, but if it's any
> > more than that, I'd like to see an explanation of what you
> > believe to be the most important difference between the two
> > quotes.
> >
>
>
> I wasn't talking bout T.O. but about this ng~
>
> Just pointing out her predilection for
> debating only meaningless semantic
> details instead of the heart of the
> matter.

I'm now totally confused what you people are doing. Is it still parody
of someones style? Have the abbreviations changed? What is difference
between "talk.origins" and "this newsgroup"? So there are
no difference between "Evolution" (where capitalization indicates that
it is the one from "Theory of Evolution") and "evolving systems in
general" (that can basically mean any non-static systems)?

[Jonathan]

yes

> Have the abbreviations changed?






> What is difference
> between "talk.origins" and "this newsgroup"?

none

> So there are
> no difference between "Evolution" (where capitalization indicates that
> it is the one from "Theory of Evolution") and "evolving systems in
> general" (that can basically mean any non-static systems)?
>

You still hold to the science of the last century where
'evolving system' is just meant to mean anything that
changed with time distinct from biological evolution.

Since Complexity Science and/or the science of self organization
virtually every complex adaptive system is an evolving system
from ideas to solar systems and everything in between.

Darwinian evolution is a specific form of a generalized
evolutionary theory.

Note the index at the link and how the idea is applied
....universally from chemistry to life and mind.

Evolutionary concepts now define the totality of
existence in the universe. From galaxies to ideas.

Limiting evolution to just biology doesn't do the
concept justice.


Dynamics of Complex Systems


The study of complex systems in a unified framework has
become recognized in recent years as a new scientific
discipline, the ultimate of interdisciplinary fields.
Breaking down the barriers between physics, chemistry
and biology and the so-called soft sciences of
psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology,
this text explores the universal physical and mathematical
principles that govern the emergence of complex systems
from simple components.

http://necsi.edu/publications/dcs/

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:09:25 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I wasn't talking bout T.O. but about this ng~
>
>Just pointing out her predilection for
>debating only meaningless semantic
>details instead of the heart of the
>matter.

Since you claim it's my "prediliction", then right here would have
been a good place to identify any example where I debate meaningless
semantic details when that isn't the heart of the matter. Just one.

Failing that, your comment above is just a continuation of your
evasion of the actual topic.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

It's no surprise that you're confused. There is no real parody here.
There is no real differences in the terms you identified above.

Instead, the above is jonathan trying to cover up his mistakes by
accusing me of making a pointless semantic argument. You can tell
this is true because there is a significant difference between:

"This NG is not about Evolution"

which was his original topic title, and:

"T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"

which was what I actually wrote, which is something jonathan has
refused to acknowledge, and rockhead hasn't even mentioned. Nor has
either of them dealt with the substance of my point, that this
newsgroup is not an appropriate forum to discuss evolving systems in
general.

Another thing you see above is rockhead hustling jonathan into
thinking he supports him. The sad thing is apparently jonathan fell
for it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-4, jillery continued to
try and gross me out to discourage me from exposing what a charlatan
she is:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:


> >On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2016 9:09 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:03:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jillery...
> >> >>
> >> >> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
> >> >>
> >> >> Is life a system? Does it evolve?
> >> >
> >> > Since you act like an idiot, I treat you like one.
> >> >
> >> > I fixed your topic title so you look less stupid *and* dishonest.
> >> > That's the best I can do, but you don't make it easy. The rest is up
> >> > to you.
> >> >
> >> > You're welcome.
> >> >
> >
> >Note the use of the word "dishonest," Jonathan. Jillery has very
> >strong double standards for that word, among the more obvious
> >of which is her being in "do as I say, not as I do" mode.

In the post I link below, there is a description of some of the more
sneaky ways in which you have double standards, completely
distinct from what you see in the short excerpt from it below.

>
> Since you have no idea what honesty means, anything you say about it
> is meaningless.

You have quite a knack for accusing me of exactly the things of which
you are guilty...almost.

The difference is that we both know what honesty is, but you only pay
lip service to it, whereas I live it while on the internet. [I do tell
the occasional white lie in live social contact.]

As the hackneyed formula goes, you can talk the talk (as can I, better
than you) but of the two of us, only I walk the walk.

> >> I'm going to debate like you do.
> >>
> >>
> >> You did NOT correct me. You said and I quote...
> >>
> >> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
> >>
> >> Your so-called idiotic, missing the point, changing
> >> the subject, deliberate attempt to misquote for
> >> obviously and idiotic self serving reasons only
> >> a misguided troll would do was...
> >>
> >> "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
> >>
> >> Who could possibly mistake one for the other
> >> and such a glaring misstatement of the crucial
> >> facts ends this debate right here and now with
> >> your embarrassing loss.
> >
> >That's a clever imitation of jillery's style, Jonathan, but if it's any
> >more than that, I'd like to see an explanation of what you
> >believe to be the most important difference between the two
> >quotes.
>
>
> Apparently you're hustling another strange bedfellow de jour.

You are only revealing a deep insecurity with comments like these.

You try to project the image of an unflappable sort of person, but
every once in a while you reveal just how afraid you are that
two or more people will team up against you, the way you and Casanova have
teamed up against me and sundry other people. You do it even when the
evidence is essentially nonexistent, as it is here.

> I hope
> George doesn't get jealous... or insulted.

More of the same deep insecurity. Back about three years ago, you had
an ally, "J.J. O'Shea" who was much more sleazy than Casanova. A few
days ago, I described how brazenly you tried to gross me out back then,
only I left out the way O'Shea backed you to the hilt:

You are asking someone whom you once misrepresented as probably
having a homosexual affair with UC. This was because I agreed
with him that everyday usage of "ape," even among scientists,
does not include humans. And much later, I found out that the noted
anthropologist/paleontologist John Hawks has the same attitude.

The possibility of two people disagreeing at once with you
really brings out the paranoia in you.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>

This must have touched a raw nerve in you, because you deleted ALL the text
in the post (the one I've linked just now) when you replied to it,
and shamelessly lied about what that text contained.

>
> >Peter Nyikos
> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >Univ. of South Carolina
>
>
> Apparently that school has low standards for their faculty. Or did
> you get tenure before they were accredited?

This is just more of your insecurity coming out. My answer to Jonathan
was done with full integrity, and if you ever have the audacity to complain
to my university about it, I will be glad to show anyone the mountains
of documentation I have on what an unscrupulous sleazeball you are.

[Peter Nyikos]

I was as confused as yourself about what Jonathan was doing at this point.
OTOH I'm being completely transparent and straightforward, and even jillery
might have been until she posted a sleazy reply to me. She has little need
to be dishonest or sneaky where Jonathan is concerned, but she
cannot make me look bad except by being dishonest and hypocritical.

> Is it still parody
> of someones style? Have the abbreviations changed? What is difference
> between "talk.origins" and "this newsgroup"? So there are
> no difference between "Evolution" (where capitalization indicates that
> it is the one from "Theory of Evolution") and "evolving systems in
> general" (that can basically mean any non-static systems)?

Jonathan has given a reply to this that still has me wondering.
Are you satisfied with it?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:44:47 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:09:25 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't talking bout T.O. but about this ng~
> >
> >Just pointing out her predilection for
> >debating only meaningless semantic
> >details instead of the heart of the
> >matter.
>
>
> Since you claim it's my "prediliction", then right here would have
> been a good place

....for Jonathan to spend a long time looking for posts that Jonathan has
seen, but hasn't bothered to keep copies of.

This is a regular tactic of yours, jillery, and I take the "would have
been" to be goading people to document everything they say about you
on the spot, in a brazen display of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Meanwhile, you can go your merry way and post one outrageous attack
after another on people, without ever having to worry about backing
up anything you spew with documentation.

As the old saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world
while the truth is putting on its shoes."
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

> identify any example where I debate meaningless
> semantic details when that isn't the heart of the matter. Just one.

> Failing that, your comment above is just a continuation of your
> evasion of the actual topic.

And there you have it, folks: having failed to produce documentation
even before being challenged on it, Jonathan is now being railroaded
into doing it or being accused by jillery forever after as being guilty
of dishonest evasion.

She's done it to George Kaplan, as anyone can see by clicking on
the link I've provided in at least two separate posts.

Jillery deleted the link and all reference to it in a thoroughly
sleazeball reply to the first post in which I gave it, and I expect
her to do the same in reply to the post I did this morning in rejoinder
to that sleazeball reply. Here it is again, for the third time
on this thread alone:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fee9619a-55eb-47b9...@googlegroups.com...

People who are dishonest have and need no need to be.

[Öö Tiib]

Yes, I think that biological evolution (in particular) may have
differences and similarities with other adapting systems (in particular)
and so can be grouped into more or less general groups.
For example we can group adaptive systems by how lot we consider those
as being related to our origins.

>
> Since Complexity Science and/or the science of self organization
> virtually every complex adaptive system is an evolving system
> from ideas to solar systems and everything in between.

Similarly "all software in general" has input, processing and output.
It can be useful to realize that in general or it can be utterly useless description when we need a program from some particular group of programs.

>
> Darwinian evolution is a specific form of a generalized
> evolutionary theory.

Great. So there can be a position that this NG is about that
specific theory but is not about that generalized theory?
To me it seemed that you claim that such position is impossible
or fallacious somehow.

>
> Note the index at the link and how the idea is applied
> ....universally from chemistry to life and mind.
>
> Evolutionary concepts now define the totality of
> existence in the universe. From galaxies to ideas.
>
> Limiting evolution to just biology doesn't do the
> concept justice.
>
>
> Dynamics of Complex Systems
>
>
> The study of complex systems in a unified framework has
> become recognized in recent years as a new scientific
> discipline, the ultimate of interdisciplinary fields.
> Breaking down the barriers between physics, chemistry
> and biology and the so-called soft sciences of
> psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology,
> this text explores the universal physical and mathematical
> principles that govern the emergence of complex systems
> from simple components.
>
> http://necsi.edu/publications/dcs/

Seems quite a fat textbook, thanks. Chapters about neural networks
look like worth reading when I find time.

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 06:13:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:44:47 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:09:25 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I wasn't talking bout T.O. but about this ng~
>> >
>> >Just pointing out her predilection for
>> >debating only meaningless semantic
>> >details instead of the heart of the
>> >matter.
>>
>>
>> Since you claim it's my "prediliction", then right here would have
>> been a good place
>
>....for Jonathan to spend a long time looking for posts that Jonathan has
>seen, but hasn't bothered to keep copies of.

Your strange bedfellows don't need you to make excuses for them.
Jonathan doesn't need to make copies of anything, that's what GG is
for. Too bad for both of you that GG can't help him if he's just
making up stuff.

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-4, jillery continued to
>try and gross me out to discourage me from exposing what a charlatan
>she is:

You're just exposing yourself. Apparently you consider that socially
acceptable behavior, too. Apparently they have very loose morals
where you live.

<snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

>In the post I link below, there is a description of some of the more
>sneaky ways in which you have double standards,

Since you ignored almost everything from jonathan's post, let's jump
to that link and see what you describe there.

>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
>Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
>Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>
>
>This must have touched a raw nerve in you, because you deleted ALL the text
>in the post (the one I've linked just now) when you replied to it,
>and shamelessly lied about what that text contained.

Let's see who shamelessly lied here.

You start with answering your own off-topic question about Glenn's
inane question about what "And how 'bout them Mets" means. Only you
would make a mountain out of that molehill.

Then you reposted your accusation that I "badgered" George to back up
his claim, which BTW you don't identify. Apparently you were more
concerned with posting your bald assertions than with the topic
itself.

Then you repeated your bald assertion there was nothing dishonest
about George's replies. Of course, you made no effort to back up your
claim, or George's, but instead ignored the fact that he had thrice
posted lame excuses for not backing up his claim. BTW he *still*
hasn't backed it up.

Then, for reasons known only to you, you ejaculated something about
Ray Martinez and how I avoid calling him dishonest. Of course, that's
the very opposite of reality, but that never stopped you from posting
your baseless assertions.

Then you posted a bald assertion that you repeatedly explained this
"staggering inconsistancy" of mine, which is a neat trick since you
haven't shown that the inconsistancy even exists.

Then you accused me of "begging the question", that it was somehow my
job to disprove George's claim. FYI, it isn't.

Then you accused me of being an "Internet Hellion" for noting that
George has refused to back up his claim, while you continued to ignore
the fact that he hadn't backed up his claim. And he *still* hasn't.

And then you repeated your Big Lie that I accused you of having a
homosexual affair with UC. I don't recall having ever done so. I do
recall a thread where you did there what you do here, to jump into the
middle of it without knowing or caring about the context, but were
attracted by the noise from UC exercising his contrarian persona:

<58c008pj1eb301pp2...@4ax.com>

Your accusation above is from your overly-literal hyperbolic
translation. I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.

Instead, I used an apt metaphor to describe your ingratiating flattery
to UC and your repetition of several of your favorite adjectives to
refer to me and my nym. So every time you refer to that particular
post, I am reminded of your hate-filled hubris.

Finally, you refer to my reply as "paranoia" of two people disagreeing
with me at once. To the contrary, there was no disagreement
expressed, as that implies there was an agreement on a topic. Instead,
the post to which you refer is an example of jonathan hiding from his
responsibility for multiple off-topic posts, by pretending to parody
my posting style, when in fact jonathan posted a self-parody.

Of course, you posted your ingratiating flattery to jonathan, just
like you did to UC so many years ago. That's what makes my reference
to strange bedfellows so apt, because you seek political alliances
from those who criticize me, no matter what else they do.

So, of all the "points" you made in your cited post, not one of them
describes any truth or reality, but instead are self-serving
distortions and caricatures of both. That's what you do.

>> >Peter Nyikos
>> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> >Univ. of South Carolina
>>
>>
>> Apparently that school has low standards for their faculty. Or did
>> you get tenure before they were accredited?
>
>This is just more of your insecurity coming out.

So that's a "yes". Is anybody surprised?

>My answer to Jonathan
>was done with full integrity, and if you ever have the audacity to complain
>to my university about it, I will be glad to show anyone the mountains
>of documentation I have on what an unscrupulous sleazeball you are.

Your "answer" to jonathan had nothing to do with what jonathan said or
this topic or the context of this thread. Your "answer" is just one
of eight flamebaits you posted just this morning. One can only wonder
where you find the time to do your job.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery posted a repetitive
attribution line, adding the same identical words as before to the attribution
line that was automatically generated for her:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
> >On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-4, jillery continued to
> >try and gross me out to discourage me from exposing what a charlatan
> >she is:

Here jillery snipped the attribution line to which I was referring
above, in *my* latest attribution line at the very beginning.
The words jillery added in both cases were:

continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>

> You're just exposing yourself. Apparently you consider that socially
> acceptable behavior, too. Apparently they have very loose morals
> where you live.
>

You are just taking your advantage of having done an unmarked snip of the
attribution line where you spewed the words I set off above.

And the way you are taking advantage should convince even the most
sympathetic (to you) reader of the fact that you can be a shameless,
hate-driven, hypocritical troll on occasion.

Of course, some of the most sympathetic ones, like Oxyaena, will
probably love you all the more for this latest display of your
hypocrisy.

> <snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

More of the same hypocrisy: you deleted all your earlier attempts
to gross me out.

>
> >In the post I link below, there is a description of some of the more
> >sneaky ways in which you have double standards,
>
>
> Since you ignored almost everything from jonathan's post, let's jump
> to that link and see what you describe there.
>

> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

Here is a more user-friendly link for the same post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

> >Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
> >Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> >This must have touched a raw nerve in you, because you deleted ALL the text
> >in the post (the one I've linked just now) when you replied to it,
> >and shamelessly lied about what that text contained.
>
>
> Let's see who shamelessly lied here.

It was you, but you are shamelessly silent about the evidence
of that in the linked post. And you indulge in cunning misdirection
about the parts you DO describe below.

> You start with answering your own off-topic question about Glenn's
> inane question about what "And how 'bout them Mets" means.

Yes, because I refreshed my memory of the incident between the
two postings. Note, in the linked post where I asked the question,
I wasn't sure whether it was Glenn or Steady Eddie. It was only
at a later stage [see the number of > marks in the margin], that
I answered my own question.

> Only you
> would make a mountain out of that molehill.

You are acting as though I were making an issue of your your inane
"Mets" comment. As the linked post shows, that was
not it at all.

Can you step utterly and astoundingly out of character here, and
explicitly say WHAT the real issue was?

> Then you reposted your accusation

You are reversing the order of events here, as anyone who read
the post I linked above knows.

> that I "badgered" George to back up
> his claim, which BTW you don't identify.

It's in the linked post, near the very top. And by the way, I
used the word "badgered" in describing the REAL issue which
I have challenged you to identify.

> Apparently you were more
> concerned with posting your bald assertions than with the topic
> itself.

The topic was amply addressed in the other reply I did to the
same post, which appears in NGG right after the first reply:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/cVaa9oimAAAJ

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8a73d5a7-e8a6-4c52...@googlegroups.com>

Note, only twelve minutes separated the two posts.

Continued in next reply, to be done shortly after I've seen
this one has posted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos [wrote]:

Picking up a bit before I left off in my first reply, beginning
with the url for a post about which jillery is busy rewriting
talk.origins history.

> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
> >Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
> >Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> >This must have touched a raw nerve in you, because you deleted ALL the text
> >in the post (the one I've linked just now) when you replied to it,
> >and shamelessly lied about what that text contained.
>
>
> Let's see who shamelessly lied here.

"here" refers not to your reply to the above post, whose description
above you are not contesting, but rather to the post linked above.

<snip of things dealt with in first reply>

> Then you repeated your bald assertion there was nothing dishonest
> about George's replies.

No, I said it for the first and IIRC only time (not counting reposts
of my statement). And you are leaving out the crucial fact that
my statement directly addressed a barrage of bald assertions
by you, never supported by you before or since:

George posted a claim. It's up to him to back it up or not.
So far he has not, and in the meantime thrice offered
non sequiturs as alleged replies. But it's no surprise
that you support his dishonest evasions.

Both this barrage and my reply appear in the linked post. My reply went:

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about his replies, and you
of all people are ill equipped to try and prove otherwise.

After all, you avoid calling Ray Martinez dishonest about ANYTHING,
even his blatat non sequitur about the Inquisitors. He falsely
alleged that the NT called the Inquisitors murderers and ran away
from the whole thread when you asked for evidence of that.
That's an example of REAL evasion.

You have never tried to undermine what's in either of these
two paragraphs, have you? You've simply gone into a broken record
routine about how his actual answers were allegedly not answers at all.
You continue that routine below:

> Of course, you made no effort to back up your
> claim, or George's, but instead ignored the fact that he had thrice
> posted lame excuses for not backing up his claim.

Let's see you document those alleged "excuses."

> BTW he *still*
> hasn't backed it up.

There is no need for him to back up the claim at the juncture
where the back-and-forth between you now stands.

It stands with your highly speculative implication that
some (purely speculative, and perhaps unique to your imagination)
RNA-based protocells reproduced with enough fidelity to become
actual *biological* *evolutionary* ancestors of "life as we know it."

And the reason there is no need for him to do that is that I had
described this scenario and pronounced it "highly speculative" in
a direct reply to George himself, well before your agenda-driven
barrage of accusations.

And you saw that post, and replied to it, deleting the whole statement
from your reply -- ALSO before the barrage that I've reposted above.

> Then, for reasons known only to you, you ejaculated something about
> Ray Martinez and how I avoid calling him dishonest.

Come off it. You are far too skilled a propagandist to
miss how the first of my offset paragraphs above segues
seamlessly into the second. Nor how a third, one line paragraph,
coming immediately after the second, summarized ALL the
offset paragraphs above, including yours:

Hypocrisy, thy name is jillery.

And immediately after that came a fourth paragraph, to which
your bedfellow-wannabe Oxyaena played Pee Wee Herman:

And I've given the probable reason for that staggering
inconsistency a number of times. Repetition on request.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
[the above is a more user-friendly link to the same post linked
at the beginning of this one]

Meanwhile I thought of a number of other reasons, but they are
far less likely.

> Of course, that's
> the very opposite of reality,

You've avoided accusing Ray of dishonesty every single time I brought
up the issue, in the replies I've seen. Let's see you give even
ONE example where you accused him of lying.

> but that never stopped you from posting
> your baseless assertions.
>
> Then you posted a bald assertion that you repeatedly explained this
> "staggering inconsistancy" of mine,

Cunning equivocation "explained" noted. My "bald assertion" is what
I wrote above, but you avoided quoting it, because it would have
made the following into a non sequitur:

> which is a neat trick since you
> haven't shown that the inconsistancy even exists.

Nice to see that you are such a one-dimensional polemicist that
you pretend that the inconsistency isn't apparent from the way
you accuse people like George Kaplan of dishonesty at the drop
of a hat, while spurning all opportunities for labeling Martinez's
behavior wrt that NT allegation "dishonest". You essentially kept
telling me that this was none of my business every time I brought the
NT incident to your attention.

Continued in next reply to this post.

Peter Nyikos

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Peter, Jillery does have some sensitivity to the truth. When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism. And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism. Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos [wrote]:

Repeating some context from my second reply to jillery's
propagandistic post, beginning with some quotes:

George posted a claim. It's up to him to back it up or not.
So far he has not, and in the meantime thrice offered
non sequiturs as alleged replies. But it's no surprise
that you support his dishonest evasions.

Both this barrage and my reply appear in the linked post

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

My reply went:

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about his replies, and you
of all people are ill equipped to try and prove otherwise.

After all, you avoid calling Ray Martinez dishonest about ANYTHING,
even his blatat non sequitur about the Inquisitors. He falsely
alleged that the NT called the Inquisitors murderers and ran away
from the whole thread when you asked for evidence of that.
That's an example of REAL evasion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is jillery.

And I've given the probable reason for that staggering inconsistency
a number of times. Repetition on request.

And now I pick up where I left off:

> Then you accused me of "begging the question", that it was somehow my
> job to disprove George's claim. FYI, it isn't.

Another flagrant distortion. What actually transpired was this:

________________ repost _____________________________

> Do you really think it's moral to say something that is almost
> certainly a misrepresentation of what somebody actually said

Flagrant fallacy of begging the question, noted. You haven't even
begun to make a case for "almost certainly", and I don't expect
you to start.

======================end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

And you still haven't started. In fact, I doubt that you can even recall
what the alleged misrepresentation was supposed to be, without looking
at the linked post again. And even then you might have some trouble.

> Then you accused me of being an "Internet Hellion" for noting that
> George has refused to back up his claim,

Because you failed to document an actual refusal, nor had I seen
one. And it is a standard distortion among Internet Hellions
to label an ALLEGED failure to answer a question as a refusal.

> while you continued to ignore
> the fact that he hadn't backed up his claim. And he *still* hasn't.

And I explained in my second reply why there was no longer any
need for him to back it up.

> And then you repeated your Big Lie that I accused you of having a
> homosexual affair with UC.

"accused" is more Internet Hellion jargon. My exact words and the
context were as follows:

_____________________repost___________________________

> Oh wait, I forgot who I'm
> asking. Silly me.

You are asking someone whom you once misrepresented as probably
having a homosexual affair with UC. This was because I agreed
with him that everyday usage of "ape," even among scientists,
does not include humans. And much later, I found out that the noted
anthropologist/paleontologist John Hawks has the same attitude.

The possiblility of two people disagreeing at once with you

really brings out the paranoia in you.

___________________end of repost from post linked above___________________

> I don't recall having ever done so.

Of course you don't, because you rewrote the history
of what is in the linked post in typical Internet Hellion fashion.

And you continue to rewrite talk.origins history below.

> I do recall a thread where you did there what you do here, to jump into the
> middle of it without knowing or caring about the context, but were
> attracted by the noise from UC exercising his contrarian persona:
>
> <58c008pj1eb301pp2...@4ax.com>

Take up the "contrarian" nature of what UC was doing with
anthropologist John Hawks. See the repost.

> Your accusation above is from your overly-literal hyperbolic
> translation. I don't know UC or you personally.

J. J. O'Shea, who seconded your misrepresentation, would agree
with that last bit. So would Mark Isaak, who saw what
a spectacle the two of you were making of yourselves and
decided to deflect attention from your shenanigans by
making some indefensible, very aggressive and derogatory
comments about me.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS Readers might wonder why I am spending so much time on one post
of jillery's. It is because jillery spent an uncommon (for her)
amount of effort in composing it, and the result is a highly
instructive illustration of devious propaganda. Future historians might
well look upon some such post, and a careful unmasking of it
like the one I am doing of jillery's propaganda, as a teaching tool
for all kinds of lessons as to what constitutes skilled propaganda.

[Peter Nyikos]

Of course. That is what makes her propaganda so dangerous
at times. She knows how to mix truths, half-truths, distortions,
and outright lies so that people often are led astray into
just how to take what she writes. She also knows when to
indulge in juvenile, vulgar insults and when to sound like
a responsible adult.

> When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism.

A painless acknowledgement for her, by all indications.

> And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism.

Again, a completely painless acknowledgement. Hardly anyone has the
time AND the inclination to follow your reasoning as to why
Tatum's talk about the impact has such negative repercussions for
the theory of evolution.

In fact, it is a very frequent distortion to claim that X "cherry-picked"
Y or "quote-mined Y" and even "misrepresented Y" because X came to
conclusions about Y's data or reasoning that Y failed to come to.
Internet Hellions here in talk.origins and elsewhere have done that to
Casey Luskin repeatedly.

Have you never been subjected to this kind of propaganda [not necessarily
from jillery, perhaps only from others] in talk.origins? If not,
consider yourself lucky.

> Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.

There is a lot of truth to that, but only where the rank and file are
concerned. Unfortunately, even people who know better will often
refrain from discussing the facts because they find cheap shots so
much more fun.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Maths -- standard disclaimer--

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>Peter, Jillery does have some sensitivity to the truth. When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism.

It's hard to acknowledge said fact's impact on evolutionism when you
didn't say how you identify beneficial mutations. So how many
beneficial mutations do you think Lenski's bacteria produced?

> And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism.

More accurately, you documented Tatum's recognition of multiple drug
resistance, but not Tatum's application of multiplication rule of
probabilities as it applies to rmns, nor his opinions of how that rule
prevents Evolution. My impression remains that your use of Tatum is a
quotemine.

>Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.

Here's an example of how actual faith-based systems harm people:

<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/10/a_view_of_the_w103189.html>

Short version: Klinghoffer feels justified in denying anything that
makes him feel un-special. It's sad that people like him and you have
to delude themselves about reality in order to cope with it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

>Both this barrage and my reply appear in the linked post. My reply went:
>
> There is absolutely nothing dishonest about his replies, and you
> of all people are ill equipped to try and prove otherwise.
>
> After all, you avoid calling Ray Martinez dishonest about ANYTHING,
> even his blatat non sequitur about the Inquisitors. He falsely
> alleged that the NT called the Inquisitors murderers and ran away
> from the whole thread when you asked for evidence of that.
> That's an example of REAL evasion.
>
>You have never tried to undermine what's in either of these
>two paragraphs, have you?

What Ray Martinez says elsetopic has nothing to do with anything about
your cited topic, that thread, or anything anybody said in it, or
anything about this topic, this thread, or anything anybody but you
said in it.

More to the point, what I say to Ray Martinez, or don't say, has
nothing to do with you. Both of your paragraphs are examples of you
ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

>You've simply gone into a broken record
>routine about how his actual answers were allegedly not answers at all.

I can't prove a negative. AFAICS George did not back up his claim.
His replies were evasions, not responses. That he *still* hasn't
backed up his claim suggests he just made it up.

More to the point, the disagreement above is between George and me. If
George wants to challenge me, he doesn't need your help.

But since *you* claim George did back up his claim, right here would
have been a good place for you to identify what you think his claim is
and what he wrote to back it up. Failing that, this is just another
example of you ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery posted a repetitive
>attribution line, adding the same identical words as before to the attribution
>line that was automatically generated for her:

OMG! I POSTED A REPETITIVE ATTRIBUTION LINE!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD, THE COMING OF THE ANTI-CHRIST, CATS
SLEEPING WITH DOGS!!!! ARMAGEDDON!!!! ARMAGEDDON!!!!

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

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

>PS Readers might wonder why I am spending so much time on one post....


...especially since you accused me of spamming when I posted <GASP>
*two* replies to one of your posts. What do you call it when you post
three replies to one of mine? And those 8 posts you did to me in just
one day? I call it "anal fixation".

At least I'm not neglecting my students. Between that and your
questionable social behaviors, it's a wonder your school keeps you on
the faculty. I suppose tenure is good for that.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>> Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.
>
>There is a lot of truth to that, but only where the rank and file are
>concerned. Unfortunately, even people who know better will often
>refrain from discussing the facts because they find cheap shots so
>much more fun.

You're so cute when you talk about yourself.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

When you are young you get Mother Goose and when you are old you get PapaGander. You know the lawyers' strategy, when you have the law on your side you argue the law, when you have the evidence on your side you argue the evidence, when you have neither, you attack your opponent. Jillery doesn't have the laws of science on her side, she doesn't have empirical evidence on her side, so what does she have left?

>
> > When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism.
>
> A painless acknowledgement for her, by all indications.

Do you recall the uproar about Haldane's dilemma and its limit on the speed of beneficial evolution? His model (which is not physically correct) imposed a 300 generation limit which turns out to be a low prediction according to the Lenski experiment. Jillery missed the point.

>
> > And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism.
>
> Again, a completely painless acknowledgement. Hardly anyone has the
> time AND the inclination to follow your reasoning as to why
> Tatum's talk about the impact has such negative repercussions for
> the theory of evolution.

Again because Jillery misses the point. What is a little surprising to me is the likes of Bill Rogers who knows how to do a binomial probability problem and writes papers about the emergence of drug resistant Malaria misses the point as well.

>
> In fact, it is a very frequent distortion to claim that X "cherry-picked"
> Y or "quote-mined Y" and even "misrepresented Y" because X came to
> conclusions about Y's data or reasoning that Y failed to come to.
> Internet Hellions here in talk.origins and elsewhere have done that to
> Casey Luskin repeatedly.

What else can these debaters do when they can not argue the laws of science or the empirical evidence to support their beliefs?

>
> Have you never been subjected to this kind of propaganda [not necessarily
> from jillery, perhaps only from others] in talk.origins? If not,
> consider yourself lucky.

This type of debating of evolutionism is typical and requires endurance to carry on the discussion. I consider myself very fortunate to have found peer reviewers who actually considered and understood my arguments about the rmns phenomenon and was able to get this work published in an excellent journal despite the fact how ingrained evolutionism has become in the scientific community. When you have to attack your opponent like evolutionists do, you know they have lost the debate.

And absolutely I have been subjected to more than just evolutionist propaganda. I've had evolutionists investigate my malpractice history and complaints to the medical board.

>
> > Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.
>
> There is a lot of truth to that, but only where the rank and file are
> concerned. Unfortunately, even people who know better will often
> refrain from discussing the facts because they find cheap shots so
> much more fun.

They don't think it's fun when it's done to them. Evolutionists are always whining about how people are so mean to them.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

>> And then you repeated your Big Lie that I accused you of having a

>> homosexual affair with UC. I don't recall having ever done so.

>
>Of course you don't, because you rewrote the history
>of what is in the linked post in typical Internet Hellion fashion.
>
>And you continue to rewrite talk.origins history below.
>
>> I do recall a thread where you did there what you do here, to jump into the
>> middle of it without knowing or caring about the context, but were
>> attracted by the noise from UC exercising his contrarian persona:
>>
>> <58c008pj1eb301pp2...@4ax.com>

So is the above cite the post on which you base your oft-repeated
accusation or not? If not, then cite now the post to which you refer.

Do you stand by your oft-repeated claim that I accused you of having a
homosexual affair with UC or not?

If not, then WTF have you been yammering about all these years?

Are you willing to discuss all those slurs you posted about me?
If not, why not?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:49:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >Peter, Jillery does have some sensitivity to the truth. When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism.
>
>
> It's hard to acknowledge said fact's impact on evolutionism when you
> didn't say how you identify beneficial mutations. So how many
> beneficial mutations do you think Lenski's bacteria produced?

Improved fitness to reproduce.

>
>
> > And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism.
>
>
> More accurately, you documented Tatum's recognition of multiple drug
> resistance, but not Tatum's application of multiplication rule of
> probabilities as it applies to rmns, nor his opinions of how that rule
> prevents Evolution. My impression remains that your use of Tatum is a
> quotemine.

Tatum was talking about "the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms" and of using adequate dosages of agents to drive the populations to extinction and the use of combination therapy to prevent the evolution of resistance. If you know of any empirical examples of rmns that don't demonstrate this principle, feel free to quotemine an example.

>
>
> >Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.
>
>
> Here's an example of how actual faith-based systems harm people:
>
> <http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/10/a_view_of_the_w103189.html>
>
> Short version: Klinghoffer feels justified in denying anything that
> makes him feel un-special. It's sad that people like him and you have
> to delude themselves about reality in order to cope with it.

Jillery, I'm a physician and have to deal with reality on a regular basis. Perhaps one of these days you will get the point of the Lenski experiment or the point that Edward Tatum made about the use of combination selection pressures. And perhaps one of these days you will find out that you are special.

[Jonathan]

On 10/6/2016 4:10 PM, jillery wrote:


> I accused you of having a

> homosexual affair with UC...



Who is UC?

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:36:21 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If you really wanted to know, you could easily find out for yourself.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:16:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>Jillery, I'm a physician and have to deal with reality on a regular basis.

Your occupation forces you to deal with certain parts of reality, but
not Evolution. You're making a false argument from authority.

>Perhaps one of these days you will get the point of the Lenski experiment or the point that Edward Tatum made about the use of combination selection pressures.

Perhaps I will, but no thanks to you. And don't be insulted that I
don't wait for help from you.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:01:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>When you are young you get Mother Goose and when you are old you get PapaGander. You know the lawyers' strategy, when you have the law on your side you argue the law, when you have the evidence on your side you argue the evidence, when you have neither, you attack your opponent. Jillery doesn't have the laws of science on her side, she doesn't have empirical evidence on her side, so what does she have left?

Reason and evidence works for me just fine. Thanks for asking.

>> Again, a completely painless acknowledgement. Hardly anyone has the
>> time AND the inclination to follow your reasoning as to why
>> Tatum's talk about the impact has such negative repercussions for
>> the theory of evolution.
>Again because Jillery misses the point.

Nope. To the contrary, not only do I get the point, I recognize that
you and rockhead are evading the point.

>What is a little surprising to me is the likes of Bill Rogers who knows how to do a binomial probability problem and writes papers about the emergence of drug resistant Malaria misses the point as well.

Apparently you think you're the only one who doesn't miss the point.
That's another characteristic you and rockhead share.

>> In fact, it is a very frequent distortion to claim that X "cherry-picked"
>> Y or "quote-mined Y" and even "misrepresented Y" because X came to
>> conclusions about Y's data or reasoning that Y failed to come to.
>> Internet Hellions here in talk.origins and elsewhere have done that to
>> Casey Luskin repeatedly.
>What else can these debaters do when they can not argue the laws of science or the empirical evidence to support their beliefs?

I suppose they could do what you and rockhead do, and post one
baseless assertion after another. But you and rockhead are so much
more practiced at it, so I leave that art to the two of you.

>> Have you never been subjected to this kind of propaganda [not necessarily
>> from jillery, perhaps only from others] in talk.origins? If not,
>> consider yourself lucky.
>This type of debating of evolutionism is typical and requires endurance to carry on the discussion.

In your case, all you need is a willingness to repeat a mindless
mantra whenever you have nothing intelligent to say.

> I consider myself very fortunate to have found peer reviewers who actually considered and understood my arguments about the rmns phenomenon and was able to get this work published in an excellent journal despite the fact how ingrained evolutionism has become in the scientific community. When you have to attack your opponent like evolutionists do, you know they have lost the debate.

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify where
those peer reviewers approved your claim that biological evolution
can't happen.

Failing both, you show that you know that your claim above amounts to
smoke and mirrors.

>And absolutely I have been subjected to more than just evolutionist propaganda. I've had evolutionists investigate my malpractice history and complaints to the medical board.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>> > Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.
>>
>> There is a lot of truth to that, but only where the rank and file are
>> concerned. Unfortunately, even people who know better will often
>> refrain from discussing the facts because they find cheap shots so
>> much more fun.
>They don't think it's fun when it's done to them. Evolutionists are always whining about how people are so mean to them.

Have some cheese with that whine, it might help you sober up.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-10-04 12:17:30 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:

> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-4, jillery continued to
> try and gross me out to discourage me from exposing what a charlatan
> she is:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive

>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:...

*

Jillery and Peter:

Personally, I wish that you two would take your juvenile bickering off
this group. Email will work for that personal crap.

I can't think of anything less interesting and edifying than whether
someone has a homosexual affair with UC, whoever that is (Uncle
Charlie? – University of California?)

Go away, please.

earle

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:20:38 -0700, Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Jillery and Peter:
>
>Personally, I wish that you two would take your juvenile bickering off
>this group. Email will work for that personal crap.
>
>I can't think of anything less interesting and edifying than whether
>someone has a homosexual affair with UC, whoever that is (Uncle
>Charlie? – University of California?)
>
>Go away, please.
>
>earle

I regret that you and other posters are exposed to this juvenile
bickering. But I don't start these threads, and I can't stop rockhead
from stalking me. He has deliberately infected at least half a dozen
different topics just this week with his lies about me. You have been
on T.O. long enough to know what I say is true.

If you help him shut me up, then he and his Big Lies win. And if he
wins with me, then you could be next, or any other poster. That's how
bullies work. When you appease bullies, they just get worse.

You want this juvenile bickering to stop? Then quit giving rockhead
cover by implying he and I are equivalent. You're old enough to
recognize the difference between cause and effect. Since you have
read enough of this juvenile bickering to bother you, then you know I
am not the one who originates it. So focus on who's causing the
problem, not the one who's fighting it.

If you can't do that, then you could do what I'm told to do, and just
ignore it. Based on your post, ignoring it doesn't work for you,
either.

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 8:26 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2016 8:14 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-03, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jillery...

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "T.O. is not about evolving systems in general,"
>>>>

>>>> This is correct. **
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny the faq doesn't say that.
>>
>> Again, it's not the talk.origins FAQ.
>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>>>
>>
>> That site is not affiliated with the newsgroup.
>>
> Since you didn't provide a link to the FAQ or
> cite the posting policy, I'll cite the charter
> for this ng which states...correct me if I'm
> wrong...
>
> "The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for
> discussion of the scientific, religious, and political
> issues pertaining to various theories of the origins
> and development of life and the universe.
>
> Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions
> over a large number of topics are covered, all relating
> back to the main purpose of the group.

Yeah I had to retrieve the charter from the Wayback Machine
and repost that page a few days ago.


> Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
> discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
> permit unrestricted discussions,..."
> http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html
>
>
>
> I submit war, which I have clearly shown to be
> defined as a 'complex adaptive system' most
> certainly qualifies as on-topic.

Nope. The Charter does not say 'all complex adaptive systems',
so your argument is based on what you would LIKE it to say, not
what it says.

Again, you know, A+ for effort, but I'm the one who both wrote that Charter
and I'm the one who decides what it means.

It's irrelevant to the discussion of the origin of life and the evolution of
same from simple to complex forms; it's irrelevant to cosmology, biblical
scholarship, radiodating, genetics, ecology, biology... nothing about
war affects mutation and selection beyond the simple fact that people die
in warfare. Warfare doesn't care if the world was created in 4004 BC or
is 14 billion years old, or was created Last Tuesday.

Likewise the evolution of the personal computer may be of passing interest
on this newsgroup, but it's not on topic. Or ITIL v3 or COBIT or ISO20000
describe a complex, adaptive system - running an IT organization... but
it's not on topic - talk.origins is about the Creationism/Evolutionism
debate; it always has been.

MAybe the fact you can't get anyone who gives a shit about your pet
hobby horse is ... BECAUSE IT'S OFF TOPIC HERE.

--D.

--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-04, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Could you two like, cut it out or something. This is so 1990s.

Type out your next reply, admire it, then hit 'no' to 'Post?'

--D. 'seriously'

[jillery]

Despite the risk of sounding like a complete ass (as opposed to
half-assed), it's unclear to whom your "you two" refers. I assume one
of them uses the email nyi...@bellsouth.net, but the second poster
remains unstated.

Since you reply to a reply to a poster using Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>, and that poster is already in your
crosshairs, it's reasonable to suppose that might be whom you have in
mind.

OTOH, since other posters have linked me to nyi...@bellsouth.net, I
would like to know if the second poster to whom you refer above is me?

[Jonathan]

So you didn't even know what the ng charter policy
was when you replied to me earlier?

>
>> Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
>> discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
>> permit unrestricted discussions,..."
>> http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I submit war, which I have clearly shown to be
>> defined as a 'complex adaptive system' most
>> certainly qualifies as on-topic.

>
> Nope. The Charter does not say 'all complex adaptive systems',

It doesn't mention the term at all. Do you know when
the charter was written? Do you know when the term
complex adaptive system was coined?

> so your argument is based on what you would LIKE it to say, not
> what it says.

No my argument is based on the charter.

In another post it's you clearly stated the policy
is whatever YOU want it to be without any
justification in terms of science or charter.


To quote your reply....


> I'm still waiting for your response to my questions.
>
> Is this the posting policy below or not?
>
> And if so, how could you say with a straight face
> that a discussion concerning evolving systems
> or more specifically Complex Adaptive Systems
> is off topic?

Because I'm the moderator of this newsgroup.

........


My argument is based on the charter, which is quite
clear that /only/ cross posting justifies removal
of posts, as you have failed to present any posting
policy at all aside from it's whatever you say
it is on any given day.


Are you rescinding the following charter policy?

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion
of the scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining
to various theories of the origins and development of life
and the universe. Within such basic guidelines,
wide-ranging discussions over a large number of topics
are covered, all relating back to the main purpose
of the group.

Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to

permit unrestricted discussions, but to limit
crossposting to/from talk.origins. No crossposts to
more than three other groups are permitted.

No content-based considerations are to be made in
evaluating articles for the group, only the number
of groups crossposted to.

http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html


Did you read the last sentence?

>
> Again, you know, A+ for effort, but I'm the one who both wrote that
Charter
> and I'm the one who decides what it means.

Your replies to me indicate you have no regard at all
for what the charter states. But the policy is now
to be entirely ad hoc and subjective.

If so, please state that formally to the ng.

>
> It's irrelevant to the discussion of the origin of life and the
evolution of
> same from simple to complex forms; it's irrelevant to cosmology, biblical
> scholarship, radiodating, genetics, ecology, biology... nothing about
> war affects mutation and selection beyond the simple fact that people die
> in warfare. Warfare doesn't care if the world was created in 4004 BC or
> is 14 billion years old, or was created Last Tuesday.
>

War is irrelevant to those issues, or complexity science?

In other post you seem to state complex adaptive systems
is off topic. Because if you think complexity science
doesn't relate to the above you're rather uneducated
about this new science.

To quote Wiki....please note the /last/ example.

Self Organization

"The following is an incomplete list of the diverse
phenomena which have been described as self-organizing
in biology."


spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules

formation of lipid bilayer membranes

homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from
the cell to the whole organism)

pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living
organism develops and grows. See also embryology.

the coordination of human movement, e.g. seminal studies
of bimanual coordination by Kelso

the creation of structures by social animals, such as
social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals

flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by
birds, schools of fish, etc.)

*the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical
systems, in the theories of hypercycles and autocatalytic
networks*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

> Likewise the evolution of the personal computer may be of passing
interest
> on this newsgroup, but it's not on topic. Or ITIL v3 or COBIT or
ISO20000
> describe a complex, adaptive system - running an IT organization...

The vast bulk of discussions in this ng are about evolution.

> but
> it's not on topic - talk.origins is about the Creationism/Evolutionism
> debate; it always has been.

Nowhere in the charter is that stated. Are you saying that
unless creationism is in a post, it's off topic?
That would mean about 95% of the posts are off topic?

It appears your policy is based not on posts, but
on poster. If so perhaps it's time for this charter
policy to be invoked?


Six (6) months after such time as the moderation policy
given above shall come into effect (by public declaration
of the moderator of talk.origins on talk.origins and
news.groups), a revote on the moderation status of
talk.origins is to be conducted by a neutral
vote-taker in the manner of a normal RFD/CFV.

Note that this revote does not depend on the wishes
of the moderator of either talk.origins or any other
newsgroup. Should the proposal to unmoderate the group
pass, the group should revert tounmoderated status as
soon thereafter is practicable. Should either the
moderator of talk.origins or any other newsgroup
refuse to permit or conduct the revote so as to prevent
it from taking place, then the revote shall be assumed
to have passed, and the newsgroup shall immediately revert
to an unmoderated status. (Once the revote has been
conducted and the results are final, this paragraph
shall be of no further effect and may be removed from
the charter.)

http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html


But then, so far you've made it clear the
charter means nothing to you.

>
> MAybe the fact you can't get anyone who gives a shit about your pet
> hobby horse is ... BECAUSE IT'S OFF TOPIC HERE.
>

Talk.Origins Newsgroup Charter (1997)

No content-based considerations are to be made in
evaluating articles for the group, only the number
of groups crossposted to.

http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html





> --D.
>

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-09, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 03:40:26 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig

> OTOH, since other posters have linked me to nyi...@bellsouth.net, I
> would like to know if the second poster to whom you refer above is me?

yah. nothing personal but ya know, ugh.

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-09, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you didn't even know what the ng charter policy
> was when you replied to me earlier?

I refer you to my prior response today.

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:48:26 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig
<dgr...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:

>On 2016-10-09, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 03:40:26 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig

>> >On 2016-10-04, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Could you two like, cut it out or something. This is so 1990s.
>> >
>> >Type out your next reply, admire it, then hit 'no' to 'Post?'
>> >
>> >--D. 'seriously'

>> OTOH, since other posters have linked me to nyi...@bellsouth.net, I
>> would like to know if the second poster to whom you refer above is me?
>
>yah. nothing personal but ya know, ugh.

Consider the following analogy: Two people are involved in a
physical assault, the attacker and the victim. The act generates much
shouting and noise from both parties. A policeman passes by and tells
the two to keep the noise down as it disturbs the residents.

I point out that I unilaterally KF'ed him for about a year. During
that time, he continued to attack me personally. During that time,
other posters still believed his nearly continuous Big Lies, in part
because nobody refuted them.

His posts show he is unwilling to control his actions in T.O., but
instead blames others for his actions. You know this is true.
Nevertheless, with the interests of the newsgroup in mind, I will
guarantee that no posts of mine will refer to him, if you will
guarantee that no posts of his which refer to me are posted to T.O. My
understanding is you have the authority and means to so guarantee.
Will you?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my third reply to a cunningly
propagandistic post, very different from jillery's usual posts.

> I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
> and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
> had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.

Of course you don't. What's even more to the point of the sleazeball
character you behave like when you know you don't have a leg to stand on,
that persona will probably be both disappointed and disgusted by the
following narrative, which epitomizes my sex life.

This happened about two decades ago, in Budapest, when I was coming back
to my single hotel room from a late conference dinner, with all my family
back at home in the USA.

A young, very pretty prostitute approached me. Her hair and makeup were
tastefully done, her dress sexy but not too revealing. She asked me
if I wanted some sex [otherwise, I might not even have been sure she
was a prostitute]. The following exchange ensued (in Hungarian,
but here is the translation):

I: No. You see, I love my wife very much.

She: That's the best way to be.

After a minute or two we said goodnight to each other, and went our
separate ways.



Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week. You don't deserve
more frequent replies than that. The only reason I usually give you far
more than you deserve is that I will never learn [1] how many readers
know that you are a dishonest, hypocritical sleazebag whose unsupported
word cannot be trusted.

And the reasons I will never learn this are many.
To take just one example: if someone else were to start
showing what you are like in this ng, you would turn on him/her with
every dirty trick in the book, and then some. Hell hath no fury
like jillery brought to justice.

[1] "You never learn" is a frequent taunt of yours, and the above
description is the ONLY way it is true in a way relevant to both
you and talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

>Of course you don't. What's even more to the point of the sleazeball
>character you behave like when you know you don't have a leg to stand on,
>that persona will probably be both disappointed and disgusted by the
>following narrative, which epitomizes my sex life.

Your mind-reading still sucks. That you think your narrative is
somehow relevant to this topic, this thread, or anything anybody said
in it shows just how delusional you are.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 11:19:21 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> <snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

I don't think it is. Anyone who has me but not you killfiled (Burkhard,
perhaps is included) or who dotes on your posts but only gives rebuttals
at most a glance, will get a completely false idea of what you are really
like. And you HAVE to delete all manner of things "for focus" in
order to create that false idea.

One almost full-time lurker, Oxyaena, made a rare exception to the
above rule (otherwise, it probably suits him/her to a t) because
of your first treatment of the post to which your propaganda piece
here was a belated reply. See here for details:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/lFxZYRhOBAAJ

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ad9208b2-2a8c-46b5...@googlegroups.com>

And now we come to the snippet that you left in while
deleting all kinds of explanation by myself:

> >Of course you don't. What's even more to the point of the sleazeball
> >character you behave like when you know you don't have a leg to stand on,
> >that persona will probably be both disappointed and disgusted by the
> >following narrative, which epitomizes my sex life.
>
>
> Your mind-reading still sucks.

"that persona" is the dummy-analogue whose overt behavior I am talking
about. The ventriloquist-analogue who actually types the words associated
with the dummy-analogue "jillery" has taken great care that [s]he
will continue to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Well, almost. We know that this ventriloquist-analogue has great
talents that [s]he has prostituted for the purpose of
making the dummy-analogue into portraying a seasoned propagandist
in addition to a juvenile, vulgar scumbag and a hate-driven dishonest,
hypocritical sleazeball.

>That you think your narrative is
> somehow relevant to this topic, this thread, or anything anybody said
> in it shows just how delusional you are.

Rampant dishonesty from the keyboard of the ventriloquist-analogue.
Your "snip for focus" threw away the shamelessly hypocritical
[in the sense of simulating virtues that your persona totally lacks]
statement to which it was a direct reply:

> I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
> and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
> had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


>On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 11:19:21 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> <snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

<snip gratuitous references to other posters>

>And now we come to the snippet that you left in while
>deleting all kinds of explanation by myself:
>
>> >Of course you don't. What's even more to the point of the sleazeball
>> >character you behave like when you know you don't have a leg to stand on,
>> >that persona will probably be both disappointed and disgusted by the
>> >following narrative, which epitomizes my sex life.
>>
>>
>> Your mind-reading still sucks.
>
>"that persona" is the dummy-analogue whose overt behavior I am talking
>about. The ventriloquist-analogue who actually types the words associated
>with the dummy-analogue "jillery" has taken great care that [s]he
>will continue to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
>
>Well, almost. We know that this ventriloquist-analogue has great
>talents that [s]he has prostituted for the purpose of
>making the dummy-analogue into portraying a seasoned propagandist
>in addition to a juvenile, vulgar scumbag and a hate-driven dishonest,
>hypocritical sleazeball.

Apparently such incoherent babble is part of your therapy. Feel
better now?

>>That you think your narrative is
>> somehow relevant to this topic, this thread, or anything anybody said
>> in it shows just how delusional you are.
>
>Rampant dishonesty from the keyboard of the ventriloquist-analogue.
>Your "snip for focus" threw away the shamelessly hypocritical
>[in the sense of simulating virtues that your persona totally lacks]
>statement to which it was a direct reply:
>
>> I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
>> and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
>> had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.

Instead of just ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter, right here would have been a good place for you to
have explained how anything I deleted had anything to do with anything
anybody wrote previously to this topic or this thread, and how
anything you wrote above has anything to do with anything anybody
wrote previously to this topic or this thread.

Failing that, you continue to show that you're only interested in

ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:44:32 PM UTC-4, David Iain Greig wrote:
> On 2016-10-04, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Could you two like, cut it out or something. This is so 1990s.

If so, you've missed an awful lot of 1990ish stuff since I returned
after almost a decade of absence in December 2010. A few days after
I did, you made a post where you wrote, "Now people, be nice to
Peter."

In reply, I made a colossal blunder. I said that this was low on
my wish list, and that the top item on that list was that people
would just not join each other in posting a completely distorted
picture of me and my actions.

That was the t.o. equivalent of pasting a "Kick me" sign on my
own back. It told seasoned propagandists like jillery and Ron O, who
knew nothing about me at the time, that I was fair game for attack and that
they would not suffer from anyone but me if they hit me with

every dirty trick in the book, and then some.

My case is unique since I am a staunch proponent of evolution,
unlike George Kaplan and other creationists who come equipped with
"Kick me" signs by the simple fact of being creationists. This whole
flap between me and jillery has its roots in jillery bringing
trumped-up charges of "dishonest evasion" against George, and in her
trying to keep justice from being done where these charges are concerned.

The professional-level display of propaganda that I am slowly dissecting
on this thread is jillery grotesquely misrepresenting a post that
isn't even on this thread. It is on the thread George began a while
back, "Why cannot we see evolution happening today?" and its main
purpose was to show that these trumped-up charges have no basis
in reality.

> Type out your next reply, admire it, then hit 'no' to 'Post?'
>
> --D. 'seriously'

Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
from having to endure all that I have endured.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:24:39 AM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> On 2016-10-04 12:17:30 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:
>
> > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-4, jillery continued to
> > try and gross me out to discourage me from exposing what a charlatan
> > she is:
> >
> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> >> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:...
>
> *
>
> Jillery and Peter:
>
> Personally, I wish that you two would take your juvenile bickering off
> this group. Email will work for that personal crap.

The way you worded this shows how successfully jillery preys on
the natural assumption, "When two people are telling two completely
different things about what happened, the truth is somewhere in the
middle." And the more cynical type will also think that both parties
are intentionally guilty of huge distortions.

I'm not suggesting that you make a careful study of all that has transpired
between jillery and myself on this thread [let alone, heaven forbid!
in all our talk.origins interactions]. That is too much to ask of
anyone. I merely suggest that you take a very radical course of action
and seriously entertain the hypothesis that one of us is telling the
truth and nothing but the truth on this thread. And that this person's
purposes are utterly different from those of the other person.

If you do this much, you will begin to see how utterly pointless
it is for us to take any of this to private e-mail.

I can understand that even such a course of action might be distasteful
to you. In that case, however, I respectfully request that you
cease and desist from using the term "juvenile bickering" to describe
my actions here.

> I can't think of anything less interesting and edifying than whether
> someone has a homosexual affair with UC, whoever that is (Uncle
> Charlie? – University of California?)

It's someone who posted to t.o. for a short time, and then disappeared,
and the U stands for "Uranium." I forget what the C stands for,
but I could look it up.

You are getting very different stories about what happened.
But even jillery cannot deny that it was she who brought up
the theme of a homosexual affair from out of the blue.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina (Columbia)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Robert Camp]

Is it too soon to talk about canonization?

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

>Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
>comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
>as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
>to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
>from having to endure all that I have endured.
>
>Peter Nyikos

One can only wonder what my email address, my gender, my nym, my
employment status, my religion, the marital status of my parents, and
the many and varied adjectives you have used to describe me, have to
do with "George and others like him".

[eridanus]

I cannot understand why you are so sensitive to any shit someone had
said you. I think this is a little childish.

It looks to me we are here disputing as we were grammar school kids.

Eri

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 4:34:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
> <snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>

I have already explained in two different ways, how I believe
your sickeningly self-servingly selective snipping is far from
futile from *your* POV.

The one on the other thread was:

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ad9208b2-2a8c-46b5...@googlegroups.com>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/lFxZYRhOBAAJ

And you'd outdo your Jonathan-targeted scorn for anyone who
claims [s]he can't find the one on this thread, were you not
completely addicted to self-serving double standards.

> >Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
> >comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
> >as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
> >to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
> >from having to endure all that I have endured.
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
>
>

> One can only wonder what my email address, [...] my nym, my
> employment status, [...] and

> the many and varied adjectives you have used to describe me, have to
> do with "George and others like him".

I've snipped the things which you gratuitously put in and have
nothing to do with George and others like him. The many and
varied adjectives that are actually relevant to George, etc. are
"shameless," "dishonest," "slanderous," "hypocritical," and "amoral",
often with fully deserved intensifying adverbs.

As for your REAL name [NOT "nym"] and your REAL [not spoofed] e-mail
address and especially your employment status, they are relevant
to some very pointed statements you made last week about my employer
on the thread where Ray Martinez is on the hot seat.

Both you and your erstwhile ally, J.J.O'Shea, would have called them
"threatening to contact my employer" if I had made similar comments
about your employer [assuming you are employed with a responsible
position, and assuming I knew what it was].

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

[Peter Nyikos]

Of course, and it is too late to sneer about my dedication
to truth and justice. Jillery and Roger Shrubber beat you
to the punch long ago, jillery in such a context from which
it was pretty clear that she had little if any use for either
of those praiseworthy concepts.

Jillery ought to be able to find that context in a jiffy,
if you can't: she implied that anyone should be able
to find posts of months ago in a jiffy, right on this
thread.

She did this by trying to browbeat Jonathan with her oft-repeated
formula "...right here would have been a good place..."
in an Oct. 4 post, and the following ensued:

--------------------------excerpt from post by jillery----------
[Peter:]
>....for Jonathan to spend a long time looking for posts that Jonathan has
>seen, but hasn't bothered to keep copies of.

[jillery:]
Your strange bedfellows don't need you to make excuses for them.
Jonathan doesn't need to make copies of anything, that's what GG is
for.
________________________________________________

These three posts are on the very bottom
of the threaded version of this NGG page.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

So far from acceding to DIG's request, jillery showed her totalitarian
mentality by a blatant appeal to DIG to censor my posts so she
could go on bringing trumped-up charges against George Kaplan and others.

This appeal appears at the bottom of this post, so that people
not wishing to see all the other crap that she spewed in
rewriting talk.origins history can skip to there after noting
DIG's request right at the beginning.

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:54:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:48:26 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig
> <dgr...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> >On 2016-10-09, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 03:40:26 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig
>
> >> >On 2016-10-04, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Could you two like, cut it out or something. This is so 1990s.
> >> >
> >> >Type out your next reply, admire it, then hit 'no' to 'Post?'
> >> >
> >> >--D. 'seriously'
>
> >> OTOH, since other posters have linked me to nyi...@bellsouth.net, I
> >> would like to know if the second poster to whom you refer above is me?
> >
> >yah. nothing personal but ya know, ugh.
>
>
> Consider the following analogy: Two people are involved in a
> physical assault, the attacker and the victim. The act generates much
> shouting and noise from both parties. A policeman passes by and tells
> the two to keep the noise down as it disturbs the residents.

And then, unless the policeman is biased racially, or whatever,
the victim can explain in detail why the evidence shows the other
person was the guilty party, while the guilty party jumps up
and down screaming, "I can't believe you are lying like that!"
or else calmly saying, "Don't listen to him, officer, he is just
giving you repetitive spew out of his puckered sphincter."

And if the cop is sufficiently crooked, he will laugh wholeheartedly
at the attacker's riposte and mark down the victim as the guilty party.

> I point out that I unilaterally KF'ed him for about a year. During
> that time, he continued to attack me personally.

Partly because I never saw you say you were killfiling me, but only
indulging in a boycott which you could end at any time your lurking
revealed something especially damning against you.

During that time, you continued to attack me personally,
and dishonestly, in reply to others. After I learned that you
had actually been killfiling me, I even made up the expression,
"Blinkered Coxswain," to characterize your behavior.

The latter word was inspired by Ken Cox, the most notorious abuser
of killfiles before you. Back in the 1990's he would ask questions
like the following from the security of his killfile: "Did Peter
really say that the earth was in orbit around Saturn in recent
times?"

And then someone else would play "good cop" to his "bad cop" and say,
"Well, not quite, but..."

> During that time,
> other posters still believed his nearly continuous Big Lies,

Really? I never saw anyone expressing agreement with the truthful things
you dishonestly call "Big Lies".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style on

Right here would have been a good place to give an url
to a post where one of those "Big Lies" was uttered.

Failing that, your comment above is just more of your
issuing of repetitive spew out of your puckered sphincter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style off

> in part
> because nobody refuted them.

Least of all you, even though you somehow learned about those
alleged "Big Lies" by one means or another.

> His posts show he is unwilling to control his actions in T.O., but
> instead blames others for his actions.

Yes, I refuse to roll over and play dead when people like you
post highly distorted and often slanderous claims about me.

And I refuse to sit idly by while you post trumped-up
charges against newcomers like George Kaplan and try to
browbeat people like Jonathan into wasting an enormous amount
of time. [See my reply to Robert Camp this morning for
documentation on the latter, right on this thread.]

> You know this is true.

Only a schizophrenic would post such garbage and think it was true.
DIG has much more important things to do than to monitor every post
that appears in talk.origins.

By the way, that "one year" ended at least three and probably four
years ago. Yet you actively tried to discourage me from talking
about something Ray Martinez did earlier THIS year on the grounds
that it is old stuff and people have moved on.

> Nevertheless, with the interests of the newsgroup in mind, I will
> guarantee that no posts of mine will refer to him, if you will
> guarantee that no posts of his which refer to me are posted to T.O. My
> understanding is you have the authority and means to so guarantee.
> Will you?

Your love of censorship is transparently evident here. You want
to have the luxury of bringing trumped-up charges against anyone
but me whom you choose, and browbeating anyone but me whom you choose,
without me intervening to come to their aid.

No wonder you hate me so much.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

You are missing out on some highly relevant distinctions. For instance,
look at what Earle wrote and then contrast the way I handled his comment
above, with the way jillery handled it.

> It looks to me we are here disputing as we were grammar school kids.
>
> Eri

You seriously underestimate how dangerous jillery would be, if
she had the power. Three days before you posted this, jillery
made the following self-serving and highly misleading attempt
to have my posts censored:

I will guarantee that no posts of mine will refer to him, if you will
guarantee that no posts of his which refer to me are posted to T.O. My
understanding is you have the authority and means to so guarantee.
Will you?

DIG is David Iain Greig, who does indeed have that authority but
has exercised it very carefully and sparingly -- so far.

Jillery knows that I have emphasized, right on this thread, her trumped-up
charges against George Kaplan, and I have also critized her, also on this
thread, for her browbeating of Jonathan to post evidence of something it
would take Jonathan hours and hours to find. She wants the complete
freedom to attack anyone she wants (besides myself, but there are
plenty of others who attack me besides jillery), including the
bringing of more trumped up charges, without fear that anyone will
try persistently to have justice triumph.

Would YOU defend people like Kaplan when jillery does that to them?
So far, I haven't seen you lift a finger to help ANYONE against
jillery.

Don't get me wrong -- it is a very time consuming job to persist in
defending someone being unfairly attacked. I don't expect anyone
else to do it, and I don't hold it against anyone who doesn't do it.
But the lack of any other such person is exactly why
jillery wants to neutralize me as you can see above.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you back up your Big Lie
that I attacked Kaplan, unfairly or otherwise. Failing that, you only
show how you continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew
from your puckered sphincter.


> Peter Nyikos


The post to which I reply is just one of seven you posted today where
you ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter. That's especially notable considering how you said I don't
deserve replies from you. One can only hope you didn't neglect your
obligations to your employer as well as your students in order to post
them.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:10:41 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 4:34:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>>
>> <snip to focus, as futile as that effort is>
>
>I have already explained in two different ways, how I believe
>your sickeningly self-servingly selective snipping is far from
>futile from *your* POV.

Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how your
explanation explained anything. Failing that, you only prove my
comment, that it's futile to try to get you to focus.

>And you'd outdo your Jonathan-targeted scorn for anyone who
>claims [s]he can't find the one on this thread, were you not
>completely addicted to self-serving double standards.

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify my alleged
Jonathan-targeted scorn, and to identify my alleged self-serving
double-standards, and to explain how the one relates to the other.

Failing that, you only show how you continue to ejaculate your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>>One can only wonder what my email address, my gender, my nym, my

>>employment status, my religion, the marital status of my parents, and

>>the many and varied adjectives you have used to describe me, have to
>>do with "George and others like him".
>

>The many and
>varied adjectives that are actually relevant to George, etc. are
>"shameless," "dishonest," "slanderous," "hypocritical," and "amoral",
>often with fully deserved intensifying adverbs.

Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how your
many and varied adjectives you use to describe me are relevant to
"George and others like him". Failing that, you only show how you

continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter.

>As for your REAL name [NOT "nym"] and your REAL [not spoofed] e-mail
>address and especially your employment status, they are relevant
>to some very pointed statements you made last week about my employer
>on the thread where Ray Martinez is on the hot seat.

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify those
allegedly pointed statements, and to explain how AOTA are relevant to
them, and how all of that is relevant to "George and others like him".

Failing that, you only show how you continue to ejaculate your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>Both you and your erstwhile ally, J.J.O'Shea, would have called them
>"threatening to contact my employer" if I had made similar comments
>about your employer [assuming you are employed with a responsible
>position, and assuming I knew what it was].

You still suck at mind reading.

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

The post to which I reply is just one of seven you posted today where
you ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered

sphincter. This is especially notable considering how you said I

don't deserve replies from you. One can only hope you didn't neglect
your obligations to your employer as well as your students in order to
post them.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:43:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>So far from acceding to DIG's request, jillery showed her totalitarian
>mentality by a blatant appeal to DIG to censor my posts so she
>could go on bringing trumped-up charges against George Kaplan and others.

You really suck at mind reading.

For someone who has applied various and sundry invectives and epithets
to and about me, you're incredibly thin-skinned. Apparently you think
it's ok only when you do it. Perhaps that's genetically linked to
being a self-righteous blue-nose.

>> I point out that I unilaterally KF'ed him for about a year. During
>> that time, he continued to attack me personally.
>
>Partly because I never saw you say you were killfiling me, but only
>indulging in a boycott which you could end at any time your lurking
>revealed something especially damning against you.

As I pointed out before, AOTA are your self-serving rationalizations.
I don't need your permission to KF you. More to the point, you admit
that you continued to post your Big Lies about me even when I wasn't
replying to you. That puts the lie to your claim above that you're
the victim here.

>During that time, you continued to attack me personally,
>and dishonestly, in reply to others. After I learned that you
>had actually been killfiling me, I even made up the expression,
>"Blinkered Coxswain," to characterize your behavior.

Right here would have been a good place for you to cite where I posted
anything about you that didn't refer to something you wrote about me.

Failing that, you only show how you continue to ejaculate your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>The latter word was inspired by Ken Cox, the most notorious abuser
>of killfiles before you. Back in the 1990's he would ask questions
>like the following from the security of his killfile: "Did Peter
>really say that the earth was in orbit around Saturn in recent
>times?"
>
>And then someone else would play "good cop" to his "bad cop" and say,
>"Well, not quite, but..."

And how 'bout them Mets.

>> During that time,
>> other posters still believed his nearly continuous Big Lies,
>
>Really? I never saw anyone expressing agreement with the truthful things
>you dishonestly call "Big Lies".
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style on
>
>Right here would have been a good place to give an url
>to a post where one of those "Big Lies" was uttered.
>
>Failing that, your comment above is just more of your
>issuing of repetitive spew out of your puckered sphincter.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style off
>
>> in part
>> because nobody refuted them.
>
>Least of all you, even though you somehow learned about those
>alleged "Big Lies" by one means or another.

Of course, I can't refute your Big Lies when I have you KF'ed. That's
why killfiles don't work with trolling stalking bullies like you.

>> His posts show he is unwilling to control his actions in T.O., but
>> instead blames others for his actions.
>
>Yes, I refuse to roll over and play dead when people like you
>post highly distorted and often slanderous claims about me.

Even if that were true, it doesn't account for your highly distorted
and often slanderous claims about me. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

Mostly I simply note your Big Lies about me, as you continue to show
you refuse to reasonably discuss anything with me. Time and again,
you have refused to stop. You even refuse to stop now, knowing that
DIG has you in his sights. You're determined to have your revenge
regardless of what it costs you or this froup.

>And I refuse to sit idly by while you post trumped-up
>charges against newcomers like George Kaplan and try to
>browbeat people like Jonathan into wasting an enormous amount
>of time. [See my reply to Robert Camp this morning for
>documentation on the latter, right on this thread.]

Based on your posts, you don't even know or care what it is George and
Jonathan are talking about. My impression is all you care about is to
use them as pawns, in order to continue to ejaculate your repetitive

irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>> You know this is true.
>
>Only a schizophrenic would post such garbage and think it was true.

That describes yourself very well.

>DIG has much more important things to do than to monitor every post
>that appears in talk.origins.

What a maroon. DIG doesn't have to monitor every post. He *already*
has you in his sights. What part of that don't you understand?

>By the way, that "one year" ended at least three and probably four
>years ago. Yet you actively tried to discourage me from talking
>about something Ray Martinez did earlier THIS year on the grounds
>that it is old stuff and people have moved on.

Right here would have been a good place for you to cite where I did
any such thing. Failing that, you only show how you continue to

ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

>> Nevertheless, with the interests of the newsgroup in mind, I will
>> guarantee that no posts of mine will refer to him, if you will
>> guarantee that no posts of his which refer to me are posted to T.O. My
>> understanding is you have the authority and means to so guarantee.
>> Will you?
>
>Your love of censorship is transparently evident here. You want
>to have the luxury of bringing trumped-up charges against anyone
>but me whom you choose, and browbeating anyone but me whom you choose,
>without me intervening to come to their aid.

You really suck at mind reading. Would you prefer to be banned
altogether from T.O.? Are you that blinded by revenge over imagined
wrongs?

>No wonder you hate me so much.

As I said before, I can't hate you, I don't even know you.


>Peter Nyikos

The post to which I reply is just one of seven you posted today where
you ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered

sphincter. That's especially notable considering how you said I don't

deserve replies from you. One can only hope you didn't neglect your
obligations to your employer as well as your students in order to post
them.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

So you expect to be canonized at some future date. Is anybody
surprised?

>and it is too late to sneer about my dedication
>to truth and justice. Jillery and Roger Shrubber beat you
>to the punch long ago, jillery in such a context from which
>it was pretty clear that she had little if any use for either
>of those praiseworthy concepts.

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify the
context "from which it was pretty clear". Failing that, you only show

how you continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from
your puckered sphincter.

>Jillery ought to be able to find that context in a jiffy,
>if you can't: she implied that anyone should be able
>to find posts of months ago in a jiffy, right on this
>thread.
>
>She did this by trying to browbeat Jonathan with her oft-repeated
>formula "...right here would have been a good place..."
>in an Oct. 4 post, and the following ensued:
>
>--------------------------excerpt from post by jillery----------
>[Peter:]
>>....for Jonathan to spend a long time looking for posts that Jonathan has
>>seen, but hasn't bothered to keep copies of.
>
>[jillery:]
>Your strange bedfellows don't need you to make excuses for them.
>Jonathan doesn't need to make copies of anything, that's what GG is
>for.
>________________________________________________
>
>These three posts are on the very bottom
>of the threaded version of this NGG page.

Of course, your example doesn't imply anything even remotely like you
claim it does. That's why posters like you and jonathan refuse to
actually back up your claims, because you know you can't.

And even if your example implied what you say it does, it would still
have nothing whatever to do with anything in this topic, this thread,
or anything anybody wrote in it. It's just one of countless examples
of you ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

Apparently you don't care that DIG put you and me on probation.
Apparently that's why you refuse to take this to email, or stop
ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter. Apparently you think being banned from T.O. is a small
sacrifice in order to get me banned. Apparently that's what you meant
when you wrote about the wheels of justice.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 10:35:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> [wrote]:

<snip idiocy by jillery>

> and it is too late to sneer about my dedication
> >to truth and justice. Jillery and Roger Shrubber beat you
> >to the punch long ago, jillery in such a context from which
> >it was pretty clear that she had little if any use for either
> >of those praiseworthy concepts.

<snip repetitive crap by jillery pretending not to have noticed
what followed immediately>

> >Jillery ought to be able to find that context in a jiffy,
> >if you can't: she implied that anyone should be able
> >to find posts of months ago in a jiffy, right on this
> >thread.
> >
> >She did this by trying to browbeat Jonathan with her oft-repeated
> >formula "...right here would have been a good place..."
> >in an Oct. 4 post, and the following ensued:
> >
> >--------------------------excerpt from post by jillery----------
> >[Peter:]
> >>....for Jonathan to spend a long time looking for posts that Jonathan has
> >>seen, but hasn't bothered to keep copies of.
> >
> >[jillery:]
> >Your strange bedfellows don't need you to make excuses for them.
> >Jonathan doesn't need to make copies of anything, that's what GG is
> >for.
> >________________________________________________
> >
> >These three posts are on the very bottom
> >of the threaded version of this NGG page.
>
>
> Of course, your example doesn't imply anything even remotely like you
> claim it does.

Of course, you are posting crap, but not from the usual orfice.

<snip GIGO by jillery>

> And even if your example implied what you say it does, it would still
> have nothing whatever to do with anything in this topic, this thread,
> or anything anybody wrote in it.

An obvious lie, feigning amnesia about the excerpt above being right
from this thread, and featuring three prominent participants on it.

<snip repetitive vulgar GIGO insult by jillery>

> Apparently you don't care that DIG put you and me on probation.

Does DIG know he did this? Because I sure do not. Documentation,
please.

> Apparently that's why you refuse to take this to email,

Pure GIGO.

> or stop
> ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter. Apparently you think being banned from T.O. is a small
> sacrifice in order to get me banned.

Pure GIGO redux. And pure hypocrisy for someone who can't seem
to resist getting the last word in.

> Apparently that's what you meant
> when you wrote about the wheels of justice.
>
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>

The following is a perfect duplicate of something I shot down
a few minutes ago on another thread, from one who is incapable of
seeing any irony in her use of "repetitive":

> The post to which I reply is just one of seven you posted today where
> you ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter. That's especially notable considering how you said I don't
> deserve replies from you. One can only hope you didn't neglect your
> obligations to your employer as well as your students in order to post
> them.

Here is where I shot down this perfectly repetitive paragraph of jillery's,
and a lot more besides:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/cj-H6pfuBAAJ
Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fc67202a-2535-4303...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 10:35:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> [wrote]:
>> >On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:04:20 AM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
>> >> On 10/12/16 7:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:44:32 PM UTC-4, David Iain Greig wrote:
>> >> >> On 2016-10-04, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you two like, cut it out or something. This is so 1990s.
>> >> >

>> >> >> Type out your next reply, admire it, then hit 'no' to 'Post?'
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --D. 'seriously'

><snip idiocy by jillery>

<snip idiocy by rockhead, in a futile effort to get him to focus>

You never learn.

>> Apparently you don't care that DIG put you and me on probation.
>
>Does DIG know he did this? Because I sure do not. Documentation,
>please.

Documentaion preserved in the quoted text above. Unlike you and your
strange bedfellows, I brought the water to the horse. It's up to the
horse to drink, or once again to prove you're an ass.

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
> > comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
> > as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
> > to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
> > from having to endure all that I have endured.
>
> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?

Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 06:50:07 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:16:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 10/2/2016 8:14 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:

[snip]

> >>> ** well, I think it's correct, and that *makes* it correct for
> >>> everyone.
> >>>
> >
> >Rule #1: The boss is always right.
> >
> >Rule #2: If the boss is wrong, refer to Rule #1.
>
> That about sums it up. And it's ubiquitous throughout
> Usenet.

Indeed, the gods of usenet have decreed that it must be so.
Moderators cannot be replaced. Revolt is imposible.

If there are too many malcontents the only alternative
is to try to start a new group, usenet or otherwise,

Jan

[eridanus]

I must humbly say that I have not any idea what Kaplan could had said,
or Jillery had replayed to anything. But as a courtesy to you, I would
check on a few of the messages posted by Kaplan.

It took me a while to find it, for his nick was gkaplan.
Well I barely read this, for its nothing but light philosophic speculations
over things we barely have a knowledge. Then, I think are puerile disputes.

When I was young I was one day engaged in a dispute over something I could
not remember now. I was getting very tired with the dispute, till I had a
rare inspiration and asked, <What do you mean by this "XXX" word?>
The opponent said some shit that had not any relation with the meaning of
the word.

Basically, all the disputes I see here are related to the case we are
speculating with a subject we ignore closely 100%

Then we speak about those matters as they were perfectly understood or known.
The disputants look like they were all "doctors of whatever" and not a bunch
of ignorants that we are. What a pity.

And the worse of all is they are insulting each other for nothing.

Eri

[Robert Camp]

Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:19:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

Although I'd never encourage it, it may be that the best
result overall for all concerned would be his full
qualification ASAP. Just sayin'...
--

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Parkinson's Law applies.
When it no longer matters much the resistance
to a further increase in numbers dwindles,
and the formerly applicable requirements are waived.
No decent trial, no authentic miracles, etc.

So saints become cheap, and every fan club can have its own.
John-Paul II could have been canonised much sooner,
if he hadn't insisted on living on for too long,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:22:46 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
>> >>> comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
>> >>> as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
>> >>> to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
>> >>> from having to endure all that I have endured.
>> >>
>> >> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
>> >
>> > Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
>>
>> Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
>> talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
>> cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
>> contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.
>
>Parkinson's Law applies.

"Saints multiply to fill the universe"? Sounds like prizes
in gradeschool competitions; everyone gets one.

But I'd say that the Peter Principle (no relation to Nyikos,
but the coincidence is amusing) is a better comparative
descriptor for most of the posts here, even though t.o isn't
a hierarchy.

>When it no longer matters much the resistance
>to a further increase in numbers dwindles,
>and the formerly applicable requirements are waived.
>No decent trial, no authentic miracles, etc.
>
>So saints become cheap, and every fan club can have its own.
>John-Paul II could have been canonised much sooner,
>if he hadn't insisted on living on for too long,

[Peter Nyikos]

What is the real point of this sarcasm? That you were fair and I was
unfair in exchanges like the one I've reposted below?

I am convinced the reverse is true, and I think any rational
person (including yourself, if you are rational) who looks into
the matter will agree with me, even if they wouldn't dream
of voicing that agreement in public.

_______________________repost begins here__________________________

Piggybacking after my first attempt to post a reply to Camp failed.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:09:11 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 3/2/16 11:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:04:12 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:44:13 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> <...>
> >
> > [restoration]
> >>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:09:15 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> >>>> This post is a perfect illustration of why you're no fun anymore.
> >
> > [end of restoration]
> >
> >
> >>> Yeah, it must have been great fun pretending not to understand what I had
> >>> written, all through one thread late last year, and many times in
> >>> most of the other threads in which we've encountered each other.
> >>
> >> Believe me, no pretense was necessary. And it still isn't.
> >
> > I don't believe you.
>
> (I'll ask a question, make some observations, then depart. Do with it
> what you will.)
>
> Have you ever noticed how often you infer deception and pretense on the
> part of others?

Only a few select people, of whom Erik is one, who have a
proven track record of deception and pretense.

The worst such people are jillery, Ron O, and Ray Martinez, although
Mark Isaak is not all that far behind. Sneaky O. Possum (S.O.P.) is a
separate case: he has accused me of one of the unforgivable sins in a
left-learning [on the whole] forum such as this one: hatred of gays.
I am boycotting him until he either retracts the charge or posts
something I wrote that could plausibly lead a rational person to suspect
such a heinous charge.

Despite that, if S.O.P. were to say he doesn't understand
something I wrote, and someone were to leave his words intact
in a reply to him, I would explain it, because he doesn't have
the 2+ year track record of being essentially a one-trick pony
of saying I am being unclear and then essentially never giving
me feedback when I do try to explain what I meant.


> When someone says they don't understand you, or they
> don't think you have a sense of humor, or suggests you are being
> excessively suspicious - or even when someone expresses a modicum of
> sympathy - you invariably accuse them of having ulterior motives, or
> just making it all up.

Where do you get such sweeping generalizations as as "someone" (implying
"each and everyone") and "invariably"? Unless you spent
all your free time following my posts, you couldn't begin
to support such a statement -- but then, you would also see
how false it is in each and every detail.

I defy you to find even ONE person besides Erik and John Harshman
to whom I've said nasty things as a result of them claiming to
have trouble with understanding something I say.

Here is the "exception that proves the rule": when Richard Norman
got carried away in a thread where Erik was hitting me again and
again and again with the charge of being unclear, I did politely point
out to Richard that he wasn't giving me feedback on my explanations,
but he quickly backed off and we had a pleasant conversation
after that. Contrast that with Erik's behavior (described in
more detail below).

"modicum of sympathy" -- are you referring to a poison-pen
"defense" of me by John Stockwell back around 1998 in which
he essentially accused me of not being able to help myself,
and so in effect accused me of being mentally ill? Because
that's the only "modicum of sympathy" about which I can recall
taking umbrage...

...except for when you did it: you kept claiming
I needed to get help. "Seriously." And you claimed to be worried
about my state of mental health. But that was because I was
accusing people of being dishonest and hypocritical, wasn't it?

Are you so hopelessly naive that you think everyone in this
newsgroup never does anything dishonest or hypocritical?
I don't think so.

> I know you don't want to believe these things about yourself, nobody
> does. But I assure you that I (and I suspect many others) am not lying
> when I say you are unclear, or paranoid, or have a deficient sense of
> humor. I really believe these things, I'm not saying them to defame you.

How about explaining your charge that I am in need of psychiatric help
instead of harping on these trivial actions?

You could go on telling me I am unclear a dozen times each month
for several months, and unless you adamantly refuse to give me feedback
on my answers, I will not treat you the way I am treating Erik here.

"and I suspect many others" -- you have no idea of what
has gone on between me and Erik these last two years. Time and
again I was on the verge of accusing him of insincerity,
and time and again I decided to give him another chance.

Matters finally came to a head just before I went on my
Christmas break, and since I returned, he has not shown
any sign of reforming -- in fact, he has displayed an
arrogance towards me which was completely lacking before this
January. Take a look at the last half dozen posts by him and
me on the "Hiatus" thread, and see how he adamantly refused
to give me feedback even after I had bent over backwards.
And that isn't the half of it.

> I offer these comments because (yes, I'm aware you will not believe me)
> I think you have something to contribute and wish you could get past
> those other problems. Accepting that they might be true would be a good
> first step.

Erik is one of those other problems. If he were to disappear from
talk.origins, I would be able to get past that one, no problem.

Erik's main role, in his interactions with me at any rate, has been to
reinforce John Harshman in some of John's worst traits -- traits that
Erik may actually have picked up as a result of using John as a role model.
Unfortunately, he has picked up precious little of John's good traits,
which may have a chance to blossom out once Erik is gone.

Peter Nyikos

========================== end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/k44KWqcmIAAJ
Message-ID: <649a5653-98a6-45f5...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Cambrian and Paleocene Explosions
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:46:10 -0800 (PST)

The post to which this was a reply was the only post you
ever did to that thread. Others were not so prudent as you were.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

>Only a few select people, of whom Erik is one, who have a
>proven track record of deception and pretense.
>
>The worst such people are jillery,

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
you think Jillery showed deception and pretense. Failing that, you
only show how you continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant

spew from your puckered sphincter.

[rsNorman]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Just out of idle curiosity I wonder how you came to know that his
sphincter is puckered.


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jillery]

An irony here is that, despite your snark about rockhead's
self-promotion, you make no mention of his perpetual stalking of other
posters, or suggest that he cease and desist his abusive behavior in
T.O. One can only wonder why that is.

[jillery]

Of course, I don't know with certainty that his sphincter is puckered,
or even that he has a sphincter, puckered or otherwise. OTOH my
experience supports a working assumption that he does and it is.

I stipulate my experience is not exhaustive, and there may be
exceptions. If rockhead were to challenge said description, which is
something that is typical for him to do, and provided evidence that
said description is incorrect, which is something that is not typical
for him to do, then I would happily retract said description and
immediately refrain going forward from applying said description to
his sphincter. That seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:19:01 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
> >>
> >> Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
> >
> >Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
> >talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
> >cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
> >contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.

> Although I'd never encourage it, it may be that the best
> result overall for all concerned would be his full
> qualification ASAP. Just sayin'...

If you look near the end of what I reposted in reply to Robert
Camp's post [the same post to which you are replying here]
you will see me saying that one of my problems would be
solved if Erik Simpson were to leave talk.origins permanently.

Back in March, when that included post was done, Hemidactylus
said,

That has to be one of the most hateful things I've seen
posted here recently.
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/J-suLXkqIAAJ

I'll have to remind Hemi of this and ask him whether he feels the
same way about your comment "....ASAP." I believe he won't answer that
question directly.

Do you share that belief?

I leave it up to readers to guess why I suspect YOU won't answer
THIS question directly.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:22:37 -0400 (EDT), rsNorman
> <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> >> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
> >>
> >> <snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>
> >>
> >>>Only a few select people, of whom Erik is one, who have a
> >>>proven track record of deception and pretense.
> >>>
> >>>The worst such people are jillery,
> >>
> >>
> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
> >> you think Jillery showed deception and pretense. Failing that, you
> >> only show how you continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant
> >> spew from your puckered sphincter.
> >>
> >
> >Just out of idle curiosity I wonder how you came to know that his
> > sphincter is puckered.
>
>
> Of course, I don't know with certainty that his sphincter is puckered,
> or even that he has a sphincter, puckered or otherwise. OTOH my
> experience supports a working assumption that he does and it is.

Right here would be a good place for you to display a post by me,
WITH NOTHING OMITTED, that shows that your experience
supports this, along with an explanation of why it supports this.

Note how I do not say "would have been" the way you keep doing.
[See example preserved above from an earlier post by you]
I'm not expecting you to do 1000+ line posts by documenting
everything you say on the spot.

I'm also not expecting you to follow my suggestion about displaying
a post by me, etc. That would be too much like being a responsible
adult.

By the way, if you STILL want me to do a repost showing
dishonesty and pretense by you, I'll be glad to comply.

> I stipulate my experience is not exhaustive, and there may be
> exceptions. If rockhead were to challenge said description,

All I'm challenging is your claim that your experience supports
said description. One post, with a rational explanation as to
why it supports it, will do for the nonce.

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

[Robert Camp]

On 10/17/16 6:28 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:19:01 -0700, Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
>>>>> comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
>>>>> as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
>>>>> to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
>>>>> from having to endure all that I have endured.
>>>>
>>>> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
>>>
>>> Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
>>
>> Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
>> talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
>> cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
>> contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.

<snip tantrum>

You really are determined to be the heads to Nyikos' tails, aren't you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:49:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:19:01 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
>> >>
>> >> Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
>> >
>> >Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
>> >talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
>> >cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
>> >contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.
>
>> Although I'd never encourage it, it may be that the best
>> result overall for all concerned would be his full
>> qualification ASAP. Just sayin'...
>
>If you look near the end of what I reposted in reply to Robert
>Camp's post [the same post to which you are replying here]
>you will see me saying that one of my problems would be
>solved if Erik Simpson were to leave talk.origins permanently.

Still unable to grasp any response which doesn't fully
address everything you posted, including in previous posts?
No wonder your posts seem to go on interminably...

>Back in March

Oy...

>, when that included post was done, Hemidactylus
>said,
>
> That has to be one of the most hateful things I've seen
> posted here recently.
> -- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/J-suLXkqIAAJ
>
>I'll have to remind Hemi of this and ask him whether he feels the
>same way about your comment "....ASAP." I believe he won't answer that
>question directly.
>
>Do you share that belief?
>
>I leave it up to readers to guess why I suspect YOU won't answer
>THIS question directly.

Do you get any damage when making those UFO-style turns at
speed?

[Peter Nyikos]

Non sequitur. You speculated that talk.origins may be better
off if I dropped dead ASAP. What is it about this that
I failed to grasp?

You either failed to grasp the significance of Hemidactylus
flaming the statement with which I am comparing this
"ungrasped" statement of yours, or else you don't give
a rat's ass about how Hemidactylus might react to seeing
these two things compared with each other.

I've left in the rest of what you posted. One of your
chief benefactors has recently labeled some things
by me as "contentless," but what you posted below
far outdoes them in "contentlessness."

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:16:08 -0700, Robert Camp

<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/17/16 6:28 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:19:01 -0700, Robert Camp
>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
>>>>>> comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
>>>>>> as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
>>>>>> to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
>>>>>> from having to endure all that I have endured.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
>>>
>>> Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
>>> talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
>>> cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
>>> contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.
>
><snip tantrum>

<the following is what Robert Camp claims is a tantrum>

>>An irony here is that, despite your snark about rockhead's
>>self-promotion, you make no mention of his perpetual stalking of other
>>posters, or suggest that he cease and desist his abusive behavior in
>>T.O. One can only wonder why that is.

<an irony is it's Camp's line below which better fits that label>

>You really are determined to be the heads to Nyikos' tails, aren't you?

As usual, Camp completely ignores his own advice to me, and instead
jump starts with a gratuitous and inane personal attack. It's as if
he designed his post to prove my point for me.

[jillery]

*************************************************


Per your demand, AOTA is unaltered by me or my computer. Perhaps
someday you will return the favor.

I am at a loss how to reply to the above without assuming you're a
recent emigre from another solar system, or a just activated
artificial intelligence, or some unfortunate person who spent most of
his life in a deep coma. In all honesty I can barely type as my hands
are busy with combinations of head scratches and face palms.

There is a truism: "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one."
It refers to a biological fact, that almost all humans share an
anatomical feature. Said feature is also ubiquitous among dogs and
cats, which are common household pets, which spend much of their time
focused on said feature.

It should go without saying that it would require extraordinary
circumstances for a functioning adult human to be as unaware of these
facts as your post above suggests you are.

[Peter Nyikos]

How typical of you to post such a patently insincere comment
while completely ignoring the last three words of the following
statement which I was asking you to support:

[repeated from above]

> > Of course, I don't know with certainty that his sphincter is puckered,
> > or even that he has a sphincter, puckered or otherwise. OTOH my
> > experience supports a working assumption that he does and it is.

"and it is" constitutes your childish attempt to answer Norman's
playful question. He wasn't asking about the "and he does"
bit, but that is all you are talking about below:

> There is a truism: "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one."
> It refers to a biological fact, that almost all humans share an
> anatomical feature. Said feature is also ubiquitous among dogs and
> cats, which are common household pets, which spend much of their time
> focused on said feature.

Tell that to the smart alec who claimed that humans have lots of sphincters
and that I shouldn't fixate on one of them when talking about
Ron O's hateful "and there is nothing left but a twitching sphincter"
which Ron O wrote numerous times while flaming me.

> It should go without saying that it would require extraordinary
> circumstances for a functioning adult human to be as unaware of these
> facts as your post above suggests you are.

Epic fail at supporting your "opinion" [earlier written as an outright
claim] that the evidence shows that my sphincter is puckered, and
at explaining rationally why the post you are displaying provides
evidence.

Of course, that claim/opinion was a total farce, as is everything
you posted in reply to Norman and everything you've posted
this time in reply to me.

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

PS I see you aren't telling me whether you STILL want that
evidence about you being deceitful, etc. Is that because you
remembered how I provided just that in reply to essentially
the same challenge on another thread? Here is where I
did that:

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

>How typical of you to post such a patently insincere comment
>while completely ignoring the last three words of the following
>statement which I was asking you to support:

How typical of you to demand that I leave your post untouched, which I
did, only for you to mutilate my reply beyond coherence, while at the
same time you continue to pretend you can read minds.

My experience is that all the examples I identified are inarguably
puckered. If you disagree that description doesn't apply to you and
yours, then right here would have been a good place for you to post
evidence that it's not, along with an explanation of how its condition
alters the fact that you continue to ejaculate your repetitive
irrelevant spew from it, puckered or otherwise.

And WITH MY REPLY ABOVE UNALTERED.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:22:46 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/16 4:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Sorry, I know how much it must pain you that your well-intentioned
> >> >>> comment of almost six years ago was so ineptly handled by myself,
> >> >>> as to bring things to this sad pass. But now that things have come
> >> >>> to this, I hope I can at least prevent George and others like him
> >> >>> from having to endure all that I have endured.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it too soon to talk about canonization?
> >> >
> >> > Of course. The first requirement for that is dropping dead,
> >>
> >> Well yes, for the actual process to go forward. But weren't people
> >> talking about it for Mother Teresa before she passed on? It seems some
> >> cases are thought to be extraordinary enough to be considered
> >> contemporaneously. Surely Nyikos qualifies.
> >
> >Parkinson's Law applies.
>
> "Saints multiply to fill the universe"? Sounds like prizes
> in gradeschool competitions; everyone gets one.

That's about it. Long ago saints were rare and precious.
If you had a good one the pelgrims would flock in
to bury his tomb in gold.
So saints multiplied. And as noted by Parkinson,
once expansion has passed the point where it no longer matters much
the resistance to further expansion mostly disappears.

Jan

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:55:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> <snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

That "focus" is dishonestly and flagrantly self serving.

You snipped the histrionic idiocy of yours which
elicited the following statement by me. In hindsight,
this idiocy was a perfect example of the dirty
debating tactic that I call "Running the Jolly Roger up a
Flagpole to See If Anyone Will Salute it."

Description on request.

> >How typical of you to post such a patently insincere comment
> >while completely ignoring the last three words of the following
> >statement which I was asking you to support:

Of course, all hint of what those last three words were
about was snipped by you, "for focus."

> How typical of you to demand that I leave your post untouched,

How typical of you to pretend that the post I was asking you
to display was the very one where I made the challenge.

A much more logical choice would have been a post
that had already been posted when you made the claim
which you have also snipped "for focus". That claim was made to
Richard Norman, but you also snipped all hint of that,
"for focus."

The choice you made failed miserably to support that
claim, and so it was doubly illogical.

> which I
> did, only for you to mutilate my reply beyond coherence,

"mutilate my reply beyond coherence" is an example of another
claim which I don't expect you to try and show, because it
has no basis in reality.

> while at the
> same time you continue to pretend you can read minds.

An alleged pretense that you also snipped "for focus," eh?

> My experience is that all the examples I identified are inarguably
> puckered.

Take the matter up with Richard Norman, to whom you made the
claim in reply to his question. Be sure to define the word
"puckered" the way you've used it in the above sentence,
and to explain how the "examples" which you are talking about
meet the criteria, and how they are supposed to transfer their
"puckering" to the sphincter you have in mind.

> If you disagree that description doesn't apply to you and
> yours, then right here would have been a good place for you to post
> evidence that it's not, along with an explanation of how its condition
> alters the fact that you continue to ejaculate your repetitive
> irrelevant spew from it, puckered or otherwise.
>
> And WITH MY REPLY ABOVE UNALTERED.

This farce of yours is either a clumsy attempt to shift the burden
of proof onto my shoulders, or else you are testing me to see how
seriously I take something that you obviously meant as a joke.

Your attack and counterattack against Robert Camp on this thread
make it especially hard to decide between these possibilities.
Maybe if you let me know what made you antagonistic
towards Robert Camp, it would be easier, but in any case,
I don't intend to spend much time wondering about these alternatives.

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[Grandbank]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:04:39 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:24:40 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos [wrote]:
> >
> > Picking up a bit before I left off in my first reply, beginning
> > with the url for a post about which jillery is busy rewriting
> > talk.origins history.
> >
> > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

> > > >Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?

> > > >Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >This must have touched a raw nerve in you, because you deleted ALL the text
> > > >in the post (the one I've linked just now) when you replied to it,
> > > >and shamelessly lied about what that text contained.
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's see who shamelessly lied here.
> >
> > "here" refers not to your reply to the above post, whose description
> > above you are not contesting, but rather to the post linked above.
> >
> > <snip of things dealt with in first reply>
> >
> > > Then you repeated your bald assertion there was nothing dishonest
> > > about George's replies.
> >
> > No, I said it for the first and IIRC only time (not counting reposts
> > of my statement). And you are leaving out the crucial fact that
> > my statement directly addressed a barrage of bald assertions
> > by you, never supported by you before or since:
> >
> > George posted a claim. It's up to him to back it up or not.
> > So far he has not, and in the meantime thrice offered
> > non sequiturs as alleged replies. But it's no surprise
> > that you support his dishonest evasions.
> >
> > Both this barrage and my reply appear in the linked post. My reply went:
> >
> > There is absolutely nothing dishonest about his replies, and you
> > of all people are ill equipped to try and prove otherwise.
> >
> > After all, you avoid calling Ray Martinez dishonest about ANYTHING,
> > even his blatat non sequitur about the Inquisitors. He falsely
> > alleged that the NT called the Inquisitors murderers and ran away
> > from the whole thread when you asked for evidence of that.
> > That's an example of REAL evasion.
> >
> > You have never tried to undermine what's in either of these
> > two paragraphs, have you? You've simply gone into a broken record
> > routine about how his actual answers were allegedly not answers at all.
> > You continue that routine below:
> >
> > > Of course, you made no effort to back up your
> > > claim, or George's, but instead ignored the fact that he had thrice
> > > posted lame excuses for not backing up his claim.
> >
> > Let's see you document those alleged "excuses."
> >
> > > BTW he *still*
> > > hasn't backed it up.
> >
> > There is no need for him to back up the claim at the juncture
> > where the back-and-forth between you now stands.
> >
> > It stands with your highly speculative implication that
> > some (purely speculative, and perhaps unique to your imagination)
> > RNA-based protocells reproduced with enough fidelity to become
> > actual *biological* *evolutionary* ancestors of "life as we know it."
> >
> > And the reason there is no need for him to do that is that I had
> > described this scenario and pronounced it "highly speculative" in
> > a direct reply to George himself, well before your agenda-driven
> > barrage of accusations.
> >
> > And you saw that post, and replied to it, deleting the whole statement
> > from your reply -- ALSO before the barrage that I've reposted above.
> >
> > > Then, for reasons known only to you, you ejaculated something about
> > > Ray Martinez and how I avoid calling him dishonest.
> >
> > Come off it. You are far too skilled a propagandist to
> > miss how the first of my offset paragraphs above segues
> > seamlessly into the second. Nor how a third, one line paragraph,
> > coming immediately after the second, summarized ALL the
> > offset paragraphs above, including yours:
> >
> > Hypocrisy, thy name is jillery.
> >
> > And immediately after that came a fourth paragraph, to which
> > your bedfellow-wannabe Oxyaena played Pee Wee Herman:
> >
> > And I've given the probable reason for that staggering
> > inconsistency a number of times. Repetition on request.
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
> > [the above is a more user-friendly link to the same post linked
> > at the beginning of this one]
> >
> > Meanwhile I thought of a number of other reasons, but they are
> > far less likely.
> >
> > > Of course, that's
> > > the very opposite of reality,
> >
> > You've avoided accusing Ray of dishonesty every single time I brought
> > up the issue, in the replies I've seen. Let's see you give even
> > ONE example where you accused him of lying.
> >
> > > but that never stopped you from posting
> > > your baseless assertions.
> > >
> > > Then you posted a bald assertion that you repeatedly explained this
> > > "staggering inconsistancy" of mine,
> >
> > Cunning equivocation "explained" noted. My "bald assertion" is what
> > I wrote above, but you avoided quoting it, because it would have
> > made the following into a non sequitur:
> >
> > > which is a neat trick since you
> > > haven't shown that the inconsistancy even exists.
> >
> > Nice to see that you are such a one-dimensional polemicist that
> > you pretend that the inconsistency isn't apparent from the way
> > you accuse people like George Kaplan of dishonesty at the drop
> > of a hat, while spurning all opportunities for labeling Martinez's
> > behavior wrt that NT allegation "dishonest". You essentially kept
> > telling me that this was none of my business every time I brought the
> > NT incident to your attention.
> >
> > Continued in next reply to this post.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Peter, Jillery does have some sensitivity to the truth. When I pointed out to her that the Lenski experiment took more than 1000 generations per beneficial mutation, she acknowledged it but she does not acknowledge the impact of this on evolutionism. And when I pointed out that Edward Tatum wrote about the multiplication rule of probabilities and its impact on rmns more than half a century ago she acknowledged this as well but then claims that Tatum did not say the theory of evolution was not possible again ignoring the impact of this fact on evolutionism. Evolutionism is a faith based system whose adherents are not interested in any mathematical scientific facts that contradict their faith based belief system no matter how much harm it does to people.

Hey great! Now there's a quorum for a full fledged asshole convention!

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT), the following

That it was intended as a joke, perhaps? You do seem to have
an inherent problem with humor, especially regarding any
subject in which you have a significant emotional
investment. Not that you're unique in that; every sports fan
and religious fanatic (if there's a difference) has the same
sort of issue.

>You either failed to grasp the significance of Hemidactylus
>flaming the statement with which I am comparing this
>"ungrasped" statement of yours, or else you don't give
>a rat's ass about how Hemidactylus might react to seeing
>these two things compared with each other.

Sorry, but you've lost me there; Hemi made no posts I've
seen in this thread. *You* made a reference to something he
posted which apparently got your knickers in a twist, but
since I suspect I'd disagree with your evaluation (as I
disagree with most evaluations you make of others) I
couldn't be bothered to take the time to read it. Sorry
'bout that, but what you reap is strongly dependent on what
you sow...

>I've left in the rest of what you posted. One of your
>chief benefactors

Oooh! "Benefactors", yet! I feel so humble. And grateful.
And rather nauseated...

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>


>That "focus" is dishonestly and flagrantly self serving.

Since you continue to fail to focus, you only prove my point for me.

>> My experience is that all the examples I identified are inarguably
>> puckered.
>
>Take the matter up with Richard Norman, to whom you made the
>claim in reply to his question.

I reject your standing to act as proxy for rnorman. He is more than
capable of speaking for himself.

>> If you disagree that description doesn't apply to you and
>> yours, then right here would have been a good place for you to post
>> evidence that it's not, along with an explanation of how its condition
>> alters the fact that you continue to ejaculate your repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from it, puckered or otherwise.
>>
>> And WITH MY REPLY ABOVE UNALTERED.
>
>This farce of yours is either a clumsy attempt to shift the burden
>of proof onto my shoulders, or else you are testing me to see how
>seriously I take something that you obviously meant as a joke.

This farce of yours is just another example where you continue to
ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter. That you failed to respond in the way that you demanded of
me, and I followed, puts the lie to your pretensions.

>Your attack and counterattack against Robert Camp on this thread
>make it especially hard to decide between these possibilities.

My response to Robert Camp's baseless assertions notwithstanding, I
reject your standing to act as proxy for Robert Camp. He is more than
capable of speaking for himself.


>HLVB.
>
>Peter Nyikos


I can only hope that's the case. However, a more appropriate
Terminator quote for you would be "I'll be back".

With that in mind, I have started a betting pool for how long it takes
you to continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter.

[Peter Nyikos]

No, because you carefully qualified it by saying you did
not wish it on me.

And your waffling with a question mark further strengthens
the suspicion that you DO think talk.origins would be
better off if I left it permanently, ASAP. It's just that
you don't wish it happen with me dropping dead.

> You do seem to have
> an inherent problem with humor, especially regarding any
> subject in which you have a significant emotional
> investment.

That kind of talk is cheap. Let's see you back it up by
saying, flat out, that you do NOT think talk.origins would
be better off if I quit permanently, ASAP.

Because, you know, I will never leave off attacking dishonesty,
insincerity, and hypocrisy. Most people here only attack
rudeness and bigotry, which don't come under any of those three categories.

So don't try to wiggle out of this challenge by saying t.o. would
be better off if I were to "stop being so rude" and instead
went along to get along. It ain't gonna happen.

> Not that you're unique in that; every sports fan
> and religious fanatic (if there's a difference) has the same
> sort of issue.

As do lots of other people here, including Harshman, the number
one promoter of the canard that I lack a sense of humor. He has
NO sense of humor when the joke is on him.

> >You either failed to grasp the significance of Hemidactylus
> >flaming the statement with which I am comparing this
> >"ungrasped" statement of yours, or else you don't give
> >a rat's ass about how Hemidactylus might react to seeing
> >these two things compared with each other.
>
> Sorry, but you've lost me there; Hemi made no posts I've
> seen in this thread.

It happened on another thread, and I gave you the reference.

> *You* made a reference to something he
> posted which apparently got your knickers in a twist,

Nope. If you were to post for a decade in a newsgroup
where you are the dissident [you might try a newsgroup
on gun control where the majority is big on the 2nd Amendment]
you would soon learn to take mild crap like
Hemidactylus's comment in stride. You would only focus on how
bad it would make him look if only the majority of people
in the newsgroup didn't go along to get along with the
minority of fanatics who are openly hostile towards you.

> but since I suspect I'd disagree with your evaluation

I never made one until now, and it is up there in the preceding
paragraph.

> (as I
> disagree with most evaluations you make of others) I
> couldn't be bothered to take the time to read it.

The time to read a two-line evaluation of another two-liner
is too much for you to spare? Poor baby.

> Sorry
> 'bout that, but what you reap is strongly dependent on what
> you sow...

You'll never catch me complaining about how long it takes
me to read four lines of text, so you are being illogical.

> >I've left in the rest of what you posted. One of your
> >chief benefactors


> Oooh! "Benefactors", yet! I feel so humble. And grateful.
> And rather nauseated...

Harshman has been your benefactor at least once, going way out
on a limb for you at least once. He is the one to
whom I was referring:

> >has recently labeled some things
> >by me as "contentless," but what you posted below
> >far outdoes them in "contentlessness."

Now that you know who I was talking about, I'm sure you ARE
grateful to him, and that your "nauseated" comment was, in
hindsight, an unintended joke.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
> and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
> had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.

Of course you don't want to know the truth, which is that I
don't know UC, don't know UC's real name, have no idea what UC
looks like, and that having any kind of sexual liaison with UC
was and is and always will be the furthest thing from my mind.

That truth would have spoiled most of the fun you got, and
J.J. O'Shea got, from you insinuating some sort of sexual relationship
between UC and myself.

> Instead, I used an apt metaphor to describe your ingratiating flattery
> to UC and your repetition of several of your favorite adjectives to
> refer to me and my nym. So every time you refer to that particular
> post, I am reminded of your hate-filled hubris.

Right here would be a good place to post something to support your
allegation that I indulged in ingratiating flattery to UC.

Failing that, what I wrote about what elicited your insinuation
still stands:

This was because I agreed
with him that everyday usage of "ape," even among scientists,
does not include humans. And much later, I found out that the noted
anthropologist/paleontologist John Hawks has the same attitude.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>

Continued next week. Your propaganda post is so out of the ordinary
for you, that it deserves to be analyzed in an unhurried fashion.
Future historians might well look upon some such post like yours,
and a careful unmasking of it like the one I am doing of it,
as a teaching tool for all kinds of lessons as to what constitutes
skilled propaganda, and how to counteract it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>> I don't know UC or you personally. I don't know if you
>> and UC know each other personally. So I can't know that you and UC
>> had a homosexual affair. More to the point, I don't want to know.
>
>Of course you don't want to know the truth, which is that I
>don't know UC, don't know UC's real name, have no idea what UC
>looks like, and that having any kind of sexual liaison with UC
>was and is and always will be the furthest thing from my mind.

Of course, NOTA has anything to do with anything I wrote.

>That truth would have spoiled most of the fun you got, and
>J.J. O'Shea got, from you insinuating some sort of sexual relationship
>between UC and myself.
>
>> Instead, I used an apt metaphor to describe your ingratiating flattery
>> to UC and your repetition of several of your favorite adjectives to
>> refer to me and my nym. So every time you refer to that particular
>> post, I am reminded of your hate-filled hubris.
>
>Right here would be a good place to post something to support your
>allegation that I indulged in ingratiating flattery to UC.

If I do that, will you agree to stop referring to me?

>Failing that, what I wrote about what elicited your insinuation
>still stands:

The following has nothing whatever to do with your ingratiating
flattery to UC.

> This was because I agreed
> with him that everyday usage of "ape," even among scientists,
> does not include humans. And much later, I found out that the noted
> anthropologist/paleontologist John Hawks has the same attitude.
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ
>Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?
>Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <1be59265-f7a0-4565...@googlegroups.com>
>
>Continued next week. Your propaganda post is so out of the ordinary
>for you, that it deserves to be analyzed in an unhurried fashion.
> Future historians might well look upon some such post like yours,
>and a careful unmasking of it like the one I am doing of it,
>as a teaching tool for all kinds of lessons as to what constitutes
>skilled propaganda, and how to counteract it.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>University of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

Surely there are some students who better deserve all the time you
devote to posts to and about me. Perhaps your boss considers me a
safe outlet for you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:02:20 -0700 (PDT), the following

And that eliminates the possibility that it was a
joke...how?

>And your waffling with a question mark further strengthens
>the suspicion that you DO think talk.origins would be
>better off if I left it permanently, ASAP. It's just that
>you don't wish it happen with me dropping dead.

Don't be silly; your antics provide way too much comedy
relief for me to wish them ended.

>> You do seem to have
>> an inherent problem with humor, especially regarding any
>> subject in which you have a significant emotional
>> investment.
>
>That kind of talk is cheap. Let's see you back it up by
>saying, flat out, that you do NOT think talk.origins would
>be better off if I quit permanently, ASAP.

I believe I said that in the sentence I wrote just above.
So, done.

>Because, you know, I will never leave off attacking dishonesty,
>insincerity, and hypocrisy. Most people here only attack
>rudeness and bigotry, which don't come under any of those three categories.

As I said, comedy relief.

Yeah, my time is too valuable to me to waste any more of it
on you than I feel I must.

>> Sorry
>> 'bout that, but what you reap is strongly dependent on what
>> you sow...
>
>You'll never catch me complaining about how long it takes
>me to read four lines of text, so you are being illogical.

Whooooshhhh!

>> >I've left in the rest of what you posted. One of your
>> >chief benefactors
>
>
>> Oooh! "Benefactors", yet! I feel so humble. And grateful.
>> And rather nauseated...
>
>Harshman has been your benefactor at least once, going way out
>on a limb for you at least once. He is the one to
>whom I was referring:

Uh-huh...

>> >has recently labeled some things
>> >by me as "contentless," but what you posted below
>> >far outdoes them in "contentlessness."
>
>Now that you know who I was talking about, I'm sure you ARE
>grateful to him, and that your "nauseated" comment was, in
>hindsight, an unintended joke.

Nope, just one of my usual reactions to many of your
allegations.

[Peter Nyikos]

Piggybacking on an earlier Casanova post.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:02:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

> >> >Non sequitur. You speculated that talk.origins may be better
> >> >off if I dropped dead ASAP. What is it about this that
> >> >I failed to grasp?
> >>
> >> That it was intended as a joke, perhaps?
> >
> >No, because you carefully qualified it by saying you did
> >not wish it on me.
>
> And that eliminates the possibility that it was a
> joke...how?
>
> >And your waffling with a question mark further strengthens
> >the suspicion that you DO think talk.origins would be
> >better off if I left it permanently, ASAP. It's just that
> >you don't wish it happen with me dropping dead.
>
> Don't be silly; your antics provide way too much comedy
> relief for me to wish them ended.

I suppose, then, that you got lots of laughs, two days before
you posted this, from your feigned exasperation in the following
post:

____________________ whole post except for .sig______________

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:16:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

[Re: jillery]

> you claimed, once again, that the 69 in your e-mail
>address refers to the year you graduated.

How old are you? Grow up. Or get a life. Or ESAD. Your
choice.
==================== end of the essence
of
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/7GvjSuHhBgAJ

Subject: Re: Why cannot we see evolution happening today?

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:58:22 -0700
Message-ID: <0tii0clfmflchsg81...@4ax.com>

And I'm sure jillery was highly amused and appreciative of how
well you have caught on to her technique of snip-n-deceive.
Among your massive deletia was the following repost which shows
far more childish things from jillery than the object of your feigned
exasperation above:


_____________________repost__________________________
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:25:41 PM UTC-5, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/18/15 8:28 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:26:52 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:03:39 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/17/15 8:00 AM, jillery wrote:

> >>>> I had no idea minions enjoyed circle jerks.
> >>>
> >>> And look what comes to your mind unbidden. How long have you had this
> >>> problem of inappropriately sexualizing what you read?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Apparently for quite some time. Look at her listed email address.
> >
> >
> > I'll show you mine if you show me yours. But in fact, my listed email
> > address refers to the year of my graduation. Any sexualizing
> > inferences come from dirty-minded minions.

If jillery is telling the truth about her graduation year,
hers is truly a case of arrested development, full of smart-alecky,
irrational comebacks typical of the repartee of prepubescent "wise guys",
and others typical of kids who have just entered puberty, including
her oft-used retort "in your wet dreams" in response to something that
a more mature person would simply label "wishful thinking."


And so, it's a little late for her to pretend that she is just
an innocent clean-cut person and that it is others who are the
dirty-minded ones.


> C'mon, everybody knows that the University of the Sanjak of Drama didn't
> have a graduating class that year. And The Drama Department of the
> University of the Sanjak of Drama didn't institute its Oh-So-Dramatic
> Arts degree until 1972.

Neat comeback, far beyond what jillery's impoverished imagination
is capable of coming up with. Her retort, which came in a matter
of minutes, was typical of a middle school rotten sport:

"Give yourself an enema while you lie on your fainting sofa and get rid
of some of that shit you're full of."

Back in middle school this might have elicited cries of "score! score!"
and perhaps jillery is still basking in the memory of such long-ago
"triumphs."

Peter Nyikos
===================end of repost===========================

I'm sure both of you are highly amused at the impression your
snip-n-deceive will create in people who have killfiled me but
not you, such as Burkhard.

And I'm sure you both got lots of comic relief from the
cascade of mutual backscratching that you and jillery
indulged in after you did that snip-n-deceive mini-post.
First jillery showed her appreciation in direct
reply, then you replied, and so it went.


And now, back to the post to which I am actually replying here:

> >> You do seem to have
> >> an inherent problem with humor, especially regarding any
> >> subject in which you have a significant emotional
> >> investment.
> >
> >That kind of talk is cheap. Let's see you back it up by
> >saying, flat out, that you do NOT think talk.origins would
> >be better off if I quit permanently, ASAP.
>
> I believe I said that in the sentence I wrote just above.
> So, done.
>
> >Because, you know, I will never leave off attacking dishonesty,
> >insincerity, and hypocrisy. Most people here only attack
> >rudeness and bigotry, which don't come under any of those three categories.
>
> As I said, comedy relief.

Yes, dishonesty and insincerity and hypocrisy are just a source
of amusement to you, aren't they?

> >So don't try to wiggle out of this challenge by saying t.o. would
> >be better off if I were to "stop being so rude" and instead
> >went along to get along. It ain't gonna happen.

I've snipped the rest of what went on between us, for the sake
of brevity, but feel free to repost it in case you think your
flippancy is so clever, it deserves to be reposted.

Peter Nyikos