Why isn't the TO Archive updated anymore?

[Oxyaena]

I don't know about you but it would seem especially prudent to update
what is arguably the web's best source of information to counter the
lies and bullshit of the creationist movement in light of recent
information in the sciences, since a lot of the FAQs on there are
becoming dated, not terribly so, but it's still worrisome.
--
"Biology only makes sense in the light of evolution." - Theodosius
Doubzhansky

[RonO]

On 7/6/2018 4:14 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> I don't know about you but it would seem especially prudent to update
> what is arguably the web's best source of information to counter the
> lies and bullshit of the creationist movement in light of recent
> information in the sciences, since a lot of the FAQs on there are
> becoming dated, not terribly so, but it's still worrisome.

The ID perps are keeping the IDiot rubes honest at this time. Every
time some IDiot/creationist rube pops up to make trouble the ID perps at
the Discovery Institute squash the effort. The creationist rubes don't
listen to the science side anyway, so we haven't had to update the
archive in quite some time. It really isn't needed. Nothing new and
the ID perps take care of the creationist rubes when needed.

Just recall what happened for the last 6 months after the ID perps put
out their best of IDiocy list. All the IDiots either ran away in denial
(to this day) or claim that the best isn't the best. Self assisted
suicide of IDiocy, but the guys that can only run the bait and switch
scam on the creationist rubes at this time.

If you want dated, everything on the "best" of IDiocy list existed
before the ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute existed. 5 of the 6
best failed as science for the scientific creationists, and the 6th was
IC (first put forward in the iconic Of Pandas and People creationist
fiasco) that is just the scientific creationist failure of an assertion
that the flagellum is a designed machine with IC thrown in on top. Why
would the TO archive have to be updated? The junk failed the scientific
creationists over 30 years ago and IC has been a IDiot failure since 2005.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:

> ______________________________________________
>
> It's quite true what you say Ron, though the believers are
> going to believe no matter what the perps do. However, you
> didn't exactly answer the question. Who was updating the
> TalkOrigins archive and why isn't it being maintained?
>
>
>

For the first point it doesn't have to be updated.

For the second it is likely the same reason why we no longer have the
post of the month. Some of the people that were involved in maintaining
the archive still post, but most have drifted off to other things.
There isn't as much interest in the topic as there used to be.
Creationists used to actually try to support their beliefs, but how long
has that not been true? Glenn started out years ago trying to make
reasoned arguments to support his beliefs, but look what he does now.
Why would the archive need to be updated? Look what happened to Eddie
when he finally put up his alternative. Eddie found out something that
he didn't want to know and he eventually stopped posting. None of the
creationists want to face that reality. All the creationist arguments
consist of today is denial of the science that they don't like. There
is no effort to support what they really believe. When was the last
positive argument made by a creationists on TO that supported his
creationist beliefs. You likely have never seen one in years.

The effort to undermine science education is still out there with the
IDiot switch scam, but the creationist IDiots obviously do not like the
switch scam and every single time that the rubes have tried to publicly
implement the IDiot switch scam the creationists rubes have screwed up
and brought creationism into the mix. It really is the Discovery
Institute that has been the major force in keeping the junk out of the
public schools for the last decade and a half. All they likely have to
do is get the creationist rube leaders in a room by themselves or make a
few phone calls and remind the IDiots what happened in Dover. The last
thing that the ID perps want at this time is for IDiocy to suffer
another court challenge, so for as long as the bait and switch keeps
working they keep getting funded. Feed the rubes IDiocy, but only give
them an obfuscation switch scam that doesn't mention that ID ever
existed. As sad as that is, that is the current political strategy for
creationist efforts. The ID perps do not want to run into another group
of rubes like Dover and have the bait and switch fail. No creationists
have ever gotten the promised creation science, and that isn't going to
change for the foreseeable future.

The "best" if IDiocy list that the ID perps put up in November should
tell any competent person that there never was any ID science worth
talking about, and the IDiots know it. You can tell that by how they
have reacted to it. Bill started claiming that he never supported the
IDiocy (who would believe that?). Dean and Pags obviously didn't like
the list. Pags even claimed that some of the "best" didn't even apply
to IDiocy (Some of the "best" are the kind of science denial junk that
is part of the switch scam, and the ID perps claim that the switch scam
has nothing to do with IDiocy). The rest of the IDiots have just run in
denial for over half a year. Why would the archive need to be updated?

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:

Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
But some text from it appears below.

> > RonO wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/6/2018 4:14 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>> I don't know about you but it would seem especially
> >>> prudent to update what is arguably the web's best
> >>> source of information to counter the lies and bullshit
> >>> of the creationist movement

Note the wording: NOT "lies and bullshit by people in
talk.origins who claim to be creationists" but "of the creationist
movement". Your entire post below is a switch from
the topic that Oxyaena introduces here, to the first formula.

> >>> in light of recent
> >>> information in the sciences, since a lot of the FAQs on
> >>> there are becoming dated, not terribly so, but it's
> >>> still worrisome.
> >>
> >> The ID perps are keeping the IDiot rubes honest at this
> >> time. Every time some IDiot/creationist rube pops up to
> >> make trouble the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
> >> squash the effort. The creationist rubes don't listen to
> >> the science side anyway, so we haven't had to update the
> >> archive in quite some time. It really isn't needed.
> >> Nothing new and the ID perps take care of the creationist
> >> rubes when needed.

You are taking a 100% reactive position here, letting the
creationists set the terms of the debate. Did it ever occur
to you to take a proactive stance?

> >> Just recall what happened for the last 6 months after the
> >> ID perps put out their best of IDiocy list. All the
> >> IDiots either ran away in denial (to this day) or claim
> >> that the best isn't the best. Self assisted suicide of
> >> IDiocy, but the guys that can only run the bait and
> >> switch scam on the creationist rubes at this time.

Since you have never been able to show any "bait" since
2005, or anything more than hearsay about the "bait" since
2002, it's anyone's guess what on earth you are talking about
here.

Are you just recycling bits and pieces of what you first wrote
more than a decade ago?

> >> If you want dated, everything on the "best" of IDiocy
> >> list existed before the ID scam unit at the Discovery
> >> Institute existed.

Is this "list" anything more than your private concoction
from over a decade ago?

> >> 5 of the 6 best failed as science for
> >> the scientific creationists, and the 6th was IC (first
> >> put forward in the iconic Of Pandas and People
> >> creationist fiasco)

If the "iconic" was Michael Behe, he quickly updated it for
_Darwin's Black Box_ while Minnich did some experiments that
showed that one version of the bacterial flagellum was indeed IC -
all 30+ parts of it are indispensable to swimming.

Are you still stuck in the "cdesignproponents" mantra, oblivious
to all these post-1995 developments?

> >> that is just the scientific
> >> creationist failure of an assertion that the flagellum is
> >> a designed machine with IC thrown in on top.

No such failure exists. I've been explaining on the thread I started on
Pastafarianism, a ridiculous anti-ID movement, that the issue
of whether the flagellum is designed is not going to go away for
about 10,000 years unless the evolutionary theorists come up
with a plausible Darwinian path.

> >> Why would
> >> the TO archive have to be updated? The junk failed the
> >> scientific creationists over 30 years ago and IC has been
> >> a IDiot failure since 2005.

See above about Minnich, Rip van Okimoto.

> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > It's quite true what you say Ron, though the believers are
> > going to believe no matter what the perps do. However, you
> > didn't exactly answer the question. Who was updating the
> > TalkOrigins archive and why isn't it being maintained?
> >
> >
> >
>
> For the first point it doesn't have to be updated.
>
> For the second it is likely the same reason why we no longer have the
> post of the month. Some of the people that were involved in maintaining
> the archive still post, but most have drifted off to other things.
> There isn't as much interest in the topic as there used to be.

I think the main reason is that your allies have propped up
Dr.Dr. Alan Kleinman as a YEC worth excoriating,
and are paying scant attention to other creationists.
But Kleinman is incredibly narrow in his interests, and
cannot possibly represent more than a minuscule bit of the
creationist outlook. And he has never confirmed anything about
his beliefs. He hasn't even denied being an atheist.

> Creationists used to actually try to support their beliefs, but how long
> has that not been true? Glenn started out years ago trying to make
> reasoned arguments to support his beliefs, but look what he does now.

Yes, why don't you look? You might be surprised.

> Why would the archive need to be updated? Look what happened to Eddie
> when he finally put up his alternative. Eddie found out something that
> he didn't want to know and he eventually stopped posting.

100% reactive. Why don't you branch out from talk.origins to see
what the creationists and ID theorists are doing?

>None of the
> creationists want to face that reality. All the creationist arguments
> consist of today is denial of the science that they don't like.

That just goes to show how little you know. Have you ever read
Behe's 2009 book, _The Edge of Evolution_? Or is that too
recent for you?

> There
> is no effort to support what they really believe. When was the last
> positive argument made by a creationists on TO

There you go again. The Archive is a source of documents ("research"
as the people in the humanities put it) for people
who have never even heard of the Usenet blog of the same name, the
one on which we are arguing.

> that supported his
> creationist beliefs. You likely have never seen one in years.
>
> The effort to undermine science education is still out there with the
> IDiot switch scam,

Typical: you omit "bait and". What's left is not a scam, but
a very powerful argument that the THEORY of evolution, as
opposed to the FACT of common descent, is still in its infancy.
The THEORY tries to explain the how and why of common descent,
which is proven by things having nothing to do with the so-called
Modern Synthesis, which has to do with change in frequency of
alleles in populations.

YOur kind feeds YOUR rubes common descent as the bait, and
then comes the switch scam to the Modern Synthesis, the
pathetic thing the creationists call "Neo-Darwinism," while
your kind reaps all the glory of the "bait" part.
Meanwhile, YOUR rubes don't even realize a switch to
theory has taken place.

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

[RonO]

On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
>
> Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
> But some text from it appears below.

I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
the asshole run away again.

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

The Wells post with quotes because Nyikos tried to lie about the links
that have gone broken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

REPOST:
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.

Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:

Nothing more has needed to be said for the last 4 years.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
> >
> > Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
> > But some text from it appears below.
>
> I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
> the asshole run away again.

The asshole is you, and you are running away from everything I wrote
because of your blind hatred for me. You are insane enough to think
that just because you leave in everything I wrote, you aren't really
running away from the contents.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
>
> The Wells post with quotes

Hearsay, as I kept telling you as you kept reposting this "holy water".

> because Nyikos tried to lie about the links
> that have gone broken:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

Where's your documentation for the trumped-up charge that I tried
to lie about the links? As usual, you don't even try to say what
the alleged lie contained.

> REPOST:
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again

As usual, you are stuck way in the past. I keep replying to more and
more of your silly post each time, and each time you ignore almost
everything I wrote to you, including my entire first reply each
time this happens.

> 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

There is nothing insane about the truth, and you've never been able to PROVE
a single lie by me. Your usual spiel, "What a liar" is never followed
by anything even close to a proof.

> and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet.

I've denied this weird insane notion of yours many times, and you've
never tried to document anything remotely similar to it, so this
qualifies as a lie by YOU.


Remainder of your mindlessly regurgitated post deleted [except for
the silly stuck-in-the-past last line] until I
can dig up my last, LENGTHY reply to it. That will save me
a lot of trouble.

But I am NOT deleting the part from which you ran away because
you can't face the truth about yourself.

> Nothing more has needed to be said for the last 4 years.

You are contradicting the fact that you said a lot more each time I
waded into your "holy water".

Besides, I showed you below that you are stuck way further in the past
than just 4 years ago. And you couldn't bear to face the truth
about it, so you ran away.

And here is where I did it:

The real question is: why don't you want to be updated beyond 2004?

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 7/10/2018 8:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
>>> But some text from it appears below.
>>
>> I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
>> the asshole run away again.
>
> The asshole is you, and you are running away from everything I wrote
> because of your blind hatred for me. You are insane enough to think
> that just because you leave in everything I wrote, you aren't really
> running away from the contents.

We both know who the Asshole is. He is the guy that was wrong about one
of his first claims after returning to TO back in 2010, and who has been
running from just simply being wrong since. You were just wrong about
the Discovery Institute involvement in the Ohio bait and switch fiasco
that occurred back in 2002. That post from 2010 still has not been
addressed by you. You made the claim, and I provided the counter and
you ran. Not only have you run, but you have done multiple stupid and
assoholic things in order to keep running. Your misdirection thread,
your dirty debating thread, the Scottish verdict thread, your first
knockdown thread (Why did it take years for you to claim to finally
deliver the 3 knockdowns when you claimed that you were going to do it
in a couple weeks?), and all the posts like this one since. The last
two knockdowns that it took years for you to deliver likely didn't
involve issues that even existed when you made the claim. The second
one was your made up Google story that could never have happened because
Google doesn't work that way, and you didn't make up that story until
after you claimed that you had three knockdowns to deliver. I don't
know for sure on the last knockdown because you never told me what it
was or gave me a link to it. All you ever did was tell Hemi that you
had finally delivered it. Poor Hemi had to suffer through years of
being told that the knockdowns were still coming. All this because you
could not admit to being wrong about something as stupid and trivial as
the Discovery Institute being involved in the Ohio bait and switch back
in 2002.

We both know that you have been running because you still haven't
addressed the material, you just lie about it. What is "hearsay" below?
Wells wrote that report. He participated in the bait and switch on
the Ohio rubes. Wells and Meyer were the two ID perps from the
Discovery Institute that were supposed to give the Ohio rubes the
promised ID science, but what did they give the Ohio rubes instead? In
Wells' report he claims that some of the ID perps got together before
the Ohio presentation and decided to run the bait and switch. He
specifically names DeWolfe and Minnich as being there, but other sources
said that the ID perp group was a half dozen Discovery Institute boobs
along with the president of the Discovery Institute. It was decided to
not give the Ohio rubes the ID science before they ran their bogus dog
and pony show about IDiocy in front of the Ohio creationist rubes. It
is right there in Wells' report. This is the level of dishonesty that I
have come to expect from a liar like Nyikos.

If anyone doesn't understand what Nyikos is lying about I will go into
it again, but unless that is the case there is no reason for me to do
much else at this time. I will just repost what Nyikos has snipped out
and run from again. Nyikos has obviously snipped out and run from the
material that he can't deal with, and he has to lie about the situation
before running. The claim about "hearsay" is an obvious lie. The link
to Wells' report is now broken, but I have a copy of the full report,
and there is the fact that Nyikos never contested the authorship of the
work when it was first put forward around 4 years ago when the link was
not broken and anyone could go back and see what it was.

REPOST of REPOST:

I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
the asshole run away again.

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

The Wells post with quotes because Nyikos tried to lie about the links

that have gone broken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

REPOST:
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

Nothing more has needed to be said for the last 4 years.

END REPOST of REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/10/2018 8:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
> >>> But some text from it appears below.
> >>
> >> I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
> >> the asshole run away again.
> >
> > The asshole is you, and you are running away from everything I wrote
> > because of your blind hatred for me. You are insane enough to think
> > that just because you leave in everything I wrote, you aren't really
> > running away from the contents.
>
> We both know who the Asshole is. He is the guy that was wrong about one
> of his first claims after returning to TO back in 2010,

You don't have the guts to spell out what that alleged claim was.
You only dare to speak in generalities about it below.

> and who has been
> running from just simply being wrong since.

It is you who have been running away from being wrong because
of your massive rewriting of talk.origins history. You rewrote
the history of the "Scottish verdict" thread by suppressing
the fact that you NEVER tried to show any bait in the "bait
and switch scam" after Robert Camp was totally unimpressed
by your own switch scam: alleging bait and then switching
to a DI statement that talked about Constitutional RIGHTS
for teachers but did NOT claim that it had ID science in a form
suitable to teaching in the public schools.

> You were just wrong about
> the Discovery Institute involvement in the Ohio bait and switch fiasco
> that occurred back in 2002. That post from 2010 still has not been
> addressed by you. You made the claim,

You don't dare say what the claim WAS, you spineless coward.

Perish the thought that you would actually QUOTE IT, you shameless
four-flusher.


<snip taunts not hinting at what the claim was>

> I don't
> know for sure on the last knockdown because you never told me what it
> was or gave me a link to it. All you ever did was tell Hemi that you
> had finally delivered it.

So why have you never asked "poor Hemi" to show you how it happened?

Is it because Hemi is too much of a fan of yours to hurt
your feelings by showing it to you? He has certainly prostituted
his integrity for you, as has jillery, on the "I'm back" thread.

> Poor Hemi had to suffer through years of
> being told that the knockdowns were still coming.

You really are concerned about tiny sufferings of your fans.

.


> All this because you
> could not admit to being wrong about something as stupid and trivial as
> the Discovery Institute being involved in the Ohio bait and switch back
> in 2002.

I ASKED you about involvement. No wonder you don't dare describe
any alleged claims I made.

> We both know that you have been running because you still haven't
> addressed the material,

"haven't addressed" sounds like you are admitting implicitly
that you LIED when you alleged an actual claim by me.


Remainder of regurgitated crap, flushed.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
Archive updated anymore? I don't agree with Peter over the "issue" of
intelligent design, as I've made abundantly clear over the years, but
you just seemingly attacked me, or you were at least very aggressive in
your initial reply to me, for seemingly no reason when I've never done
anything to provoke you in the first place. I don't know if this is a
misunderstanding or what, but I`m honestly confused over this.


>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>

[RonO]

What a boob. Nyikos was only interested in lying about the past.
Nothing changes. It is only an excuse for him to keep lying. If you
don't understand that, you should start thinking before posting.
Really, Nyikos knows for a fact that I have absolutely no interest in
dealing with a lying scheming asshole like Nyikos is. Just ask him how
many dishonest ploys have blown up in his face. I listed some of them.
You can get some ideas of what they were by just reading what he keeps
lying about.

I suggest that you reread my post to you. I just gave you the basic
facts without sugar coating anything. If you want to claim that I was
wrong about something, do it. The simple fact is that what I wrote is
just how things are at this time. You can take that as some form of
attack on you, but what would it mean if reality is an attack on you.
All I did was give you a straight forward answer as to why things are
the way they are.

I will give you some advice. If Nyikos thinks that you might support
him you are likely to end up like Hemi. Ask Hemi how his association
with Nyikos turned out.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>
>
>
>

[RonO]

On 7/11/2018 9:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/10/2018 8:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
>>>>> But some text from it appears below.
>>>>
>>>> I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
>>>> the asshole run away again.
>>>
>>> The asshole is you, and you are running away from everything I wrote
>>> because of your blind hatred for me. You are insane enough to think
>>> that just because you leave in everything I wrote, you aren't really
>>> running away from the contents.
>>
>> We both know who the Asshole is. He is the guy that was wrong about one
>> of his first claims after returning to TO back in 2010,
>
> You don't have the guts to spell out what that alleged claim was.
> You only dare to speak in generalities about it below.

You know what it is because you have been reminded about it every time
you have lied about it like this very instance? You were in denial of

the Discovery Institute being involved in the Ohio bait and switch

fiasco. All I had to do was put up the evidence and you ran. You not
only ran, but you started other posts to start diverting the issue. You
even started a new thread as a misdirection ploy. You wouldn't have all
the other junk that you are running from if you had just accepted
reality, but you started doing crap like claiming that you had never
lost an exchange on the internet, and that you had never lied on the
internet. What are you doing now?

I don't know why you have to lie about the stupid Scottish Verdict
thread. That quote has been retained by the ID perps in their stupid
propaganda pamphlet where they keep claiming that the ID science can be
taught in the public schools. The whole point of the propaganda
pamphlet is to claim that the Dover decision was wrong, and what was the
decision? That is how lame and assoholic you are. Why don't you try to
demonstrate otherwise? Really, public schools is right in the quote and
so is the claim about the scientific theory of ID.

This is from the latest rendition and it is the same as it has been
since 2009.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools? No. Science teachers have the
right to teach science. Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it
should be constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it should
not be banned from schools. If a science teacher wants to voluntarily
discuss ID, she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

https://discovery.org/f/1453

The old education policy that has not been updated to delete the claim
that intelligent design is a scientific theory that can be taught in the
public schools is still on page 15 of this bogus document. They seem to
have updated it since 2013, but it looks like only the format changed.

The sad thing is that you only started the Scottish verdict thread when
you couldn't deny manipulating my post and claiming that I wrote
something that I never wrote in the Dirty Debating thread you started.
The Dirty Debating thread was tragic because I didn't know it existed
because I thought that it was some type of Pagano thread and I hadn't
even bothered to open it. You came to me and told me that you were
making claims behind my back and that I should address them. When I did
you ran. Really, I addressed the first two of your posts that you
started that thread with, and you ran. You came back to me in another
thread and told me that I had to address what you had written to Bill in
the Dirty Debating thread. You were caught lying about your first claim
to Bill, but you kept going on about something that I couldn't figure
out. You kept referring to a post with examples of you snipping and
running spelled out, and kept claiming that I had lied about your
snipping and running routine (What have you done in last couple of
posts?). It turned out that you were referring to something that I had
written several posts up in the thread, but you had manipulated what I
had written so that it looked like I was making the false claim that you
had snipped and run in that instance. When I went up to what I had
originally written it was obvious that I had actually said that you had
not snipped and run in that instance and I had gone on to lay out the
stupid and dishonest thing that you had actually done. When confronted
by this reality you started the Scottish Verdict thread as your usual
diversion. Really I can give the post dates and the posts as I have in
the past, and it all backs up that version of history. You can lie
about it all you want, but the posts still exist. Why don't you do it
to demonstrate that I am wrong?

Since you have snipped and run from what you can't deal with. All I
have to do is repost it to make you snip and run again. Eventually you
run away and leave me alone for a couple of months, and that is all I
can expect from an utter lying asshole like you.

REPOST of Reposted repost:
REPOST of REPOST:

I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
the asshole run away again.

END REPOSTED REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 7:10:03 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/11/2018 9:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/10/2018 8:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 7/10/2018 1:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:05:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/6/2018 9:42 PM, Dexter wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Funny, Dexter's post does not show up in New Google Groups.
> >>>>> But some text from it appears below.
> >>>>
> >>>> I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
> >>>> the asshole run away again.
> >>>
> >>> The asshole is you, and you are running away from everything I wrote
> >>> because of your blind hatred for me. You are insane enough to think
> >>> that just because you leave in everything I wrote, you aren't really
> >>> running away from the contents.
> >>
> >> We both know who the Asshole is. He is the guy that was wrong about one
> >> of his first claims after returning to TO back in 2010,
> >
> > You don't have the guts to spell out what that alleged claim was.
> > You only dare to speak in generalities about it below.
>
> You know what it is because you have been reminded about it every time
> you have lied about it like this very instance?

You are desperately clinging to a 7 and 1/2 year old fantasy that
such a claim exists. No wonder you don't try to quote anything by me.

> You were in denial of
> the Discovery Institute being involved in the Ohio bait and switch
> fiasco.

I asked whether the DI was implicated. That is all you've got,
and if you weren't so much in love with your self-serving
fantasy, you'd know it.

> All I had to do was put up the evidence and you ran.

I briefly looked at what you had, saw that there was a chance
that the DI had been implicated, and lost interest. I'm no
DI fan. You'd have learned that years ago, but you
desperately wanted for there to be a scapegoat for the DI
on whom to vent your hate for it, so you made wish be father
to the thought even before you put up what evidence you had.

> You not
> only ran, but you started other posts to start diverting the issue.

My main focus forever after was your dishonest scam, a REAL
bait and switch scam. You baited people by alleging a "bait and switch
scam" but all anyone has gotten for post-2002 was what you illogically
call "the switch scam".

All through 2010 to 2016 you used the PRESENT TENSE for its existence,
so I kept asking to see the bait. Your "evidence" was so bizarre,
it took me several posts to see that you were crazy enough to
actually identify it as THE evidence of bait for an ONGOING bait
and switch scam.

And THAT is why I didn't start criticizing your "evidence" for several
posts, and I tried to tell you that, but you are too much in love
with the fantasy that I "ran from" your "evidence".

You
> even started a new thread as a misdirection ploy. You wouldn't have all
> the other junk that you are running from if you had just accepted
> reality, but you started doing crap like claiming that you had never
> lost an exchange on the internet,

Stop repeating this insane lie. If you are making an honest mistake,
QUOTE something I wrote to try and back it up.

> and that you had never lied on the internet.

That is true, and I've challenged you to try and post a SELF-CONTAINED
proof of what you think of as a lie, instead of wantonly labeling
things

> What are you doing now?

Being truthful, as always.

> I don't know why you have to lie about the stupid Scottish Verdict
> thread.

I don't lie about it.

> That quote has been retained by the ID perps in their stupid
> propaganda pamphlet where they keep claiming that the ID science can be
> taught in the public schools.

"can be" is your dishonest equivocation for "there is a constitutional
right for any teacher to teach about it as long as [s]he sticks to
the science"

The propaganda pamphlet doesn't say that it can be taught as
an alternative to evolution, because even Phillip Johnson
admitted that the evidence is not there. And there is no
hint of it being true in the webpage.

> The whole point of the propaganda
> pamphlet is to claim that the Dover decision was wrong,

Wrong. They work around the 2005 Dover decision.

>and what was the decision?

That the school board could not require the teaching of ID. And that
ID cannot be taught as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution.

That is how lame and assoholic you are.

No wonder Glenn thinks you are insane. You ask questions which suggest
one answer, but the answer is actually the opposite, or at worst has
nothing to do with the answer you are suggesting. And then you go
ahead as though your opponent had given the answer you wanted,
without waiting for the answer.

> Why don't you try to
> demonstrate otherwise? Really, public schools is right in the quote and
> so is the claim about the scientific theory of ID.

And your hate-crazed mind puts a bunch of connectives between the
two things, connectives that aren't there.

You and your bootlicker Hemidactylus are birds of a feather.
He tried to put in connectives between two disparate things to bring
trumped-up charges against me for being Glenn's "pal" and Glenn
being my "minion." He got hit by fallout from that piece
of bootlicking on another thread, at almost the same time that
I posted the reply to you that you are trying to rebut now.


Re-vomited vomit by you, flushed.


Rebuttal by me that you dare not touch, retained:

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

>
> For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
> addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
> Archive updated anymore?

Ron O's tunnel vision is restricted to what goes on in talk.origins.
I wonder whether he is even aware of the existence of alt.talk.creationism
which I've very occasionally participated on in the past.

It is there that I found bona fide creationists coming up with
arguments that I've never seen by alleged creationists in talk.origins.
They included a laundry list of crap about Hyracotherium that the
talk.origins Archive FAQ shoots down, and which predates the
ID stuff Ron O is hung up on. I disposed of them handily without
even having to look at the FAQ. But that was years ago, so I
might have missed lots of arguments that aren't covered by the T.O. Archive,
for all I know.


I also found a number of very reasonable people arguing for common
descent. I brought one up to date, and he was grateful for it: he
thought that there no fossils of vertebrates in the Cambrian, and
I cited for him a textbook that mentioned one of the Cambrian craniates from
a Chinese laegerstatt [sp?].

> I don't agree with Peter over the "issue" of
> intelligent design, as I've made abundantly clear over the years, but
> you just seemingly attacked me, or you were at least very aggressive in
> your initial reply to me, for seemingly no reason when I've never done
> anything to provoke you in the first place. I don't know if this is a
> misunderstanding or what, but I`m honestly confused over this.

That's between you and Ron O.


I've started composing a rebuttal to his latest attempt to evade the facts
about something that happened way back in December 2010, but
I'll hold off with it because I have more urgent irons in the fire
right now. As I told you on "How supposedly irreducibly complex systems actually evolve,"
I have several of them, and the most important is
a research project in my mathematical specialty over the next two
weeks, give or take a day or two.

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

Specialty: set-theoretic topology

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>
>There is nothing insane about the truth, and you've never been able to PROVE
>a single lie by me. Your usual spiel, "What a liar" is never followed
>by anything even close to a proof.
>

`
What is point of anyone trying to *prove * your lies when you just
ignore it? You claimed on the "I'm Back" thread that you never tell
lies; I gave 3 examples of specific lies you have told about me and
you gave made no attempt to respond to it.

[..]

[RonO]

A fantasy that you have spent 8 years lying about. How can you claim
that it isn't why you have been such a loser for 8 years. You only did
the other dishonest and bogus junk because you wanted to misdirect the
argument from what you were originally running from.

>
>
>> You were in denial of
>> the Discovery Institute being involved in the Ohio bait and switch
>> fiasco.
>
> I asked whether the DI was implicated. That is all you've got,
> and if you weren't so much in love with your self-serving
> fantasy, you'd know it.

Go for it. Demonstrate that you ever addressed that post. All you will
see is you dodging the issue when directed back to what you claim that
you lost interest in, and snipping and running from what you can't deal
with. Really, you are such a bogus liar that why is this excuse only
coming out over 8 years later. This was Dec 2010, and you never made up
this lame excuse before. What should that tell someone even as lost as
you are?

>
>
>> All I had to do was put up the evidence and you ran.
>
> I briefly looked at what you had, saw that there was a chance
> that the DI had been implicated, and lost interest. I'm no
> DI fan. You'd have learned that years ago, but you
> desperately wanted for there to be a scapegoat for the DI
> on whom to vent your hate for it, so you made wish be father
> to the thought even before you put up what evidence you had.

You ran, kept denying reality, snipping and running from additional
evidence. How can you possibly make this claim? Really, go back to
that original thread and see what you did. You even started the
misdirection thread to misdirect the argument to something else. That
is how lame this excuse is.

You are the one that has pulled all the dirty tricks. You have
consistently been the assoholic weirdo that you are. All I ever had to
do was demonstrate what reality actually was and is. If you had any
evidence that I had pulled the dirty tricks like you have tried you
wouldn't have taken years to try to deliver your stupid knockdown posts.
The first knockdown post was based on one of your dirty tricks. You
took a quote of mine out of contexts, would not give me a link to the
post that it came from, and when I finally found what post it was, what
happened? It was just what I claimed and you were being the asshole
that you always are. You had to run from your first knockdown post.
Eventually you were shamed into trying to address my counters to the
bogus post, but all you could ever muster was getting through the first
paragraph, and then running from the rest. You really couldn't face
what you had done. What kind of knockdown was that? That was after
your dirty debating thread and the Scottish verdict assoholic threads.

To lie about reality like you are trying to do is just stupid.

I see that you have just snipped and run from the repost again, so I
will just repost it again so that you can run again. What is that like?
Are you proud of yourself for such bravery? Does it make you puff out
your chest in front of the mirror and beat it a couple of times?

Really, how stupid is it to claim what you weren't interested in as
"hearsay" as you first bogus excuse and then make up this stupidity?

The reason that you can't deal with the repost should tell you something
about what an asshole you are, but all you can do is lie about the junk
and do more assoholic things.

REPOST of REPOST again:
REPOST of REPOST:

I guess it is about time for the holy water anti Nyikosian post to make
the asshole run away again.

END REPOST of REPOST again:

Ron Okimoto

[Oxyaena]

On 7/12/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>
>>
>> For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
>> addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
>> Archive updated anymore?
>
> Ron O's tunnel vision is restricted to what goes on in talk.origins.
> I wonder whether he is even aware of the existence of alt.talk.creationism
> which I've very occasionally participated on in the past.
>

I don't care about your problems with RonO, I don't care about your
problems with Hemidactylus or Jillery, I only care about engaging in
on-topic discussion. Dissing RonO behind his back isn't moral, it's
cowardly. If I`m going to diss someone, I would need a good reason (I
have plenty of reason to do so to you) and I would do it to their face.
That's one of the many differences between you and me, Peter. Keep that
in mind.

> It is there that I found bona fide creationists coming up with
> arguments that I've never seen by alleged creationists in talk.origins.
> They included a laundry list of crap about Hyracotherium that the
> talk.origins Archive FAQ shoots down, and which predates the
> ID stuff Ron O is hung up on. I disposed of them handily without
> even having to look at the FAQ. But that was years ago, so I
> might have missed lots of arguments that aren't covered by the T.O. Archive,
> for all I know.

I wouldn't know, since I stopped frequenting alt.talk.creationism (and
by extension alt.atheism, sci.skeptic etc) years ago, shortly after
starting up the Oxyaena persona. From my experiences there
alt.talk.creationism was overrun by trolls, a sad fact of life for
high-profile newsgroups with no moderator (which is probably the reason
wby sbp has fared suitable well compared to other small newsgroups, most
of which were devastated by Ed Conrad and the rest by me).

You boasting about being able to beat creationists' skulls in with
knowledge isn't that noteworthy, I can do the same thing, and I can beat
you in many subjects as well, as you yourself have explained before,
probably the most noteworthy being paleontology, but I am skilled in a
hell of a lot of more fields than just paleontology, most of which
doesn't show because I don't frequent newsgroups that tend to discuss
those subjects.

>
>
> I also found a number of very reasonable people arguing for common
> descent. I brought one up to date, and he was grateful for it: he
> thought that there no fossils of vertebrates in the Cambrian, and
> I cited for him a textbook that mentioned one of the Cambrian craniates from
> a Chinese laegerstatt [sp?].

*Zhongjianicthys* is the genus of Cambrian vertebrate you're thinking about.

>
>
>
>> I don't agree with Peter over the "issue" of
>> intelligent design, as I've made abundantly clear over the years, but
>> you just seemingly attacked me, or you were at least very aggressive in
>> your initial reply to me, for seemingly no reason when I've never done
>> anything to provoke you in the first place. I don't know if this is a
>> misunderstanding or what, but I`m honestly confused over this.
>
> That's between you and Ron O.
>
>
> I've started composing a rebuttal to his latest attempt to evade the facts
> about something that happened way back in December 2010, but
> I'll hold off with it because I have more urgent irons in the fire
> right now. As I told you on "How supposedly irreducibly complex systems actually evolve,"
> I have several of them, and the most important is
> a research project in my mathematical specialty over the next two
> weeks, give or take a day or two.

You say this and yet you heartily engage in flame wars with other
posters on this newsgroup while supposedly having to "iron" out these
problems. You haven't even responded to any of my replies in sbp, or
Harshman's for that matter, or engage in the other threads there, and
yet you wholeheartedly engage in virtual fist-fights with other posters
on this cesspit of a newsgroup, which you are partly to blame for. I
kepp checking sbp to see if there is any new activity, and there is none.

Moving on, may I inquire what the parameters of your research project
are? I'll email you for further inquiries on this subject, since I doubt
you'd like to discuss this research before it gets published, since
someone might steal it if you do so.

[jillery]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:41:09 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>You haven't even responded to any of my replies in sbp, or
>Harshman's for that matter, or engage in the other threads there, and
>yet you wholeheartedly engage in virtual fist-fights with other posters
>on this cesspit of a newsgroup, which you are partly to blame for.

Well, I suppose "partly" can be considered a variation of "mostly".

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 23:48:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:41:09 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>You haven't even responded to any of my replies in sbp, or
>>Harshman's for that matter, or engage in the other threads there, and
>>yet you wholeheartedly engage in virtual fist-fights with other posters
>>on this cesspit of a newsgroup, which you are partly to blame for.
>
>
>Well, I suppose "partly" can be considered a variation of "mostly".

Yeah, like "She supports herself on only a fraction of my
income. Nine tenths."(Lenny Bruce? Jackie Vernon?)
--

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

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/6/18 2:14 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> I don't know about you but it would seem especially prudent to update
> what is arguably the web's best source of information to counter the
> lies and bullshit of the creationist movement in light of recent
> information in the sciences, since a lot of the FAQs on there are
> becoming dated, not terribly so, but it's still worrisome.

The main reason the website is no longer updated is because the people
who updated it no longer participate in the newsgroup. (I don't
remember all of them. John Wilkins was one, and I think Wesley
Elsberry). They have the passwords.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:21:33 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/6/18 2:14 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> I don't know about you but it would seem especially prudent to update
>> what is arguably the web's best source of information to counter the
>> lies and bullshit of the creationist movement in light of recent
>> information in the sciences, since a lot of the FAQs on there are
>> becoming dated, not terribly so, but it's still worrisome.
>
>The main reason the website is no longer updated is because the people
>who updated it no longer participate in the newsgroup. (I don't
>remember all of them. John Wilkins was one, and I think Wesley
>Elsberry). They have the passwords.

AIUI Friar Broccoli was substantially involved in maintaining the
archive. It's been a long time since I have seen any posts with that
nic.

[RonO]

On 7/12/2018 9:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Since Nyikos has run again, I will just clean up some of his other bogus
stupidity. Here we see Nyikos denying what he has done several times on
TO. I recall a couple of incidences when he was talking smack about his
exploits over at talk.abortion where he claimed that he had never lost
an exchange on the internet, but no one here wants to hear about that
kind of bullshit. For some reason he has to deny that he has made the
claim that he has never lost an exchange. It is an obvious lie (Where
is my repost?).

Here is one example where he is talking about his stupidity on TO.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Dd4XADR96pA/swGJTb2nycEJ

QUOTE:
The relationship between me and the other talk.origins regulars wrt
accusations of malicious lies here is a lot like the relationship
between Bilbo and Gollum wrt riddles.

If I win, they lead me out of *one* cavern of back-and-forth with them
by ignoring the post where I do it.

If I lose, everyone who has ever decided to become an adversary of
mine gets to join in "devouring" my existence on Usenet.

Fortunately, I have never lost, and if I remain true to my nature, I
never will.

Bill got a little taste of why that is so, and even that little taste
seems to have led me out of the cavern of back-and-forth with him, at
least where this thread is concerned.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

You can see Nyikos lying about his past exploits in other posts in this
old By their fruits thread.

So Nyikos did make the claim, but I haven't seen the claim since I
started the holy water repost. This should also count as a lie (never
losing), since Nyikos is still running from that 2010 post. Why would
he have needed to start his first misdirection thread if his exchange
was going so well or the Dirty Debating thread etc. His first knockdown
thread was such a dead loss that it took him years to deliver the other
two knockdowns, and it is very apparent that the knockdowns that he was
thinking of presenting flopped even before he presented them because he
never presented them, and his second knockdown was his stupid google
story that he made up long after claiming to be able to deliver his
three knockdowns. I don't know what his third knockdown was because he
has never told me what it is and has never given me a link to check it
out. Nyikos lost these exchanges years before making this statement in
2013 in my By Their Fruits thread. Nyikos really is this sad. Lying is
a way of life for Nyikos.

>
>
>> and that you had never lied on the internet.
>
> That is true, and I've challenged you to try and post a SELF-CONTAINED
> proof of what you think of as a lie, instead of wantonly labeling
> things

"SELF-CONTAINED" is just a stupid excuse for Nyikos to lie with
impunity. It is why the repost is missing from this post of his. It is
why he removes the material from a post before lying about it. If
Nyikos removes the material that he is lying about, and you have to go
to the previous post in order to demonstrate that he is lying, in
Nyikos' fantasy world, Nyikos is not lying. His lie about not claiming
to have never lost an exchange on the internet isn't a lie because even
though he asked for the evidence he won't accept it because he was lying
about that past post, and not something in this post. His lie was not
"SELF-CONTAINED".

This is the kind of stupidity that I have had to deal with for years,
and it should have ended around 8 years ago, but all I can do is repost
the holy water repost and get the asshole to run for a few months.

I will save a link and copy of this post so that when Nyikos lies about
this junk again, I can just let him stew in it again.

Ron OKimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 7/12/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
> >> addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
> >> Archive updated anymore?
> >
> > Ron O's tunnel vision is restricted to what goes on in talk.origins.
> > I wonder whether he is even aware of the existence of alt.talk.creationism
> > which I've very occasionally participated on in the past.
> >
>
>
> I don't care about your problems with RonO,

...nor about how short-sighted Ron O is in his outlook, which
is the point I was making above. But you are too steeped in
personal animosity towards me to keep that in mind below.

> I don't care about your
> problems with Hemidactylus or Jillery,

Oh, yes, you do, and you've exacerbated them, and jillery has exacerbated
your problems with me in the thread you began:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/SKD-uDCXCgAJ
Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <35ff4c3f-3f44-4afa...@googlegroups.com>

> I only care about engaging in
> on-topic discussion.

Tell me another whopper, you who called me The Prince of Lies in
a post completely devoid of on-topic discussion and completely
devoted to character assassination.

And now you are ranting and raving on that thread, after jillery
tried her best to bail you out there and failed. She had to resort more
and more to setting up strawmen and knocking them down while you
conveniently absented yourself.

> Dissing RonO behind his back isn't moral, it's
> cowardly.

He's right on this thread, so you must be referring to some other
thread if you have even a rudimentary sense of truth and falsehood.

So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this: to which thread
WERE you referring?

>If I`m going to diss someone, I would need a good reason (I
> have plenty of reason to do so to you) and I would do it to their face.

I'll hold you to that standard.

Keep in mind that you've already broken a standard you set for yourself
in sci.bio.paleontology, where you did an OP on June 11 giving me a
schoolmarmish tongue-lashing while treating Erik Simpson with
kid gloves in the same post.

> That's one of the many differences between you and me, Peter. Keep that
> in mind.

Let's see how these things really play out in The World According to
Oxyaena.

What Hemidactylus wrote to me behind Glenn's back was malicious
but juicy gossip, hence a good read, hence moral.

What Peter wrote to ________________ behind Ron O's back was
truthful but critical, hence judgmental, hence immoral.

Did I get it right? Can you fill in the blank above?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:25:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Let's see how these things really play out in The World According to
> Oxyaena.
>

> What Hemidactylus wrote to [Peter] behind Glenn's back was malicious

> but juicy gossip, hence a good read, hence moral.
>
> What Peter wrote to ________________ behind Ron O's back was
> truthful but critical, hence judgmental, hence immoral.
>
> Did I get it right?

Not exactly. I momentarily forgot that I was writing from what I believe
to be Oxyaena's POV. I had "me" where now "Peter" appears in brackets.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thread deleted from reader for sufficiently good reason.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:05:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Thread deleted from reader for sufficiently good reason.

Once again, Hemidactylus demonstrates his pathological self-righteousness.

And perhaps also what might be called "vicarious self-righteousness
by proxy for Oxyaena."

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:20:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 7/12/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
>> >> addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
>> >> Archive updated anymore?
>> >
>> > Ron O's tunnel vision is restricted to what goes on in talk.origins.
>> > I wonder whether he is even aware of the existence of alt.talk.creationism
>> > which I've very occasionally participated on in the past.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I don't care about your problems with RonO,
>
>...nor about how short-sighted Ron O is in his outlook, which
>is the point I was making above. But you are too steeped in
>personal animosity towards me to keep that in mind below.
>
>
>> I don't care about your
>> problems with Hemidactylus or Jillery,
>
>Oh, yes, you do, and you've exacerbated them, and jillery has exacerbated
>your problems with me in the thread you began:
>
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/SKD-uDCXCgAJ
>Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <35ff4c3f-3f44-4afa...@googlegroups.com>

And here's yet another example of your irrelevant spew. As usual, you
don't even try to identify what in your cited post has your panties in
a twist, nevermind actually back up your bald assertions.

And to put the lie to your canard that it's unreasonable to expect you
to back up your bald assertions every time you make them, I point out
that you have *never* replied to the post you cited.

I am curious to know your houseguests' reactions, that you waste time
posting irrelevant spew like the above instead paying attention to
them.

[Oxyaena]

On 7/25/2018 3:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 7/12/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For once I`m inclined to agree with Peter, in so much that you never
>>>> addressed the question I put up in the OP, that is, why isn't the TO
>>>> Archive updated anymore?
>>>
>>> Ron O's tunnel vision is restricted to what goes on in talk.origins.
>>> I wonder whether he is even aware of the existence of alt.talk.creationism
>>> which I've very occasionally participated on in the past.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't care about your problems with RonO,
>
> ...nor about how short-sighted Ron O is in his outlook, which
> is the point I was making above. But you are too steeped in
> personal animosity towards me to keep that in mind below.

I would have no animosity against you if you actually acted like a human
being instead of a raging orc trying to piss on as many people as he can.

>
>
>> I don't care about your
>> problems with Hemidactylus or Jillery,
>
> Oh, yes, you do, and you've exacerbated them, and jillery has exacerbated
> your problems with me in the thread you began:

Oh, no, I don't. I've always had problems with you, it's just that I was
being *extremely* patient with you for the past six months in the hopes
you would uphold the truce we made, but even my patience has ran out as
you continued to spam t.o. with your bullshit and slander me behind my back.

>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/SKD-uDCXCgAJ
> Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <35ff4c3f-3f44-4afa...@googlegroups.com>
>
>> I only care about engaging in
>> on-topic discussion.
>
> Tell me another whopper, you who called me The Prince of Lies in
> a post completely devoid of on-topic discussion and completely
> devoted to character assassination.

That post was in response to another post, by you, that was "completely

devoid of on-topic discussion and completely devoted to character

assassination". Looks like you haven't satisfied your pathological need
to project your own faults unto others yet, Nyikos.

>
> And now you are ranting and raving on that thread, after jillery
> tried her best to bail you out there and failed. She had to resort more
> and more to setting up strawmen and knocking them down while you
> conveniently absented yourself.

Psychological projection of Nyikos's own faults unto others (me) noted.

>
>
>> Dissing RonO behind his back isn't moral, it's
>> cowardly.
>
> He's right on this thread, so you must be referring to some other
> thread if you have even a rudimentary sense of truth and falsehood.
>

You apparently must have a problem with recognizing dates, since he
stopped posting on this thread weeks ago, apparently fed up with your
bullshit.

> So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this: to which thread
> WERE you referring?

This one, you arrogant narcissist.

>
>
>> If I`m going to diss someone, I would need a good reason (I
>> have plenty of reason to do so to you) and I would do it to their face.
>
> I'll hold you to that standard.

I'll do the same, and you've already failed when I started writing this.
For the record, I *do* have plenty of reasons to diss you, Nyikos, even
if you're too self-absorbed to realize what those reasons are.

>
> Keep in mind that you've already broken a standard you set for yourself
> in sci.bio.paleontology, where you did an OP on June 11 giving me a
> schoolmarmish tongue-lashing while treating Erik Simpson with
> kid gloves in the same post.

Keep in mind that you haven't posted to sbp in weeks. Keep in mind that
talk.origins isn't sci.bio.paleontology. Keep in mind that you've broken
that standard multiple times on sbp. Keep in mind that you have yet to
respond to any of my recent posts to sbp, including my response to you
on the "The evolution of bipedality in *Oreopithecus* and hominins"
thread. Keep in mind you'd rather engage in character assassinations on
talk.origins rather than discuss paleontology in sbp. Keep in mind that
the last post you made to sbp was almost a month ago, while you've made
plenty of posts engaging in these petty feuds on t.o. over the past
month alone, not even counting the YEARS you've been playing this
fucking game. Keep in mind that you are in no place to criticize me when
you're hypocritically doing the exact same fucking things you're
accusing me of supposedly doing.

[snip mindless idiocy]
>
>
> Peter "King of Fools" Nyikos
>

You need medication, Nyikos.

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:07:19 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 7/25/2018 3:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>[snip mindless idiocy]


That's a good idea, but you didn't follow through.


[snip remaining mindless idiocy]


Now isn't that better?

[Oxyaena]

On 7/26/2018 6:23 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:07:19 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2018 3:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
>> [snip mindless idiocy]
>
>
> That's a good idea, but you didn't follow through.
>
>
> [snip remaining mindless idiocy]
>
>
> Now isn't that better?

Completely.