Boycott of Erik Simpson and `Oxyaena' ATTN: DIG

[Peter Nyikos]

Until now, I have never boycotted anyone for more than a month or two
in all my time with Usenet since 1992. And I believe I've only
boycotted two for any length of time since I returned to talk.origins
in December 2010.

That is changing as of now. For the rest of 2019, and perhaps well
beyond its end, I am boycotting Erik Simpson and "Oxyaena," formerly
posting as "Thrinaxodon" and banned by DIG under that moniker.


This action was precipitated by Erik repeatedly bringing trumped-up charges
of lying about something Oxyaena had written in sci.bio.paleontology.
s.b.p was where the trumped-up charges were also made, with Oxyaena
wholeheartedly supporting them with vicious attacks on me.

The last straw came when Oxyaena wrote:

Lying fucker, I should report you to your university, actually I will.
This has gone on *far* too long.

My restrained reply to this unprecedented statement, which went far
beyond a mere threat, can be seen here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/wjsVmGjrBgAJ
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fc89fcb0-94ea-4fa8...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups


This dispute spilled over into talk.origins before Erik made those
repeated charges of lying, and I will be writing about
that on another thread titled:

A Tale of Two Newsgroups: Interim Report


On this thread, I will document what went on in s.b.p. last week,
as well as spelling out exactly what I mean by "boycott" here.


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

[erik simpson]

Suits me. BTW, I've learned my lesson: when you put words inmy mouth, I'm
supposed to leave them there.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:03:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

DIG has repeatedly stated that if you want him to take
action you need to email him directly.

It seems to me that a "boycott" of individuals would be
better implemented through the use of a killfile, since
trumpeting about it here is essentially useless.

And thanks for the warning about your impending
"documentation", since I can either ignore it or killfile
the subject (probably the former, since it's remotely
possible that some response might be worth reading).
--

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, March 4, 2019 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:03:14 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >Until now, I have never boycotted anyone for more than a month or two
> >in all my time with Usenet since 1992. And I believe I've only
> >boycotted two for any length of time since I returned to talk.origins
> >in December 2010.
> >
> >That is changing as of now. For the rest of 2019, and perhaps well
> >beyond its end, I am boycotting Erik Simpson and "Oxyaena," formerly
> >posting as "Thrinaxodon" and banned by DIG under that moniker.

Below, I explain exactly what that boycott will be like.
Thanks for giving a good platform for explaining it, Bob.

> >This action was precipitated by Erik repeatedly bringing trumped-up charges
> >of lying about something Oxyaena had written in sci.bio.paleontology.
> >s.b.p was where the trumped-up charges were also made, with Oxyaena
> >wholeheartedly supporting them with vicious attacks on me.
> >
> >The last straw came when Oxyaena wrote:
> >
> > Lying fucker, I should report you to your university, actually I will.
> > This has gone on *far* too long.
> >
> >My restrained reply to this unprecedented statement, which went far
> >beyond a mere threat, can be seen here:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/wjsVmGjrBgAJ
> >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:41:40 -0800 (PST)
> >Message-ID: <fc89fcb0-94ea-4fa8...@googlegroups.com>
> >Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
> >
> >
> >This dispute spilled over into talk.origins before Erik made those
> >repeated charges of lying, and I will be writing about
> >that on another thread titled:
> >
> >A Tale of Two Newsgroups: Interim Report
> >
> >
> >On this thread, I will document what went on in s.b.p. last week,
> >as well as spelling out exactly what I mean by "boycott" here.
>
> DIG has repeatedly stated that if you want him to take
> action you need to email him directly.

The ATTN: DIG is only to inform DIG about what has gone on
in sci.bio.paleontology by two people who post very copiously
to talk.origins. Actions, if any, for DIG to take
in talk.origins are entirely up to him.

>
> It seems to me that a "boycott" of individuals would be
> better implemented through the use of a killfile,

The boycott is a *de facto* killfile, so to speak, with
exactly the same public effects, with one minor exception.

Exactly as with a killfile, I will not reply directly
to posts of either Erik or Oxyaena, EXCEPT to let people
know, when I deem it appropriate, that I am boycotting
them. This includes the statement that the post they are
reading is for this purpose, and this purpose only.

Exactly as with a killfile, this time with no exceptions,
I reserve the right to reply to posts in which
the words of Erik and/or Oxyaena appear, made by people
other than them, and to address any words
of these two blackguards in such posts.

> since
> trumpeting about it here is essentially useless.

From your POV, not mine.

> And thanks for the warning about your impending
> "documentation", since I can either ignore it or killfile
> the subject (probably the former, since it's remotely
> possible that some response might be worth reading).

Since both Erik and Oxyaena are in good with you,
such burying of your head in the sand is as predictable
as sunrise. It allows the three of you to continue blissfully
in a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship
while you set your conscience (assuming one exists) at ease about it.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I assume that what you're saying is that you reserve the right to tattle on me
(or anybody else) to all your friends. Well, duh. Don't you always do that
anyway? I am puzzled as to why you think DIG might give a damn, but your
"thinking" seems very disheveled lately.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I would have thought that the proper way to deal with being a 'Lying
fucker' would be _stop_ being a 'Lying fucker', but that appears to be
far to simple for Dr. Nyikos.

Please add me to the list of those boycotted.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is hypocritical, inasmuch as it was Erik who was putting
words into MY mouth in the first of three posts where he made
his trumped-up charges.

In fact, Erik did not quote anything by myself, himself, or
Oxyaena in that first post, instead filling it with distortions.
I made it clear how he was distorting the facts in my direct
reply to that post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/qXK11W5XBgAJ
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <cb7920b7-2115-49c2...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups

As if to mock me for pointing out the dearth of quotes,
Erik deleted everything both he and I wrote, in his "rebuttal,"
with the words
<snip distortions>
and then ONLY gave quotes, waving his hands at the end with
a completely mis-located repetition of the trumped-up charge.


I made many comments about the stand-alone quotes in my reply to that:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/VDd1mLPmBgAJ
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <17690395-313e-4c46...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups

Erik snipped everything in reply except my note that he wasn't
identifying the alleged lie. He very aggressively put it in
a completely different place than before, and repeated his
trumped up charge. I then made my last reply to Erik in
sci.bio.paleontology [where my boycott will be announced shortly]
noting *inter* *alia* that he was running away from my rebuttal to the
claim that it was a lie, which he had snipped:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/FCxZCzvvBgAJ
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fc8534ae-2da0-406b...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups


>

> I would have thought that the proper way to deal with being a 'Lying
> fucker' would be _stop_ being a 'Lying fucker',

Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
is noted.

However, I believe that you don't care the least
bit about whether Oxyaena was telling the truth or not.

> but that appears to be
> far to simple for Dr. Nyikos.

Your solidarity with Oxyaena and Simpson is noted here.

> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.

Why would I want to boycott a hapless pussycat like you?
It is Erik who should be calling himself after a leopard.


Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy
in Erik's words. OTOH a direct reply to him would not be
in keeping with the boycott.

You also gave me a fine lead-in to describe Erik's
despicable behavior, complete with links to where I exposed
Erik's mendacity.

I recommend that you read my rebuttals carefully. Perhaps
they will make you admire Erik so much, you won't be able to resist
cheering him on in any further trumped-up charges he makes
about me.

And that would suit me just fine. I leave it to you to guess why.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

What is it with those who suffer from anatomical deficiencies, that
they think bragging about not listening to others provides meaningful
compensation?


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

<mercy snip>

>> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.


Please add me to the list of those boycotted.

In fact, this is such a great idea, you should add everybody to the
list of those boycotted.

An irony here is you could easily do all that you say you want to do
by using a real news reader. But as long as you stick with
GurgleGoop, you have to rely on your self-discipline and self-control.
Good luck with that. Given that you already replied to Erik Simpson
several times since your OP, you show those attributes have already
surrendered to your compulsions.

[erik simpson]

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

*****

So quoting you is putting words im your mouth? Amazing! And you rebutted your
quote? Even more amazing!

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:18:31 -0800 (PST), the following

IIRC DIG has commented that he doesn't usually read posts in
the group, so your attempt to "inform" him is almost
certainly a fruitless effort. OTOH, if that is a way of
taunting the objects of your dislike while *seeming* to
"inform" DIG, go for it.

>> It seems to me that a "boycott" of individuals would be
>> better implemented through the use of a killfile,
>
>The boycott is a *de facto* killfile, so to speak, with
>exactly the same public effects, with one minor exception.
>
>Exactly as with a killfile, I will not reply directly
>to posts of either Erik or Oxyaena, EXCEPT to let people
>know, when I deem it appropriate, that I am boycotting
>them.

And you think that will cause them grief? It won't.

> This includes the statement that the post they are
>reading is for this purpose, and this purpose only.
>
>Exactly as with a killfile, this time with no exceptions,
>I reserve the right to reply to posts in which
>the words of Erik and/or Oxyaena appear, made by people
>other than them, and to address any words
>of these two blackguards in such posts.

Good for you.

>> since
>> trumpeting about it here is essentially useless.
>
>From your POV, not mine.

Precisely. And since it's my POV that determines my actions,
that is just as it should be. And I'd be willing to bet that
most of those here would agree with me.

>> And thanks for the warning about your impending
>> "documentation", since I can either ignore it or killfile
>> the subject (probably the former, since it's remotely
>> possible that some response might be worth reading).

>Since both Erik and Oxyaena are in good with you,
>such burying of your head in the sand is as predictable
>as sunrise. It allows the three of you to continue blissfully
>in a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship
>while you set your conscience (assuming one exists) at ease about it.

Your assertion that ignoring your self-serving rants is
"burying my head in the sand" is exactly what I've come to
expect from you, and one of the main reasons I usually
ignore you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following

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

<snip>

>Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>is noted.

Your implied ability to read the minds of others
(..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.

<snip>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:

Note the replacement of "Tigris" with the more appropriate
(for this thread, at least) "Pussycat."

>
> <mercy snip>

Merciful to "Oxyaena," that is. Also to Simpson and "Panthera."

>
> >> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.
>
>
> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.

Sorry, I must decline, for almost the opposite reason that
I declined the suggestion of "Pussycat": you are a real Tigris,
and not the river either.

In fact, you are the most dangerously dishonest regular in talk.origins.
Your only real competitor for that honor is John Harshman, now that
Paul Gans is a pale shadow of his former self.

Unlike Oxyaena and Erik, you have the potential to destroy talk.origins
as a medium of sincere exchange of ideas and information by people
of opposing viewpoints. Of course, this includes that between
creationists and non-creationists.

You need to be kept in check. That is why I spurned your self-serving
"compromise" offer to DIG. Remember?

In contrast to you, Erik and Oxyaena specialize in less dangerous forms
of dishonesty:

Erik is the most disingenuously dishonest regular in both talk.origins
and sci.bio.paleontology.

Oxyaena is the most ruthlessly dishonest regular in both talk.origins
and sci.bio.paleontology.

Oxyaena's ruthlessness is so over the top that she qualifies as
a loose cannon, and that greatly limits her dangerousness
in the sense which impacts talk.origins the most.


<snip unsolicited advice which would greatly enhance jillery's
dangerousness in that sense>

> An irony here is you could easily do all that you say you want to do
> by using a real news reader.

I can do all I want to do without one. In contrast, Oxyaena showed that
killfiling doesn't work for her because she has too little self-control.

When she killfiled me in s.b.p., Oxyaena couldn't resist checking
via NGG whether I was making disparaging remarks about her.
And then she couldn't resist attacking me in direct replies to me.
[Either by using NGG or temporarily un-killfiling me; I didn't bother to check.]

I, on the other hand, do have the requisite self-control to stick
to my boycott exactly as I described to Bob Casanova. It's only
when the trumped-up charges of Oxyaena or Simpson are left in
replies by someone as naive as Panthera Pussycat that they are
even WORTH dealing with.

> But as long as you stick with
> GurgleGoop, you have to rely on your self-discipline and self-control.
> Good luck with that.

It isn't a matter of luck. See above. And below.

> Given that you already replied to Erik Simpson
> several times since your OP,

You are either shamelessly equivocating with "replied," or else are
telling an out and out lie.

I replied to his words in ONE post as described above,
but that was in full conformity to how I described the boycott to Bob.

> you show those attributes have already surrendered to your compulsions.

There are those who would call this a lie. But I suppose you will wiggle out
of it by claiming that you never read my reply to Bob. But that
will mean that you "jumped into a thread you knew nothing about."

And, to see how you react to those things, ignorant jumping into
threads may rank as more despicable in your rudimentary code
of morality than out and out lies.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> <snip>

A Panthera-serving snip, that one. What Panthera wrote was:

I would have thought that the proper way to deal with being a 'Lying

fucker' would be _stop_ being a 'Lying fucker', but that appears to be

far to simple for Dr. Nyikos.

> >Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
> >is noted.

Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:

> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.

You've done something you've done again and again and again:
you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.

Note that Panthera isn't stating a belief that Oxyaena's words are true;
he is merely simulating one by talking as though he believed it.

> <snip>

You snipped the following:

However, I believe that you don't care the least
bit about whether Oxyaena was telling the truth or not.

Are you willing to go out on a limb and claim that "Panthera Tigris Altaica"
might have actually had the belief that he was simulating?

If so, you are doing him no favors, because you would suspect him to be
an extremely gullible person. It's one thing to say "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend," but quite another thing to say,
"I believe anything really negative that is said about the person I have
unilaterally decided to treat as my enemy."


HAND.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

I've been trying to get on a list like this for years. How do I sign up?

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 4:05:02 PM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> I've been trying to get on a list like this for years. How do I sign up?

If I could tell you, I would. For me, all it took was a silly argument over a
relatively trivial choice of words. At least, that's what I thought the
argument was about, obviously he thought it was a Very Big Deal. I'm a little
ashamed of taking part in it as long as I did. As I say, it was pretty silly.

Quoting Peter really seems to get his goat. Maybe you should try that.

[RonO]

Have you read the holy water repost? It does make him run for a few
months at a time, and it has been working for over 4 years. The only
thing wrong with it is that Nyikos keeps comming back to harass me and
lie about the past, so I have to keep putting up the repost every few
months.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:07:56 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:
>
>Note the replacement of "Tigris" with the more appropriate
>(for this thread, at least) "Pussycat."
>
>>
>> <mercy snip>
>
>Merciful to "Oxyaena," that is. Also to Simpson and "Panthera."

Once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about and are
proud of it.

>> >> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.
>>
>>
>> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.
>
>Sorry, I must decline, for almost the opposite reason that
>I declined the suggestion of "Pussycat": you are a real Tigris,
>and not the river either.
>
>In fact, you are the most dangerously dishonest regular in talk.origins.

Of course, you have never, and you almost certainly will never,
justify your Big Lie above, or any of your Big Lies you post in your
compulsive hate-filled vendetta against me. It's just more of your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>Your only real competitor for that honor is John Harshman, now that
>Paul Gans is a pale shadow of his former self.
>Unlike Oxyaena and Erik, you have the potential to destroy talk.origins
>as a medium of sincere exchange of ideas and information by people
>of opposing viewpoints. Of course, this includes that between
>creationists and non-creationists.

The posters who destroy T.O. are the ones who substitute substantive
responses with virtually endless irrelevant noise.

>You need to be kept in check. That is why I spurned your self-serving
>"compromise" offer to DIG. Remember?

You conveniently forgot it wasn't your offer to spurn. What a maroon.

>In contrast to you, Erik and Oxyaena specialize in less dangerous forms
>of dishonesty:
>
>Erik is the most disingenuously dishonest regular in both talk.origins
> and sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>Oxyaena is the most ruthlessly dishonest regular in both talk.origins
> and sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>Oxyaena's ruthlessness is so over the top that she qualifies as
>a loose cannon, and that greatly limits her dangerousness
>in the sense which impacts talk.origins the most.

But apparently Oxyaena's ruthlessness finally poked you where it hurt.
I am reconsidering contacting your employers.

><snip unsolicited advice which would greatly enhance jillery's
>dangerousness in that sense>

Thanks for the precedent. You never learn. What a maroon.

<snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter>

[Oxyaena]

On 3/4/2019 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip whining]

No surprise you'd be so petty as to try to invoke DIG, and it's no
surprise you'd be so hypocritical as to do the *exact* same thing you
criticized me for doing.

Grow up.

>
>
> On this thread, I will document what went on in s.b.p. last week,
> as well as spelling out exactly what I mean by "boycott" here.

Reposting of content you hate so much:


"On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 1:30:01 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
<snip distortions>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/JIJP-TOeGQAJ

<Peter>

The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
a professional geologist.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/s90yzwWfGQAJ

<Oxyaena>

No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
occurred by. Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
after his death.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/rReiJnClGQAJ

<erik simpson>

Exactly. The notion of granitic continents plowing their way through
basaltic
ocean basins IS absurd. The discovery of tectonic plates resoved the
difficulty.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/rh7h4rCqGQAJ

<Peter>

You are indulging in speculation here. I seriously doubt that this was
the MAIN reason he was called a crackpot. If it WAS, then the
mainstream geologists were ignoramuses where the wider world of
science was concerned.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/OOdtzFy0GQAJ

<Peter>

Now Oxyaena says, in effect, that Wegener WAS a crackpot for
a *scientific* reason that she attributes to professional geologists:

<Oxyaena>

>>>>> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
>>>>> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
>>>>> occurred by.

I thoroughly refuted this sophomoric notion of Oxyaena's under
the assumption that the geologists of the day knew that mechanisms
are not a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis being valid.

Of course, I also broached the possibility that the geologists of the
day were mostly ignorant about the basic things I pointed out
about Newton and gravity.

There's the lie, Peter. Weasel all you want about what your interjection of
"in effect" might mean, but Oxyaena (and myself) have repeatedly denied the
words you pulled out of thin air.

Subjective morality indeed."

Just in case anyone actually *believes* your distortions, no matter how
unlikely that may be.

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

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

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> I've been trying to get on a list like this for years. How do I sign up?

One way is to admit that you have ceased being a member of the Methodist
Church and that your main role while you were a member was to turn the Church
away from all rational arguments for the existence of God, especially
the modern ID arguments for which you keep demonstrating a maniacal hatred.

You see, Oxyaena makes no bones about being an atheist, and Erik Simpson
has never claimed to believe in a creator, the way you once did. So for
all their faults, they aren't secretive or deceptive when it comes to the most
fundamental issues of our existence.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:07:56 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:
> >
> >Note the replacement of "Tigris" with the more appropriate
> >(for this thread, at least) "Pussycat."
> >
> >>
> >> <mercy snip>
> >
> >Merciful to "Oxyaena," that is. Also to Simpson and "Panthera."
>
>
> Once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about and are
> proud of it.

Once again, you are projecting your ineptitude onto me. That is
evident in the exchange at the end of the post to which you
are replying, all of which you cravenly snipped:

_____________________________ repost _________________________

> Given that you already replied to Erik Simpson
> several times since your OP,

You are either shamelessly equivocating with "replied," or else are
telling an out and out lie.

I replied to his words in ONE post as described above,
but that was in full conformity to how I described the boycott to Bob.


> you show those attributes have already surrendered to your compulsions.

There are those who would call this a lie. But I suppose you will wiggle out
of it by claiming that you never read my reply to Bob. But that
will mean that you "jumped into a thread you knew nothing about."

And, to see how you react to those things, ignorant jumping into
threads may rank as more despicable in your rudimentary code
of morality than out and out lies.

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

>
> >> >> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please add me to the list of those boycotted.
> >
> >Sorry, I must decline, for almost the opposite reason that
> >I declined the suggestion of "Pussycat": you are a real Tigris,
> >and not the river either.
> >
> >In fact, you are the most dangerously dishonest regular in talk.origins.
>
>
> Of course, you have never, and you almost certainly will never,
> justify your Big Lie above,

Here too, you are projecting ("Big Lie"), as the repost above shows.


I can and will justify my sincere comments, if you show some interest
in my reasoning.

IIRC you have never shown any.


<snip ranting which is symptomatic of a MMIMUDCMWTF frame of mind>

> >Your only real competitor for that honor is John Harshman, now that
> >Paul Gans is a pale shadow of his former self.
> >Unlike Oxyaena and Erik, you have the potential to destroy talk.origins

> > Of course, this includes that between
> >creationists and non-creationists.
>
>
> The posters who destroy T.O.

Stop changing the subject; it is "as a medium of sincere exchange of

ideas and information by people of opposing viewpoints." Of course

you don't want to destroy it as a medium for trumped-up charges,
such as the ones you are condoning with your behavior here.

<snip the rest of your irrelevant digression>

>
>
> >You need to be kept in check. That is why I spurned your self-serving
> >"compromise" offer to DIG. Remember?
>
>
> You conveniently forgot it wasn't your offer to spurn.

OK, so DIG spurned your offer after I posted its obvious advantages
to you. The practical outcome is the same.

More importantly, your sickeningly self-serving offer to DIG
perfectly illustrates how dangerous you are to the
preservation of talk.origins as the kind of medium
for which I esteem it, as opposed to
the kind of medium you would be only too happy to see it become.


<snip imitation of Bugs Bunny by you>

>
>
> >In contrast to you, Erik and Oxyaena specialize in less dangerous forms
> >of dishonesty:
> >
> >Erik is the most disingenuously dishonest regular in both talk.origins
> > and sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> >Oxyaena is the most ruthlessly dishonest regular in both talk.origins
> > and sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> >Oxyaena's ruthlessness is so over the top that she qualifies as
> >a loose cannon, and that greatly limits her dangerousness
> >in the sense which impacts talk.origins the most.
>
>
> But apparently Oxyaena's ruthlessness finally poked you where it hurt.

I took it in my stride. You would know that if you had bothered to
follow the link I provided.

> I am reconsidering contacting your employers.

Are you channeling Oxyaena here?

>
> ><snip unsolicited advice which would greatly enhance jillery's
> >dangerousness in that sense>

<snip prepubescent-level idiocy by you with no basis in reality>


Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

My god dude. Get a life.

[Peter Nyikos]

You are giving yourself away by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil" wrt Oxyaena and Simpson, despite Oxyaena's need to "get a life"
in plain sight above.


You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.

This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
confessing to a fault he really DID have.

Anyway, you beat a hasty retreat when I told you that there were
only two diametrically opposite ways I could make sense out of
your comment:

1. Jillery is so much more popular than me that I am only making a
fool of myself by continuing to post negative things about her.

2. Jillery is so much less popular than me that I am making myself
look bad by wasting so much time on her.


Will you also beat a hasty retreat from your highly biased comment above?
Time will tell.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>
> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
>

> Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 3/6/2019 5:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip pathetic whining]

Get a life.

[Oxyaena]

On 3/6/2019 4:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> I've been trying to get on a list like this for years. How do I sign up?
>
> One way is to admit that you have ceased being a member of the Methodist
> Church and that your main role while you were a member was to turn the Church
> away from all rational arguments for the existence of God, especially
> the modern ID arguments for which you keep demonstrating a maniacal hatred.

PARANOIA ALERT!!! PARANOIA ALERT!!! PARANOIA ALERT!!!

>
> You see, Oxyaena makes no bones about being an atheist, and Erik Simpson
> has never claimed to believe in a creator, the way you once did. So for
> all their faults, they aren't secretive or deceptive when it comes to the most
> fundamental issues of our existence.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

[Oxyaena]

In the category of "Pinocchio Blues"

>
> I took it in my stride. You would know that if you had bothered to
> follow the link I provided.

[RonO]

Actually I still am a member and my wife doesn't teach Sunday school any
longer, but she is still one of the scout leaders for the church girl
scouts.

When are you going to stop lying about the past? What is weird is that
you are the one that removed all but one sentence of my religious
beliefs and lied about what I had written, and you have been lying ever
since. You are the IDiot that claims to be an agnostic that goes to
church regularly. I've never called you a liar, I only point out those
facts.

You have lied about so many things in the past years that you should be
ashamed of yourself for what you just wrote, but you are just a lying
assoholic and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Here is the REPOST again just to keep you in practice:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453


Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.
END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Jonathan]

On 3/4/2019 1:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> Exactly as with a killfile, this time with no exceptions,

There are three grand 'truths' to Internet conversations.

1) old people act younger
2) young people act older
3) he who states "you've been killfiled" will read
every single post of said offender without
exception.

Just to see if 'turning their back' on someone had
the intended effect.

The last time someone in real life actually turned
their back on me and walked off in disgust was
second grade, when a little girl took offense
to me squashing the string of ants she was
so lovingly admiring.

Still feel bad about to this day. She got me back
though, when time came to get up in front of class
and tell a story, guess what her story was about?

It was a helluva story, all about this wonderful
family of ants, she described their entire life
story, their tribulations and triumphs, grandants
and all.

Only to lower the boom in the last line about
their sudden and horrible deaths. I remember
it like it was yesterday, she had the decency
not to name me as the monster however.

But as she stomped away from the podium, just before
sitting down she changed her mind, went back and
hollered with all the indignation she could muster
the monster's name was Jonathan.

Glaring at me with eyes that could melt lead.

I've been a tree-hugger ever since.

True story!


s

[*Hemidactylus*]

Alas a genuine human interest story with no copy-pasting from abstruse
complexity screeds by jonathan the formicidal maniac. I’ve recently killed
some ants lingering on my kitchen floor, but vinegar seems to disrupt the
pheromone signaling.

[erik simpson]

Windex is also a good trail-breaker.

[Jonathan]

What would me mentor in all things nature, human
or otherwise, say about this thread? Let's see...



"It's such a little thing to weep
So short a thing to sigh
And yet by Trades the size of these
We men and women die!




"I had no time to Hate
Because
The Grave would hinder Me
And Life was not so Ample
I Could finish -- Enmity"





"This limitless Hyperbole
Each one of us shall be –
'Tis Drama – if Hypothesis
It be not Tragedy"





"These Strangers, in a foreign World,
Protection asked of me
Befriend them, lest Yourself in Heaven
Be found a Refugee"





"There is a word
Which bears a sword
Can pierce an armed man
It hurls its barbed syllables
And is mute again
But where it fell
The saved will tell
On patriotic day,
Some epauletted Brother
Gave his breath away.

Wherever runs the breathless sun
Wherever roams the day
There is its noiseless onset
There is its victory!

Behold the keenest marksman!
The most accomplished shot!
Time's sublimest target
Is a soul "forgot!"






s



















--

https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s

[Jonathan]

I wish I took a picture of this, a couple years ago
I spotted a 3 inch piece of dry spaghetti on the
kitchen floor, the ultra thin angel hair.

But it was moving, there were maybe 20 of those
tiny red ants and they were carrying the piece
of spaghetti away. But what was so amusing was
every single ant had that spaghetti on their
right shoulder, evenly spaced and marching
in complete lockstep.

It was quite a sight.



--

https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s

[*Hemidactylus*]

In my case it increased my well being to disengage from various folks for a
while. Probably had minimal effect on them from an operant conditioning
perspective. And why the implicitly crass penis size joke? Peter’s
announcing his boycott. I asserted my killfile. So what. It may help to
stop talking about the boycotted and move on from a personal well being
perspective.

BTW I did put you in time out several times for varying periods of time.

[*Hemidactylus*]

A killfile works better in that you don’t actually see the offending
posters anymore and it aids self-control and well being in that regard. It
may help at some point to not talk about them anymore and put them out of
your mind. Easier said than done. But disciplined disengagement has its
rewards. Think of opportunity costs. Every post venting steam could instead
be a stroll around campus, though Columbia may be too cold for that right
now.

[John Harshman]

I believe I've seen this sort of thing in high school girls, but not
previously anywhere else.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos

>> >Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>> >is noted.

>Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:

>> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
>> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.

>You've done something you've done again and again and again:
>you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.

No, you moron, I've simply noted that your characterization
of something as a "simulation of belief" implies that you
*know* that the belief is in fact simulated; IOW that you
can read his mind.

Ans I'm "aping" nothing; the implication of your assertion
is clear for anyone to see.

<snip more garbage>

[jillery]

The above is the kind of thing Nyikos the peter has spammed
practically since his return to T.O. There is nothing above worth a
first look, nevermind a double-take.

[jillery]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:09:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:

[...]

>> My god dude. Get a life.
>
>You are giving yourself away by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
>no evil" wrt Oxyaena and Simpson, despite Oxyaena's need to "get a life"
>in plain sight above.
>
>
>You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
>only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
>dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
>your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.

The above is just another example of you spewing your Big Lie, which
only shows your compulsive stupidity.

[jillery]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:49:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:07:56 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:
>> >
>> >Note the replacement of "Tigris" with the more appropriate
>> >(for this thread, at least) "Pussycat."
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <mercy snip>
>> >
>> >Merciful to "Oxyaena," that is. Also to Simpson and "Panthera."
>>
>>
>> Once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about and are
>> proud of it.
>
>Once again, you are projecting your ineptitude onto me.

I have no need. You show your ineptitude all by yourself in almost
every one of your posts.

> That is
>evident in the exchange at the end of the post to which you
>are replying, all of which you cravenly snipped:
>
>_____________________________ repost _________________________
>
>> Given that you already replied to Erik Simpson
>> several times since your OP,
>
>You are either shamelessly equivocating with "replied," or else are
>telling an out and out lie.
>
>I replied to his words in ONE post as described above,
>but that was in full conformity to how I described the boycott to Bob.

There are those who would call this a lie. But I suppose you will

wiggle out of it by claiming that your described boycott lets you
exercise your compulsions without actually living up to the spirit of
an actual boycott.

>> you show those attributes have already surrendered to your compulsions.
>
>There are those who would call this a lie. But I suppose you will wiggle out
>of it by claiming that you never read my reply to Bob. But that
>will mean that you "jumped into a thread you knew nothing about."
>
>And, to see how you react to those things, ignorant jumping into
>threads may rank as more despicable in your rudimentary code
>of morality than out and out lies.
>
>================== end of repost =============================

<snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spam from your puckered

[jillery]

There's no problem with a need to disengage, but that's not the point
I raised. In fact, people can disengage any time they feel like it,
with or without killfiles or boycotts. Instead, the point I raised is
bragging about it, which contributes nothing to said disengagement.
But if bragging about it contributes to your well-being, I would say
that's nothing to brag about, either.

>Probably had minimal effect on them from an operant conditioning
>perspective. And why the implicitly crass penis size joke? Peter’s
>announcing his boycott. I asserted my killfile. So what. It may help to
>stop talking about the boycotted and move on from a personal well being
>perspective.

Since you share Nyikos the peter's compulsive need to compensate for
some anatomical deficiency, it's no surprise that you don't see the
irony in bragging about it.

>BTW I did put you in time out several times for varying periods of time.

Yes, something you made a point of bragging about at the time, just as
Nyikos the peter does above. IMO this isn't something to brag about,
especially when your expressed reasons for said "put" shows your
stupidity and your hypocrisy:

<h6luvdpkvb5hmbe08...@4ax.com>
******************************************
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:59:19 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:06:24 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:48:09 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>><ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>>>And to think the previous time out period had ended.
>>>
>>>Archaic grammar flame. Penalty box. 17 days. Bye bye.
**********************************************

One can only wonder what kind of rationalization you use to shill for
Nyikos the peter while repeatedly bragging about your "need to
disengage" from me. You would do yourself and everybody else a big
favor and stop playing with your Penalty Box in public.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Still too soon? That it bothers you is not *my* problem.

[Peter Nyikos]

On the contrary: it is a substitute for a LACK of self-control.

You have jumped into a thread you know "nothing" about
[as jillery and others with whom you are in the good put it].

As I told jillery herself right on this thread:

_____________________excerpt _____________________________


In contrast, Oxyaena showed that
killfiling doesn't work for her because she has too little self-control.

When she killfiled me in s.b.p., Oxyaena couldn't resist checking
via NGG whether I was making disparaging remarks about her.
And then she couldn't resist attacking me in direct replies to me.
[Either by using NGG or temporarily un-killfiling me; I didn't bother to check.]

I, on the other hand, do have the requisite self-control to stick
to my boycott exactly as I described to Bob Casanova. It's only
when the trumped-up charges of Oxyaena or Simpson are left in
replies by someone as naive as Panthera Pussycat that they are
even WORTH dealing with.

========================== end of excerpt =====================

> and well being in that regard. It
> may help at some point to not talk about them anymore and put them out of
> your mind. Easier said than done.

They are intensely popular with a small group of people
who fasten themselves to me in thread after thread like leeches
(never all at once, but always at least two).

You used to fit that description, until you crossed a Rubicon
late last year. This is AFAIK only the second time you've
responded to me in 2019, perhaps because the "new" side of
the Rubicon is *terra* *incognita* to you, and all your
debating tricks were for the "old" side.

> But disciplined disengagement has its
> rewards.

To you, perhaps, and to the other "leeches" who include
Erik and Oxyaena. But I'm already reaping the benefits of
my policy vis a vis a killfile.

> Think of opportunity costs. Every post venting steam could instead
> be a stroll around campus, though Columbia may be too cold for that right
> now.

"venting steam" = thoroughly documenting what scoundrels certain
people are. Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology stand to benefit
from people being able to separate the lambs from the wolves.

You are one of those scoundrels, but if you limit yourself to
gratuitous advice like this, I will take you off that select
list after a while.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 2:20:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:09:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> My god dude. Get a life.
> >
> >You are giving yourself away by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
> >no evil" wrt Oxyaena and Simpson, despite Oxyaena's need to "get a life"
> >in plain sight above.

Naturally, jillery snipped Oxyaena's obscene (in more way than one)
ranting, and is making people guess below what the lie she alleges
is all about.

> >
> >You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
> >only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
> >dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
> >your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>
>
> The above is just another example of you spewing your Big Lie, which
> only shows your compulsive stupidity.

Everything I wrote in the last paragraph was true. But you snipped
the part where I suspected that Martin Harran was guilty of everything
you dishonestly made it look like he was confessing to.

I have seen enough deceitful behavior by Martin to make this credible.

Let me suggest that, next time, you try to document the guilt
of Martin (or of anyone else) fair and square.

So I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, and to not bring this subject
up again, if Sean never again tries to be so blatantly and hypocritically
biased against me.


Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

On 06/03/2019 21:14, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> One way is to admit that you have ceased being a member of the Methodist
> Church and that your main role while you were a member was to turn the Church
> away from all rational arguments for the existence of God, especially
> the modern ID arguments for which you keep demonstrating a maniacal hatred.

What I find weird is you suggesting that Christians ought to support the
Discovery Institute. It is not necessary to support the Discovery
Institute's objectives, not to condone their tactics, to be a Christian.
It's even weirder than a person claiming to be an atheist labelling
their propaganda as rational arguments for the existence of God.

>
> You see, Oxyaena makes no bones about being an atheist, and Erik Simpson
> has never claimed to believe in a creator, the way you once did. So for
> all their faults, they aren't secretive or deceptive when it comes to the most
> fundamental issues of our existence.

--
alias Ernest Major

[erik simpson]

Weird is as weird does. See most of the preceding posts, and try to imagine
the thinking behind them. Or better, don't.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 06/03/2019 21:14, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > One way is to admit that you have ceased being a member of the Methodist
> > Church and that your main role while you were a member was to turn the Church
> > away from all rational arguments for the existence of God, especially
> > the modern ID arguments for which you keep demonstrating a maniacal hatred.
>
> What I find weird is you suggesting that Christians ought to support the
> Discovery Institute.

Where do you get the idea that I ever suggested such a thing?

> It is not necessary to support the Discovery
> Institute's objectives, not to condone their tactics, to be a Christian.

"not to support" is worlds apart from having the maniacal hatred
for the Discovery Institute that Ron O manifests year in and year out.

> It's even weirder than a person claiming to be an atheist labelling
> their propaganda as rational arguments for the existence of God.

What person do you have in mind? I am an agnostic, and while
it would take a major miracle to convince me that God exists,
there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.

> > You see, Oxyaena makes no bones about being an atheist, and Erik Simpson
> > has never claimed to believe in a creator, the way you once did. So for
> > all their faults, they aren't secretive or deceptive when it comes to the most
> > fundamental issues of our existence.

Whereas Ron O is. He has repeatedly ducked the question of whether
he still believes in a creator. If you read his long rant in reply
to the same post to which you are replying, he has still avoided
the issue.

I have long suspected that his membership in the Methodist Church
is as a Trojan Horse, exactly as I laid it out above. Notice
how he ducked that issue too, talking only about the expendable
part of the condition I gave for boycotting him.

One thing is certain: everything I've ever seen from him
furthers the cause of atheism, even if unintentionally.
I have never seen him argue FOR the existence of God,
only AGAINST rational arguments for it.

I on the other hand have given a number of arguments
for the existence of God, especially in reply to Harshman;
but I will be the first to admit that they are inconclusive.
All they do for me is to give me something like a 10%
confidence that a creator/designer of our universe.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

at the original USC, Columbia SC
http://people.math.sc.edu

[Peter Nyikos]

Completely arbitrary use of the word "bragging" noted. Even a skilled
propagandist like you cannot rationally argue for it.

> >In my case it increased my well being to disengage from various folks for a
> >while.
>
>
> There's no problem with a need to disengage, but that's not the point
> I raised. In fact, people can disengage any time they feel like it,
> with or without killfiles or boycotts. Instead, the point I raised is
> bragging about it, which contributes nothing to said disengagement.

In sci.bio.paleontology, after having killfiled others in talk.origins,
Oxyaena trumpeted the alleged advantages of killfiling to Harshman and
urged him to killfile me too.

Would you like to praise your dear Oxyaena for the "modesty" she displayed
by these actions?

> But if bragging about it contributes to your well-being, I would say
> that's nothing to brag about, either.
>
>
> >Probably had minimal effect on them from an operant conditioning
> >perspective. And why the implicitly crass penis size joke?


Peter’s
> >announcing his boycott. I asserted my killfile. So what. It may help to
> >stop talking about the boycotted and move on from a personal well being
> >perspective.
>
>
> Since you share Nyikos the peter's compulsive need to compensate for
> some anatomical deficiency,

It was a deficiency in a very different part of her anatomy
that caused Oxyaena to write,

Lying fucker, I should report you to your university, actually I will.
This has gone on *far* too long.

> it's no surprise that you don't see the
> irony in bragging about it.

It's no surprise that you consider sexual deficiencies a worthy
subject to put up against deficiencies of the brain
that give rise to the libel and the reckless decision
spewed by your dear Oxyaena.

You don't even see the hypocrisy of you having told deadrat,
Richard Norman, and one other person that the dirtiness was
all in their mind when they talked about your obsession with sex
being behind the two 69's in your email address.
You are too blindly self-righteous to see that.

>
> >BTW I did put you in time out several times for varying periods of time.
>
>
> Yes, something you made a point of bragging about at the time, just as
> Nyikos the peter does above. IMO this isn't something to brag about,
> especially when your expressed reasons for said "put" shows your
> stupidity and your hypocrisy:
>
> <h6luvdpkvb5hmbe08...@4ax.com>
> ******************************************
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:59:19 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:06:24 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:48:09 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> >><ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>And to think the previous time out period had ended.
> >>>
> >>>Archaic grammar flame. Penalty box. 17 days. Bye bye.
> **********************************************
>
> One can only wonder what kind of rationalization you use to shill for
> Nyikos the peter

More of your puberty-level fascination with sex. But that's literally
kid stuff compared to the paranoia expressed by the words "shill for".

But even more than paranoia, there is gross hypocrisy behind them.
You cooperated avidly with Hemidactylus in jeering at one of
my "awards" for __________ of the month, a few years back.

Hemidactylus surely remembers this, and that's probably why
he didn't think your stupid "shill for" was worth taking notice of.

> while repeatedly bragging about your "need to
> disengage" from me.

The complete arbitrariness of the label "bragging" should be
obvious to everyone here, including yourself. You are the
quintessential polemical opportunist, flinging words around
just because they look good "on paper."

> You would do yourself and everybody else a big
> favor and stop playing with your Penalty Box in public.

But your beloved Oxyaena is doing everyone (especially Harshman)
a favor in your eyes every time she plays with hers, doesn't she?


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 3/7/19 7:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:

> there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.

Why not?

>
> I on the other hand have given a number of arguments
> for the existence of God, especially in reply to Harshman; > but I will be the first to admit that they are inconclusive.

That's putting it mildly.

> All they do for me is to give me something like a 10%
> confidence that a creator/designer of our universe.

I've always wondered how you manage to get such a precise probability,
even as precise as "something like".

[jillery]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:12:02 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

>>> perspective. And why the implicitly crass penis size joke? Peter?s

Based on your posts, it's always too soon.

>That it bothers you is not *my* problem.

Once again, you fail to comprehend. As with most people I know, lots
of things bother me, but I don't brag about it. Unless you have a gun
to your head, nobody forced you to read my posts or reply to them.
Those are *your* choices. Blaming me for your behavior only shows how
emotionally infantile you are.

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:03:47 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 06/03/2019 21:14, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> One way is to admit that you have ceased being a member of the Methodist
>> Church and that your main role while you were a member was to turn the Church
>> away from all rational arguments for the existence of God, especially
>> the modern ID arguments for which you keep demonstrating a maniacal hatred.
>
>What I find weird is you suggesting that Christians ought to support the
>Discovery Institute. It is not necessary to support the Discovery
>Institute's objectives, not to condone their tactics, to be a Christian.
>It's even weirder than a person claiming to be an atheist labelling
>their propaganda as rational arguments for the existence of God.

Seconded. IC shows the alleged Designer to be deceptive at best, and
incompetent at worst. Not sure how either of those characteristics
square with Christian beliefs.

>> You see, Oxyaena makes no bones about being an atheist, and Erik Simpson
>> has never claimed to believe in a creator, the way you once did. So for
>> all their faults, they aren't secretive or deceptive when it comes to the most
>> fundamental issues of our existence.

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


<snip your repetitive irrelevant spew>

>> > On this thread, I will document what went on in s.b.p. last week,
>> > as well as spelling out exactly what I mean by "boycott" here.
>> >
>> A killfile works better in that you don't actually see the offending
>> posters anymore and it aids self-control
>
>On the contrary: it is a substitute for a LACK of self-control.

On the contrary, you're both wrong. Killfiles are aids to
self-control, but they don't usually prevent users from seeing the
offending comments, since non-killfiled posters often reply to
killfiled posters, a point which I know both you and hemidactylus are
aware.

<snip more of your repetitive irrelevant spew>

>"venting steam" = thoroughly documenting what scoundrels certain
>people are. Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology stand to benefit
>from people being able to separate the lambs from the wolves.

Your inability to recognize yourself remains one of your many
fundamental flaws.

>You are one of those scoundrels, but if you limit yourself to
>gratuitous advice like this, I will take you off that select
>list after a while.

I suppose you think that should help Hemidactylus sleep better.

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 19:57:07 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

Of course, even a skilled liar like you cannot rationally argue
against it.

>> >In my case it increased my well being to disengage from various folks for a
>> >while.
>>
>>
>> There's no problem with a need to disengage, but that's not the point
>> I raised. In fact, people can disengage any time they feel like it,
>> with or without killfiles or boycotts. Instead, the point I raised is
>> bragging about it, which contributes nothing to said disengagement.
>
>
>In sci.bio.paleontology, after having killfiled others in talk.origins,
>Oxyaena trumpeted the alleged advantages of killfiling to Harshman and
>urged him to killfile me too.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>Would you like to praise your dear Oxyaena for the "modesty" she displayed
>by these actions?

Since you asked, I have no need of that hypothesis. You're welcome.

<snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter>

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:50:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 2:20:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:09:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> My god dude. Get a life.
>> >
>> >You are giving yourself away by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
>> >no evil" wrt Oxyaena and Simpson, despite Oxyaena's need to "get a life"
>> >in plain sight above.
>
>Naturally, jillery snipped Oxyaena's obscene (in more way than one)
>ranting, and is making people guess below what the lie she alleges
>is all about.

Naturally, jillery snipped what wasn't relevant to jillery's point,
which would otherwise be obfuscated by your repetitive irrelevant
spew.

>> >You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
>> >only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
>> >dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
>> >your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>>
>>
>> The above is just another example of you spewing your Big Lie, which
>> only shows your compulsive stupidity.
>
>Everything I wrote in the last paragraph was true.

Not even remotely true. Worse, you never even tried to show your Big
Lie was true, but instead merely spammed your Big Lie over and over,
across multiple topics, just as you do here. That's what you do. You
can't help yourself.

>But you snipped
>the part where I suspected that Martin Harran was guilty of everything
>you dishonestly made it look like he was confessing to.

Jillery snipped what wasn't relevant to jillery's point, which would
otherwise be obfuscated by your repetitive irrelevant spew.

>I have seen enough deceitful behavior by Martin to make this credible.
>
>Let me suggest that, next time, you try to document the guilt
>of Martin (or of anyone else) fair and square.

Chez wattt? So *now* you say my "massively,dishonestly trying to
cover up a dishonest action" was that I didn't document in a way you
found acceptable, what you think Harran was guilty of, even though you
agree he was guilty of what you claim I was trying to prove. That
doesn't remotely square with your creation of the topic: "Jillery's
Forgery and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up" and what you posted in it,
as well as your multiple repetitions of your Big Lie across multiple
topics.

>So I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, and to not bring this subject
>up again, if Sean never again tries to be so blatantly and hypocritically
>biased against me.

Let's see how long it takes before you post this Big Lie again, with
or without Sean's "bias".

[*Hemidactylus*]

Priceless irony coming from someone reduced to making implied penis size
references. Has Dr Freud analyzed your puckered sphincter fixation? Which
stage of childhood development are you presently exhibiting?

[jillery]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2019 04:43:53 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

So you have problems with anatomical metaphors. To quote someone whom
you regard so highly "That it bothers you is not *my* problem."

[Peter Nyikos]

Casanova continues to demonstrate his perennial, flagrant bias against me,
as well as dishonest/insincere aspects of his *modus* *operandi*.

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>
> >> >Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
> >> >is noted.

Casanova again snips the information relevant to what is going on.
In this way he demonstrates his solidarity with Panthera Tigris Altaica,
and, by extension, with Oxyaena and Erik Simpson.

> >Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:
>
> >> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
> >> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.
>
> >You've done something you've done again and again and again:
> >you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.
>
> No,

Casanova denies the obvious, and makes it clear how obvious it is
by making an even more drastic series of snips this time around.


> you moron,

Casanova is continuing to vindicate my assessment of him as
the most condescendingly dishonest person in talk.origins.

Others here are flagrantly condescending, and are dishonest
about it, especially Erik Simpson, but Casanova outdoes him
and all the rest, in my estimation.

> I've simply noted that

Casanova is also a propagandist, though nowhere near as expert
at it as jillery can be once in a blue moon. Here he uses
the standard propaganda device of "noted that"
["pointed out that" is even more popular among bush-league propagandists]
to create an air of authority for what comes next.

> your characterization
> of something as a "simulation of belief" implies that you
> *know* that the belief is in fact simulated;

This is sheer polemical opportunism: Casanova indulges in
sophistry that sounds good enough "on paper" to seem plausible
to a casual reader.

To make sure of that, Casanova snipped all information on what
the actual "something" was. He is afraid to leave it in,
because he is incapable of rationally supporting his
sophistry when it is visible.

Anyone interested in the true nature of that "something"
can find the link for it for themselves at the bottom.

> IOW that you
> can read his mind.

The perennial scam of Harshman's is to pretend that I am
unsuccessful in divining his "motivation" while essentially NEVER
stating what his true motivation was. And often as not, I wasn't
claiming anything about his motivation; rather, I was accusing
him, with evidence, of dishonesty/insincerity/hypocrisy.

> Ans I'm "aping" nothing;

As with Erik Simpson, the "aping" of Harshman's scams is somewhat of
a parody of how Harshman goes about them.

> the implication of your assertion
> is clear for anyone to see.

The only thing clear to see here is how Casanova can make a plausible
sounding case after having snipped all the evidence of what is being
talked about, and all the reasoning as to how he is misrepresenting it.


> <snip more garbage>

Casanova here makes absolutely sure that NONE of my rebuttal of his
scam appears here. Readers interested in the truth of what is going
on here need only look at the post to which Casanova is replying:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/6NKAJVC9ibI/TQkgOevaCQAJ
Subject: Re: Boycott of Erik Simpson and `Oxyaena' ATTN: DIG
Lines: 50
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9bc712cb-81e2-4394...@googlegroups.com>


Peter Nyikos

PS I've snipped nothing of Casanova's text above.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is a case of a Pee Wee Hermanism ("I know you are, but what am I?")
gone awry, substituting a libel for an arguably complimentary description.

> cannot rationally argue against it.

As your beloved Oxyaena put it in a weak sequel to her classic "Black Knight"
post, it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. And "the claim"
in this case is your unsupported, arbitrary description "bragging".

Ironically, this boycott is the outcome of Erik Simpson NOT taking
Oxyaena at her word on this, and bringing trumped-up charges against me.

These, in effect, relieved me of the burden of proving a claim I made
about something Oxyaena wrote. And the first bit of "relief" consisted
of misrepresenting what Oxyaena wrote, and also what I wrote about it.

I use the word "burden" above because it alludes to the standard
debating league formula, "The burden of proof rests on the affirmative,"
which your dear Oxyaena implicitly invoked.

> >> >In my case it increased my well being to disengage from various folks for a
> >> >while.
> >>
> >>
> >> There's no problem with a need to disengage, but that's not the point
> >> I raised. In fact, people can disengage any time they feel like it,
> >> with or without killfiles or boycotts. Instead, the point I raised is
> >> bragging about it, which contributes nothing to said disengagement.
> >
> >
> >In sci.bio.paleontology, after having killfiled others in talk.origins,
> >Oxyaena trumpeted the alleged advantages of killfiling to Harshman and
> >urged him to killfile me too.
>
>
> And how 'bout them Mets.

Rather, how about your love of double standards.

>
>
> >Would you like to praise your dear Oxyaena for the "modesty" she displayed
> >by these actions?
>

The word "modesty" was pure irony, which the word "hypothesis" below
misses the point of:

> Since you asked, I have no need of that hypothesis.

A classic case of hypocrisy backed by a "see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil" modus operandi where your beloved Oxyaena is concerned.

> You're welcome.
>
> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter>

With "repetitive," like "bragging," you are availing yourself of the Humpty
Dumpty Prerogative of making words mean exactly what you choose
them to mean.

In the case of "repetitive" you DID argue for it, but rather irrationally:
you said it meant that I was making disparaging remarks about you,
which I very frequently do. The "repetitive" referred to the "disparaging...
very frequently" despite the fact that almost invariably, I am
using very original, never-before-expressed statements. That was
certainly the case with what you snipped here in your
Hemidactylus-dissed way.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/7/19 7:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:

Why did you snip everything Ernest Major wrote?

> > there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.
>
> Why not?

Because, unlike you, I have made a thorough, adult-life-long
study of the philosophy of religion, and of cosmology
(especially wrt the multiverse in more recent years).

The former has shown me how weak, almost nonexistent, the arguments
FOR atheism are. The latter has shown me the literally infinite
possibilities of the multiverse. Those possibilities gave me
the insight that put my confidence level of a creator/designer
of the universe up to something like 10% rather than leaving it way down
around 0.01% or lower.

You are still largely stuck at the primitive 19th century notion that
our tiny, young (< a mere 15 gigayears) "visible universe" is all there
is or was or can ever be.

By "largely" I mean that you can't see why the concept of a multiverse
is any more plausible than this 19th century notion, whereas the
plausibility of a multiverse is staggeringly in excess of it.

> >
> > I on the other hand have given a number of arguments
> > for the existence of God, especially in reply to Harshman;
> > but I will be the first to admit that they are inconclusive.
>
> That's putting it mildly.

Thanks for helping Ernest Major see just where I stand.
Er...you *weren't* just referring to the last three words, were you?

> > All they do for me is to give me something like a 10%
> > confidence that a creator/designer of our universe.
>
> I've always wondered how you manage to get such a precise probability,

"something like" is me speaking informally, for the benefit of
highly informal people like yourself.

> even as precise as "something like".

Is the contrast between 10% and 0.01% still too narrow for you?


Peter Nyikos

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

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
Specialty: set-theoretic topology, which has a multiverse all its own.

[Burkhard]

I've traveled across 100 universes and found creator deities in 9.6 of them

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Why did you snip everything Ernest Major wrote?
>

Yeah, john...how is peter supposed to snip things and repost them out of context and distort the intent if you've already snipped everything out? Give the guy a break will ya?

[erik simpson]

Was the 0.6 because one of the universes was only 60% done, or did it have a 60%
deity?

[Burkhard]

Glad you ask, it was a fascinating case of a Hermit deity. It had found
a naturally caused but run down universe, moved in and did it up big
time. The 60% is a rough guess of the value added element

[erik simpson]

Fascinating! Does It "flip" the fixer-upper universes and move on, or does It
intend to settle down there?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:35:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

SHHHHH!!!
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 06:30:17 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>Casanova continues to demonstrate his perennial, flagrant bias against me,
>as well as dishonest/insincere aspects of his *modus* *operandi*.

Mote. Beam. Eye.

>On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>
>> >> >Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>> >> >is noted.
>
>Casanova again snips the information relevant to what is going on.
>In this way he demonstrates his solidarity with Panthera Tigris Altaica,
>and, by extension, with Oxyaena and Erik Simpson.

Peter again snips the content which shows the context for my
comment.

>> >Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:
>>
>> >> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
>> >> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.
>>
>> >You've done something you've done again and again and again:
>> >you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.
>>
>> No,

<snip more of Peter's paranoia and whines about how everyone
picks on him for no reason.>

>> your characterization
>> of something as a "simulation of belief" implies that you
>> *know* that the belief is in fact simulated;
>
>This is sheer polemical opportunism: Casanova indulges in
>sophistry that sounds good enough "on paper" to seem plausible
>to a casual reader.

No, it is not. Your characterization of someone's statement
as a "simulation" implies exactly what I stated, absent your
ability to read his mind.

>To make sure of that, Casanova snipped all information on what
>the actual "something" was.

It doesn't matter what it was; your assertion that you can
determine when a statement is "simulated belief" speaks for
itself.

Get over yourself.

<snip more garbage>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are flipped universes that are overvalued considered bubble universes?
Maybe big bangs and crunches are akin to the housing market?

[erik simpson]

You may be on to something there. The early inflation of our universe may
possibly be due to "market forces", but the current "acceleration" by "dark
energy" is probably just real-estate hype.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-06 02:48, jillery wrote:
> Once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about and are
> proud of it.
That shows in his every post.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-05 15:07, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Note the replacement of "Tigris" with the more appropriate
> (for this thread, at least) "Pussycat."

You have just placed yourself into the same category as Jonathan.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-04 15:27, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
> is noted.

It's not a simulation. It's also not libel. You are making a poor start
at not being a, ahem, 'lying fucker'. I am not surprised.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-04 19:46, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> *****
>
>> This is hypocritical, inasmuch as it was Erik who was putting
>> words into MY mouth in the first of three posts where he made
>> his trumped-up charges.
>>
>> In fact, Erik did not quote anything by myself, himself, or
>> Oxyaena in that first post, instead filling it with distortions.
>> I made it clear how he was distorting the facts in my direct
>> reply to that post:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/qXK11W5XBgAJ
>> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
>> Message-ID: <cb7920b7-2115-49c2...@googlegroups.com>

>> Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
>>

>> As if to mock me for pointing out the dearth of quotes,
>> Erik deleted everything both he and I wrote, in his "rebuttal,"
>> with the words
>> <snip distortions>
>> and then ONLY gave quotes, waving his hands at the end with
>> a completely mis-located repetition of the trumped-up charge.
>>
>>
>> I made many comments about the stand-alone quotes in my reply to that:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/VDd1mLPmBgAJ
>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:15:19 -0800 (PST)
>> Message-ID: <17690395-313e-4c46...@googlegroups.com>

>> Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
>>

>> Erik snipped everything in reply except my note that he wasn't
>> identifying the alleged lie. He very aggressively put it in
>> a completely different place than before, and repeated his
>> trumped up charge. I then made my last reply to Erik in
>> sci.bio.paleontology [where my boycott will be announced shortly]
>> noting *inter* *alia* that he was running away from my rebuttal to the
>> claim that it was a lie, which he had snipped:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/FCxZCzvvBgAJ
>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:51:43 -0800 (PST)
>> Message-ID: <fc8534ae-2da0-406b...@googlegroups.com>

>> Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
>>
>

> So quoting you is putting words im your mouth? Amazing! And you rebutted your
> quote? Even more amazing!
>

He uses the same logic as does the Double Doctor.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-07 00:47, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>

>>>> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>>>> is noted.
>

>> Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:
>
>>> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
>>> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.
>
>> You've done something you've done again and again and again:
>> you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.
>

> No, you moron, I've simply noted that your characterization

> of something as a "simulation of belief" implies that you

> *know* that the belief is in fact simulated; IOW that you
> can read his mind.

He can't. It isn't clear that he knows what's happening in _his_ mind.

>
> Ans I'm "aping" nothing; the implication of your assertion

> is clear for anyone to see.
>

> <snip more garbage>
>

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-06 17:17, erik simpson wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>
>> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
>> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
>> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
>> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>>

>> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
>> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
>> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>

The sheer arrogance and overinflated opinion of oneself is hard to
exaggerate. My opinion of him, which is in no way 'simulated', was never
high. It is now considerably lower. I expect that his opinion of himself
will compensate for this, at least in his eyes.

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm glad you showed up today, Burkhard, because we are on our Spring Break
all next week. It's a time I usually put aside for family and for
long, uninterrupted mathematical reading and research.

To top it all off, today I got my first look at Behe's _Darwin Devolves_.
Most of my free time, starting today already, will probably be
devoted to reading it carefully.

I may pop in Monday and/or Tuesday to tie up some pressing loose ends
here and in s.b.p., but that'll be it for Usenet and me until
the following Monday.

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 3/7/19 7:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.
> >>>
> >>> Why not?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I on the other hand have given a number of arguments
> >>>> for the existence of God, especially in reply to Harshman; > but I
> >>>> will be the first to admit that they are inconclusive.
> >>>
> >>> That's putting it mildly.
> >>>
> >>>> All they do for me is to give me something like a 10%
> >>>> confidence that a creator/designer of our universe.
> >>>
> >>> I've always wondered how you manage to get such a precise probability,
> >>> even as precise as "something like".
> >>>
> >> I've traveled across 100 universes and found creator deities in 9.6 of them

> > Was the 0.6 because one of the universes was only 60% done, or did it have a 60%
> > deity?
> >
>
> Glad you ask, it was a fascinating case of a Hermit deity.

As opposed to a deity who finally cracked the secret of designing
a universe ([probably from a pre-existing false vacuum)
that can be left to its own devices once designed, and set
in motion with a big bang?

That is, up to the point of the existence of a prebiotic soup?

I go with the intellectually honest agnostic Loren Eiseley rather than the
ambiguously neo-Deistic Kenneth Miller on this and subsequent developments.
Here comes my main hypothesis.


After untold numbers of little universes were botched and bungled [as Hume
memorably put it], some hyper-super-genius (even when compared to his peers)
made it work that far. He might well have been awarded uninterrupted mastery
and control of that universe -- ours, I shouldn't wonder -- until the dawn of a
species capable of understanding its most fundamental workings.

> It had found
> a naturally caused but run down universe, moved in and did it up big
> time. The 60% is a rough guess of the value added element

You are clearly talking about one of those botched and bungled
universes, not this one. In my hypothesis, ALL universes
were naturally caused [except for any steady-state ones, for which
there was no need of that "caused" hypothesis] and most of them
were born of earlier universes in the multiverse.

The universe that gave rise to ours may have been a steady-state one,
but I think it more likely that it was immensely older and
immensely richer than ours, but still with its own beginning.


I've dialed back a bit on your lighthearted mood, Burkhard, and I
hope you can reciprocate.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 2:35:03 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:
> On 2019-03-06 17:17, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
> >> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
> >> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
> >> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
> >>
> >> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
> >> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
> >> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >

What's new, Pussycat?

> The sheer arrogance and overinflated opinion of oneself is hard to
> exaggerate.

Erik's change of the subject to the inappropriate "Chez Watt"
certainly qualifies. As does the hypocritical behavior of
Sean Dillon, whom I was addressing. But as for myself, you
are parasitizing Erik's snipping of everything that would give
context to what I wrote.

I'm sure Bob Casanova appreciates Erik's snip-happy flattery
["Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."] and I'm
not surprised that you go along with it.

Indeed, why would you take the really tough job of replying directly to
my rejoinder to Sean Dillon without snipping context? Far more
experienced polemicists than yourself are stymied by the
challenge of making Sean smell like a rose.

> My opinion of him, which is in no way 'simulated', was never
> high. It is now considerably lower. I expect that his opinion of himself
> will compensate for this, at least in his eyes.

I expect that you will show yourself lacking what it takes to be in the
same league with any of my other opponents on this thread, just
like that other generic insult addict, "Wolffan". Even an assist
from Hemidactylus and several from jillery couldn't help him in
the long run.


Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

that's....dark....

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> On 3/6/19 2:17 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
> >> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
> >> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
> >> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
> >>
> >> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
> >> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
> >> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >

> I believe I've seen this sort of thing in high school girls, but not
> previously anywhere else.

You are very unclear here about what "this sort of thing" refers to.

If you are referring to the part that begins with "perhaps due to
a guilty conscience," it appears that you have no idea what it is
like to have 12 years of parochial Roman Catholic primary and
secondary indoctrination in conscience-tweaking.

If you don't stop being tight-lipped, your posts will NOT
be among the tiny handful that I referred to when I wrote
the following to Burkhard:

I may pop in Monday and/or Tuesday to tie up some pressing loose ends
here and in s.b.p., but that'll be it for Usenet and me until
the following Monday.

In the main part of that reply to Burkhard, I went into the relevance
of the multiverse to what I wrote to you today.


Peter Nyikos

PS No, I will NOT repost my whole reply to Burkhard in direct
reply to you. You keep "requesting" this kind of spoon-feeding
in characteristically self-important posts, but I'm done with
catering to your laziness.

[Burkhard]

Christianity got in on the act:
https://twitter.com/_youhadonejob1/status/1104121342247489537

[Oxyaena]

On 3/8/2019 9:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Casanova continues to demonstrate his perennial, flagrant bias against me,
> as well as dishonest/insincere aspects of his *modus* *operandi*.
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>
>>>>> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>>>>> is noted.
>
> Casanova again snips the information relevant to what is going on.
> In this way he demonstrates his solidarity with Panthera Tigris Altaica,
> and, by extension, with Oxyaena and Erik Simpson.

I suspect you'd make a fascinating test subject for anyone interested in
clinical pathology.

[snip psychological projection]


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

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Oxyaena]

On 3/8/2019 3:47 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 2:35:03 PM UTC-5, Panthera Pussycat Altaica wrote:
>> On 2019-03-06 17:17, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
>>>> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
>>>> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
>>>> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>>>>
>>>> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
>>>> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
>>>> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>
>
> What's new, Pussycat?

You're becoming more and more like Kleinman with every post you make.

[snip chest-banging tomfoolery]

[erik simpson]

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

[erik simpson]

You might be amused at the exchanges between "Howler Monkey" and Peterin SBP,
beginning around here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/6W5V9StiCAAJ

Peter wants to rave at us some more, but can't because of his "boycott". So he
tattled on us to Howler, which, as it turns out, wasn't appreciated. It's pretty funny.

[John Harshman]

On 3/8/19 7:47 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/7/19 7:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> Why did you snip everything Ernest Major wrote?

In order to focus on the points that interested me.

>>> there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because, unlike you, I have made a thorough, adult-life-long
> study of the philosophy of religion, and of cosmology
> (especially wrt the multiverse in more recent years).

Perhaps I didn't understand. I thought you meant that there is no
possibility of there ever being any new argument or discovery that could
make you an atheist. Is that not the case? Even if you're completely
familiar with everything we know now, can you be sure that something new
will not come along to change your mind?

> The former has shown me how weak, almost nonexistent, the arguments
> FOR atheism are. The latter has shown me the literally infinite
> possibilities of the multiverse. Those possibilities gave me
> the insight that put my confidence level of a creator/designer
> of the universe up to something like 10% rather than leaving it way down
> around 0.01% or lower.
>
> You are still largely stuck at the primitive 19th century notion that
> our tiny, young (< a mere 15 gigayears) "visible universe" is all there
> is or was or can ever be.
>
> By "largely" I mean that you can't see why the concept of a multiverse
> is any more plausible than this 19th century notion, whereas the
> plausibility of a multiverse is staggeringly in excess of it.

If I admit that you are much, much intellectually superior to me, will
you stop wasting bandwidth making that point in every sentence?

>>> I on the other hand have given a number of arguments
>>> for the existence of God, especially in reply to Harshman;
>>> but I will be the first to admit that they are inconclusive.
>>
>> That's putting it mildly.
>
> Thanks for helping Ernest Major see just where I stand.
> Er...you *weren't* just referring to the last three words, were you?

Rhetorical question, right? Just want to be sure. In the remote
possibility that it wasn't, the answer is yes, I was.

>>> All they do for me is to give me something like a 10%
>>> confidence that a creator/designer of our universe.
>>
>> I've always wondered how you manage to get such a precise probability,
>
> "something like" is me speaking informally, for the benefit of
> highly informal people like yourself.
>
>
>> even as precise as "something like".
>
> Is the contrast between 10% and 0.01% still too narrow for you?

I've always wondered, but perhaps I will never find out. Is the 10% just
a WAG?

[John Harshman]

I've been asked for proof that Peter has no sense of humor. I humbly
submit this post.

[John Harshman]

On 3/8/19 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/6/19 2:17 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
>>>> only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
>>>> dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
>>>> your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
>>>>
>>>> This was before Martin turned on me, perhaps due to a guilty conscience
>>>> over how jillery's chicanery actually made it look like he was
>>>> confessing to a fault he really DID have.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>> I believe I've seen this sort of thing in high school girls, but not
>> previously anywhere else.
>
> You are very unclear here about what "this sort of thing" refers to.

Don't worry. It wasn't intended for you, and everyone else knows already.

> If you are referring to the part that begins with "perhaps due to
> a guilty conscience," it appears that you have no idea what it is
> like to have 12 years of parochial Roman Catholic primary and
> secondary indoctrination in conscience-tweaking.
>
> If you don't stop being tight-lipped, your posts will NOT
> be among the tiny handful that I referred to when I wrote
> the following to Burkhard:

No! No! A thousand times no! Not that!

> I may pop in Monday and/or Tuesday to tie up some pressing loose ends
> here and in s.b.p., but that'll be it for Usenet and me until
> the following Monday.
>
> In the main part of that reply to Burkhard, I went into the relevance
> of the multiverse to what I wrote to you today.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS No, I will NOT repost my whole reply to Burkhard in direct
> reply to you. You keep "requesting" this kind of spoon-feeding
> in characteristically self-important posts, but I'm done with
> catering to your laziness.
>

You have soundly thrashed me, sir. I must slink away and tend to my
richly deserved wounds. Adieu.

[Oxyaena]

On 3/8/2019 8:30 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-8, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 3/8/2019 9:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Casanova continues to demonstrate his perennial, flagrant bias against me,
>>> as well as dishonest/insincere aspects of his *modus* *operandi*.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>>>
>>>>>>> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>>>>>>> is noted.
>>>
>>> Casanova again snips the information relevant to what is going on.
>>> In this way he demonstrates his solidarity with Panthera Tigris Altaica,
>>> and, by extension, with Oxyaena and Erik Simpson.
>>
>> I suspect you'd make a fascinating test subject for anyone interested in
>> clinical pathology.
>>
>> [snip psychological projection]
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Step back and smell the ashes." - Unknown
>>
>> http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/
>

> You might be amused at the exchanges between "Howler Monkey" and Peter in SBP,

> beginning around here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/6W5V9StiCAAJ

I saw that, they were *very* amusing. What better proof for how utterly
dense Peter really is? I find it incredibly hilarious/absurd/pathetic
tha he thinks of me as his "most implacable and ruthless enemy,"
obviously unaware of the fact that calling me such speaks *volumes*
about his character, and not in a good way.

>
> Peter wants to rave at us some more, but can't because of his "boycott". So he
> tattled on us to Howler, which, as it turns out, wasn't appreciated. It's pretty funny.
>

It is. He didn't take it so well when Howler called him childish, I
wonder why....

(Hint: No I don't)

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:26:43 -0500, Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 2019-03-07 00:47, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>
>>>>> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>>>>> is noted.
>>
>>> Your aping a perennial scam of Harshman's below, Bob, is also noted:
>>
>>>> Your implied ability to read the minds of others
>>>> (..."simulation of belief"...) is also noted. Again.
>>
>>> You've done something you've done again and again and again:
>>> you have snipped something that makes your allegation look plausible.
>>
>> No, you moron, I've simply noted that your characterization
>> of something as a "simulation of belief" implies that you
>> *know* that the belief is in fact simulated; IOW that you
>> can read his mind.
>
>He can't. It isn't clear that he knows what's happening in _his_ mind.

It isn't clear to me he has a functional mind.

>> Ans I'm "aping" nothing; the implication of your assertion
>> is clear for anyone to see.
>>
>> <snip more garbage>
>>

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:17:02 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 12:00:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 19:57:07 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 2:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:49:23 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>> >> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:03:14 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Until now, I have never boycotted anyone for more than a month or two
>> >> >>> in all my time with Usenet since 1992. And I believe I've only
>> >> >>> boycotted two for any length of time since I returned to talk.origins
>> >> >>> in December 2010.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That is changing as of now. For the rest of 2019, and perhaps well
>> >> >>> beyond its end, I am boycotting Erik Simpson and "Oxyaena," formerly
>> >> >>> posting as "Thrinaxodon" and banned by DIG under that moniker.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This action was precipitated by Erik repeatedly bringing trumped-up charges
>> >> >>> of lying about something Oxyaena had written in sci.bio.paleontology.
>> >> >>> s.b.p was where the trumped-up charges were also made, with Oxyaena
>> >> >>> wholeheartedly supporting them with vicious attacks on me.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The last straw came when Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Lying fucker, I should report you to your university, actually I will.
>> >> >>> This has gone on *far* too long.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> My restrained reply to this unprecedented statement, which went far
>> >> >>> beyond a mere threat, can be seen here:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/wjsVmGjrBgAJ
>> >> >>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:41:40 -0800 (PST)
>> >> >>> Message-ID: <fc89fcb0-94ea-4fa8...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> >>> Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> This dispute spilled over into talk.origins before Erik made those
>> >> >>> repeated charges of lying, and I will be writing about
>> >> >>> that on another thread titled:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> A Tale of Two Newsgroups: Interim Report
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On this thread, I will document what went on in s.b.p. last week,
>> >> >>> as well as spelling out exactly what I mean by "boycott" here.

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

>> >> >> What is it with those who suffer from anatomical deficiencies, that
>> >> >> they think bragging about not listening to others provides meaningful
>> >> >> compensation?
>> >
>> >Completely arbitrary use of the word "bragging" noted. Even a skilled
>> >propagandist like you cannot rationally argue for it.
>>
>>
>> Of course, even a skilled liar like you cannot rationally argue against it.
>
>This is a case of a Pee Wee Hermanism ("I know you are, but what am I?")
>gone awry, substituting a libel for an arguably complimentary description.


Nope, nope and nope. You're just posting more noise because you have
nothing intelligent to say.


>As your beloved Oxyaena put it in a weak sequel to her classic "Black Knight"
>post, it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. And "the claim"
>in this case is your unsupported, arbitrary description "bragging".


"bragging" is not a claim but a description. Since you disagree with
it, identify your basis for said disagreement. Lacking that, my
impression remains that you're just posting more noise because you
have nothing intelligent to say.

<snip remaining repetitve irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter>

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:00:44 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@baal.hammon>
wrote:

Considering the source, his opinion puts you in good company.

>> Peter wants to rave at us some more, but can't because of his "boycott". So he
>> tattled on us to Howler, which, as it turns out, wasn't appreciated. It's pretty funny.
>>
>
>It is. He didn't take it so well when Howler called him childish, I
>wonder why....
>
>(Hint: No I don't)

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 16:29:34 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <oxy...@baal.hammon>:

>On 3/8/2019 9:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Casanova continues to demonstrate his perennial, flagrant bias against me,
>> as well as dishonest/insincere aspects of his *modus* *operandi*.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:48:26 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 12:27:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>>>>> Your simulation of belief in Oxyaena's libel that you are repeating
>>>>>> is noted.
>>
>> Casanova again snips the information relevant to what is going on.
>> In this way he demonstrates his solidarity with Panthera Tigris Altaica,
>> and, by extension, with Oxyaena and Erik Simpson.
>
>I suspect you'd make a fascinating test subject for anyone interested in
>clinical pathology.

Nah, he'd be as boring there as he is here.

>[snip psychological projection]

It'll just resurrect.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 17:41:43 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 3/8/19 7:47 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 3/7/19 7:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> Why did you snip everything Ernest Major wrote?
>
>In order to focus on the points that interested me.
>
>>>> there is literally nothing that can make me an atheist.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Because, unlike you, I have made a thorough, adult-life-long
>> study of the philosophy of religion, and of cosmology
>> (especially wrt the multiverse in more recent years).
>
>Perhaps I didn't understand. I thought you meant that there is no
>possibility of there ever being any new argument or discovery that could
>make you an atheist. Is that not the case? Even if you're completely
>familiar with everything we know now, can you be sure that something new
>will not come along to change your mind?

Just my 20 mills...

It's a cliche that it's almost impossible to reason someone
out of a belief he didn't arrive at by reason. IMHO, that
would include all religious faith; faith is defined as
belief without supporting evidence.

[Glenn]

Atheist.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:47:17 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:


<snip>

>I'm sure Bob Casanova...

....is getting a bit tired of pointing out your gratuitous
inclusion of him in your hissy-fits in threads in which he
is not involved.

And in this one thing you would be correct.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-03-09 11:15, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:47:17 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm sure Bob Casanova...
>
> ....is getting a bit tired of pointing out your gratuitous
> inclusion of him in your hissy-fits in threads in which he
> is not involved.
>
> And in this one thing you would be correct.
>

I'm sure that the egoistical one has failed to understand that he has
joined the Double Doctor in my killfile. I find that t.o is much more
enjoyable without the pair of them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 08:16:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

I guess we can add idiocy that to the list of beliefs
without supporting evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:40:20 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com>:

But they're so much fun to poke!

[erik simpson]

"Howler Monkey" had some recent exchanges with Peter in SBP, in which he
made some perceptive remarks about teasing somebody like Peter. In essence he
said it was a risky thing to do with somebody who might actually have a serious
mental disorder. Apparently he thinks it's unlikely Peter does, but just in
case, it wouldn't be a bad idea not to go out of the way to 'poke' him. I
intend to take the advice. I don't think Peter's a very happy camper anyway,
and I don't want to contribute to any difficulties he may have.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 12:05:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:50:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 2:20:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:09:19 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> My god dude. Get a life.
> >> >
> >> >You are giving yourself away by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
> >> >no evil" wrt Oxyaena and Simpson, despite Oxyaena's need to "get a life"
> >> >in plain sight above.
> >
> >Naturally, jillery snipped Oxyaena's obscene (in more way than one)
> >ranting, and is making people guess below what the lie she alleges
> >is all about.
>
>
> Naturally, jillery snipped what wasn't relevant to jillery's
[libelous] point,

Fixed it for you. And I snipped a pair of lines here that were
not relevant to my point.

By the way, that "Fixed it for you" is a formula
whose use in t.o. I learned from your ally Bob Casanova, and which
really means putting what one maintains to be the unvarnished truth
in the opponent's mouth.

> >> >You did this sort of thing once before, wrt jillery, by telling me that I was
> >> >only hurting myself by continuing to show how jillery was massively,
> >> >dishonestly trying to cover up a dishonest action of hers against
> >> >your fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.
> >>
> >>

> >> The above is just another example of you spewing your Big Lie, which
> >> only shows your compulsive stupidity.
> >
> >Everything I wrote in the last paragraph was true.
>
>
> Not even remotely true. Worse, you never even tried to show your Big
> Lie was true,

I told the truth, and Sean Dillon wrote what he did back then PRECISELY because
I had been posting thousands of lines about why it was true,
in reply to what was essentially a broken record routine by you.

There, I WAS highly repetitive because I wanted to make absolutely
sure everyone understood EXACTLY what the issue was, in the teeth
of all your attempts to deny the obvious.



> but instead merely spammed your Big Lie over and over,
> across multiple topics, just as you do here. That's what you do. You
> can't help yourself.

Repetitive mindless spew by you noted. I am willing to repost that whole
long back and forth between us after our Spring Break is over, if people
other than yourself agree with your mindless spew.


> >But you snipped
> >the part where I suspected that Martin Harran was guilty of everything
> >you dishonestly made it look like he was confessing to.

You make some very aggressive noises below, which might have
been written differently had I added that this suspicion dawned
long after the brouhaha described above had ended, and long
after Sean had posted what I've described. You snipped that
description.


>
> Jillery snipped what wasn't relevant to jillery's [libelous] point, which would
> otherwise be obfuscated by your repetitive irrelevant spew.

Fixed it for you again. [See above about what this red flag means.]

That is in stark contrast to the way in which you made Martin Harran
look like he was confessing to grave defects, unaccompanied by any
red flags like "Fixed it for you."


>
> >I have seen enough deceitful behavior by Martin to make this credible.
> >
> >Let me suggest that, next time, you try to document the guilt
> >of Martin (or of anyone else) fair and square.
>
>
> Chez wattt? So *now* you say my "massively,dishonestly trying to
> cover up a dishonest action" was that I didn't document in a way you
> found acceptable, what you think Harran was guilty of,

No, what YOU think Harran was guilty of, and which your alteration
of the order of text made it look like Martin was confessing to.


> even though you
> agree he was guilty of what you claim I was trying to prove.

I never admitted that, and you are obfuscating again. Re-read
what I wrote above.


> That doesn't remotely square with your creation of the topic: "Jillery's
> Forgery and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up" and what you posted in it,

Of course it squares with it. You weren't trying to show he was
guilty fair and square, but resorted to chicanery as a shortcut.



> as well as your multiple repetitions of your Big Lie across multiple
> topics.
>
>
> >So I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, and to not bring this subject
> >up again, if Sean never again tries to be so blatantly and hypocritically
> >biased against me.
>
>
> Let's see how long it takes before you post [the unvarnished truth] again, with
> or without Sean's "bias".

Fixed it for you again. You show no sign of letting bygones
be bygones, so what I wrote above is withdrawn until such a time
as you DO show signs of letting them be bygones.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:03:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:40:20 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northe...@outlook.com>:

>> >On 2019-03-09 11:15, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> >> On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:47:17 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>> >>> I'm sure Bob Casanova...

>> >> ....is getting a bit tired of pointing out your gratuitous
>> >> inclusion of him in your hissy-fits in threads in which he
>> >> is not involved.
>> >>
>> >> And in this one thing you would be correct.

>> >I'm sure that the egoistical one has failed to understand that he has
>> >joined the Double Doctor in my killfile. I find that t.o is much more
>> >enjoyable without the pair of them.

>> But they're so much fun to poke!

>"Howler Monkey" had some recent exchanges with Peter in SBP, in which he
>made some perceptive remarks about teasing somebody like Peter. In essence he
>said it was a risky thing to do with somebody who might actually have a serious
>mental disorder. Apparently he thinks it's unlikely Peter does, but just in
>case, it wouldn't be a bad idea not to go out of the way to 'poke' him. I
>intend to take the advice. I don't think Peter's a very happy camper anyway,
>and I don't want to contribute to any difficulties he may have.

My comment was intended to be humorous as a response to
PTA's "killfile" comment. I don't generally go out of my way
to "poke" Peter; I usually restrict my comments to
situations such as the above (which I don't consider to be
"poking") and to responses to posts Peter directs to me. All
he has to do to stop my rejoinders is to stop that activity.
If he simply *must* continue, too bad for him.