Paranoia Like I Have Never Seen Here in Talk.Origins Before

[Peter Nyikos]

In talk.origins, "paranoia" is so often misused as a talisman [1], it comes
as a surprise to see actual paranoia by several long-time regulars in
the wake of the unexpected election of Trump.

One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.

_________________________excerpt________________________

Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The topic title says it all.
>>>
>>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
>>>
>> Then get the fuck out.
>
> How charming can you be?

His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.

========================== end of excerpt
from:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>

One irony here is that Hemidactylus himself has used
violent language in the past, belying his reading all kinds
of violent stuff into what Glenn wrote:


Hold his feet to the fire and make it fucking burn!

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/NBQ5cWTCRgQ/F4gkBjP79ZgJ

That was Hemidactylus, egging Mitchell Coffey on to keep
making wild accusations against me; his only defense could
be that he did not realize how wild those accusations were.


[1] In my experience, the charge of "paranoia" in t.o. is almost
invariably used as a talisman to ward off charges of reprehensible
behavior against oneself. Earlier this year I started a thread
on this talisman and on the closely related talisman "conspiracy
theory":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/72ORRQeol6M/8U9I0cmSLQAJ


Next up: Mark Isaak, with a prelude by jillery.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
> the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.
>
> _________________________excerpt________________________
>
> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
> >> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
> >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The topic title says it all.
> >>>
> >>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
> >>>
> >> Then get the fuck out.
> >
> > How charming can you be?
>
> His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
> will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
> but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
> Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
> disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
>
> ========================== end of excerpt
> from:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
> Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>

Mark Isaak's initial post to the "Trump Won" thread was somewhat
less paranoid than what you see above from Hemidactylus, but he
has stuck to his paranoid guns a lot more since then.

_____________________excerpt from reply by Mark to jillery___________


> In a world where young girls are shot in the face for proclaiming
> their right to have a life, and nations are held hostage for petty
> insults to a Deity, I guess complaining about Trump at this time could
> be thought of as petulant whining. Let's wait to complain about him
> until *after* he starts WWIII.

Hitler achieved and kept power in part because good people waited to
complain. Trump is following the same path as Hitler. I would rather
not have his leadership go as far along it. Let us decide, right now,
that if a president of the US orders imprisonment of political enemies,
if he starts building and populating mass detainment facilities (aka
concentration camps), if he encourages violence against any ethnic or
religious group, if he starts hindering free speech, then it is right an
proper not just to complain, but to take up arms against him.

===============================end of excerpt from:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/whz3KB8wAwAJ

Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:00:39 -0800
Message-ID: <o00dag$uha$1...@dont-email.me>

Lots of "if" clauses, but note the absence of conditionals on
"Trump is following the same path as Hitler." That has been
a theme of Mark's in subsequent posts too. More about that
later on in this thread.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Hitler achieved and kept power in part because good people waited to
> complain. Trump is following the same path as Hitler. I would rather
> not have his leadership go as far along it. Let us decide, right now,
> that if a president of the US orders imprisonment of political enemies,
> if he starts building and populating mass detainment facilities (aka
> concentration camps), if he encourages violence against any ethnic or
> religious group, if he starts hindering free speech, then it is right an
> proper not just to complain, but to take up arms against him.
>
> ===============================end of excerpt from:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/whz3KB8wAwAJ
> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

The following excerpt from a reply to Mitchell Coffey, right on the
thread where Hemidactylus egged him on with "Hold his feet to the fire
and make it fucking burn!" speaks directly to Mark Isaak playing the
Hitler card in the above excerpt:

-------------------- excerpt --------------------------------

Then-NAACP Chairman Julian Bond pulled out the Nazi card in 2004
while criticizing congressional Republicans and the White House:
"They preach racial equality but practice racial division. ...
Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate
swastika flying side by side."

Bond later clarified whom he meant by "they." Speaking at
historically black Fayetteville State University in
North Carolina in 2006, Bond said, "The Republican Party
would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."

http://catholicexchange.com/comparing-republicans-to-nazis-who-started-it/

I wonder whether the news that the author of the article was Larry Elder
would be enough for many readers to dismiss the whole article, or
to criticize me for daring to write about it here. I wonder whether
the following excerpt will placate Coffey, or whether it will only
arouse his revulsion.

How casually Democrats make Hitler-Nazi-fascist references
to demean their political opponents is astonishing. By calling
political opponents "fascists" because of policy disagreements,
Democrats trivialize a regime responsible for exterminating
6 million Jews in a war that resulted in the deaths of over
50 million people.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/NBQ5cWTCRgQ/MrPa90_Q2yUJ

The above excerpt, and Coffey's reply, were made two and a half
years ago, but the contents seem very relevant to Mark's paranoia.

Coffey seldom posts to t.o. these days, but he did post on the 11th
to the "Trump Won" thread, and it might be very interesting to see
his reaction now to the above excerpt as juxtaposed with what I've
quoted from Mark above.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In talk.origins, "paranoia" is so often misused as a talisman [1], it comes
> as a surprise to see actual paranoia by several long-time regulars in
> the wake of the unexpected election of Trump.
>
> One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
> the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.
>

Refresh my memory on how I "recently misused the word "paranoid" in a
bizarre way." I see nothing in the below summary posting.

Is this a prelude to another list? Or a recasting of Magnificent Seven?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
(as you saw in the OP of this thread).

First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:

> _____________________excerpt from reply by Mark to jillery___________

> Hitler achieved and kept power in part because good people waited to
> complain. Trump is following the same path as Hitler. I would rather
> not have his leadership go as far along it. Let us decide, right now,
> that if a president of the US orders imprisonment of political enemies,
> if he starts building and populating mass detainment facilities (aka
> concentration camps), if he encourages violence against any ethnic or
> religious group, if he starts hindering free speech, then it is right an
> proper not just to complain, but to take up arms against him.
>
> ===============================end of excerpt from:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/whz3KB8wAwAJ
> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:00:39 -0800
> Message-ID: <o00dag$uha$1...@dont-email.me>
>
> Lots of "if" clauses, but note the absence of conditionals on
> "Trump is following the same path as Hitler."

There are no conditional clauses in Mark's paranoid screed
against me in the following excerpt, only a pair of alternative
predicted outcomes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt, Mark going first +++++++++++++++++++++++++

> >> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
> >> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> >> have me disappeared.
> >
> > What makes you so paranoid about me?
>
> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.

You remind me of a talk.abortion regular, as big on abortion rights
as you are on LGBT rights and privileges, who actually thought that if
Mahatma Gandhi, Cezar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr. had been
one of the subjects of Milgram's shock experiments, they too would have
administered what they thought were near-lethal shocks to the
purported "subjects."

Your inability to draw distinctions is clear from the way I am
the target of your paranoia despite my having posted the reply
to Jonathan that you see here -- or would see if you took
the bother to read it:

________________________________ repost____________________

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:

> On 11/9/2016 1:28 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
> >> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The topic title says it all.
> >>
> >> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
> >>
> > Then get the fuck out.

> Funny how Trump supporters are easy so to spot.
>
> You're gonna get a big surprise when you find
> out Trump is really a democrat in wolf's clothing.
> Trump said whatever he needed to get elected, his
> policies and his campaign rhetoric will be two
> entirely different things.

Well, I sure hope his outrageous "promise" to deport two million
illegal aliens and deny visas to countries that will not take them

back, is one of those promises that he will not try to keep.

I even have a slim hope that the office of the Presidency will
make a better man out of Trump, just as it did for Chester
Alan Arthur.

Unless that happens, my attitude towards the election will be summed
up in the following bit of dark humor:

I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that Clinton lost. The bad news is that Trump won.

Peter Nyikos
========================== end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/Opf0Qd9iAwAJ

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above excerpt appeared in:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/ak9RqV1VBQAJ

Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:48:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <06697caa-5c2d-46ba...@googlegroups.com>

Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP). The explanation will
be revealed in the next post I do to this thread. [Or maybe someone
will beat me to it.]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:10:30 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


Apparently you're determined to show your paranoia about being called
paranoid, a self-fulfilling feature if there ever was one. Do they
have a formal name for that condition, perhaps "paranoiaphobia"?

Of course, it should go without saying that even if you show others
are paranoid, that isn't relevant to whether you're paranoid. Just
sayin'.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

Whatever else it is, it shows his characteristic unintended irony,
that he defends his claim of paranoia as talisman to ward off charges
of reprehensible behavior, by himself making charges of reprehensible
behavior. It's as if everything he complains about others doing,
suddenly turns to righteous behavior when he does it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
>
> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:

First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it. When someone
tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
to believe someone is out to get you.

Suppose I were to characterize an opposing opinion as literally insane
even though there is objective support for it. How would you call that?

>>>> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
>>>> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
>>>> have me disappeared.
>>>
>>> What makes you so paranoid about me?
>>
>> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.
>
> You remind me of a talk.abortion regular, as big on abortion rights
> as you are on LGBT rights and privileges, who actually thought that if
> Mahatma Gandhi, Cezar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr. had been
> one of the subjects of Milgram's shock experiments, they too would have
> administered what they thought were near-lethal shocks to the
> purported "subjects."

You are aware, are you not, that a large majority of the people were
willing to administer potentially lethal shocks. And it does not
require a majority to create a fascist police state. All it requires is
a sizeable but minority group willing to do so, plus a majority who are
willing either to look the other way or are afraid to act, plus the
group which *is* willing to act against the police state being small
enough to be ineffective. You, to all appearances, are placing yourself
firmly in the do-nothing group. I have been hoping you would commit
yourself to be in the group that does the right thing regardless of what
the leaders order, but I guess that will not happen.

> [...]

> Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
> than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
> Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP).

I am not really paranoid about you. Your suspicion that I am stems from
your own paranoia.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Here you will find out why Mark was so paranoid about me as to say
that, if he is right about what our country is going to undergo,

you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
have me disappeared.

The explanation is that Mark has had a completely wrong understanding
of my opinions about same-sex marriage, and has jumped to the false
conclusion that I am a homophobe:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt, Mark going first +++++++++++++++++++++++++

> >> You oppose actual marriage, and the legal and social benefits which come
> >> with it, for people solely and exclusively on account of their sexual
> >> preference.
> >
> > You have learned nothing from what I wrote in direct reply to you
> > earlier this year. I do not oppose the benefits, but only the label
> > "marriage".
>
> That's like saying, "I do not oppose the benefits of you having a legal
> driver's license, but only your having one."

Did you stop to think before you posted this analogy? Can't you see
how you are conceding the fact that you posted a blatant falsehood
about what I want, and used it to support a trumped-up charge
of homophobia?

If a person can drive a car all he wants without the benefit of a license,
and has something to show a policeman when stopped for speeding,etc. that
serves the same purpose, what does he have to complain about?

To complete the analogy, he even has a right, granted by the First
Amendment, to claim that he has a driver's license, in informal
conversation with others. Like many did before they were legally
married.

> >> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
> >> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> >> have me disappeared.
> >
> > What makes you so paranoid about me?
>
> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.

You remind me of a talk.abortion regular, as big on abortion rights
as you are on LGBT rights and privileges, who actually thought that if
Mahatma Gandhi, Cezar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr. had been
one of the subjects of Milgram's shock experiments, they too would have
administered what they thought were near-lethal shocks to the
purported "subjects."

************************** end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/ak9RqV1VBQAJ

Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:48:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <06697caa-5c2d-46ba...@googlegroups.com>

Readers who have been reading this thread attentively [are there any?]
will have recognized that the part of the above excerpt beginning with
Mark's words "But don't worry" appeared in the post that I did immediately
preceding this one.

There, I went on to repost something that evidently allayed Mark's paranoia
about *me* even though he deleted the repost in a reply done about
half an hour ago.

In it, he apparently realizes that he should have replied differently to
my question "What makes you so paranoid about me?" He is far too proud
to admit any such thing, and so he has even tried to turn the tables
on me by claiming I am paranoid for thinking he is paranoid about me!

I will reply to his dominance game in due course. Meanwhile,
readers can look at how he left the following words of mine
in his reply to me...

> Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
> than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
> Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP).

...but did not deign to notice what I wrote about Hemidactylus,
although one might have expected him to allege that I am
also paranoid to think that Hemidactylus is paranoid about Glenn.

Mark also snipped the closing lines, which might have made people wonder
why Mark didn't try to anticipate what I might have had in mind:

>The explanation will
> be revealed in the next post I do to this thread. [Or maybe someone
> will beat me to it.]

For sure, Mark didn't beat me to it!

Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

Oh, Peter, oh Peter:

Do you really think the triumph of Hitler was caused by ordinary good
people shut up their mouths?

I do not think so. Those that protested in Germany were only the
communists and a few socialists. But those were a minority. Well, it
existed a socialist party, rather moderate, that do not pretended to
destroy capitalism. The communists accused the socialists of being
in a secret coalition with the capitalist. A little like occurs now
in most European nations.

It had happened in Europe a similar process of transvestism of the
socialists playing a role of a right party. And the right party had move
more to the right to make room for the socialists. The same occurs in
US. The republican party had move more to the far right to let room
for Democratic party to sit.

But at that time, during the economic depression of the 30's, apparently
there was not any solution that would not had passed by a cruel war.
Only a murderous war would make people to forget the shit they were
living in. Not any decent man had the foggiest idea on how to solve
this crisis. Then, Hitler had both hands free to promote his party.
As the word socialism was a nasty word for most rich people, still it is,
the rich of the world and of Germany were breast feeding the Nazi party,
with regular injections of money. I never has seen any commentator
to tell this. From where the Nazi party was extracting so much money
in uniforms and in feeding the Nazi troop and helping with the electoral
campaigns of Hitler and other Nazis.

For basically, the Nazis were rich people. They were sort of German trash,
if some comments I read were true.

What can you do when a nation is in ruin? Not any decent man can reply
to this question. Some people like Ford, have a more clear idea on this
matter. The solution was to help the Nazi party with millions of dollars.

Here, we are not yet in the same situation. I mean in the US. Trump has
simply swindle the voters with their style of campaign. That was the main
reason to win. The poor, some fraction of the white poor workers, are
full of shit in the US. Trump was suggesting ways of mending this. But
had he really intentions of solving the problem of the poor white trash?

I am a part of the white trash, by the way. I think I know what is the
problem. Globalized economy has resulted catastrophic for the poor white
trash. Not so much for the black trash, for they were already in the shit
since they were slaves.
The situation is now close to the economic depression of the 30's but
nobody in the Republican party not in the Democratic part seem aware
of this. Not even Trump in spite of what he said during the electoral
campaign. As the rules are dictated by the congress and the house, nobody
would move a finger to solve this situation. It can last till the year
2030 or 2040, when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. This would
cause the collapse of this Christian-Muslim civilization and a fight
to eat the flesh of each other would start.

Eri

[eridanus]

Without making any noise, Obama was deporting undocumented aliens, at the
rate of a million per year, if the information I read is valid.

So, I do not see what is the cause of this horror. This cannot be the
problem. What I see as a problem is the fast increase in population in
the past 100 years. In 1800 the population of the planet was 1 billion,
now it is 7 billions. It looks nothing. It is just an innocent number.

Once should ask why this had been possible? The fossil fuels and the
machines had made cheaper the agriculture, as well as the transportation
and the storage of food. This is reason the population had grown so
fast. Now all things that rise very high, like a balloon, must to fall
back again. This is what is going to happen with the present population.

Eri

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).

Glenn demanded I get the fuck out of his country. I guess because the
American people have spoken and he volunteered as their local spokesperson?

If you noticed or cared to thoughtfully reflect as you never do you would
have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with. Recall
this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[quote]
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[/end quote]

[snip boring stuff where Peter goes on and on about Mark]

> Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
> than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
> Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP). The explanation will
> be revealed in the next post I do to this thread. [Or maybe someone
> will beat me to it.]

If I put myself toward the end of the list of undesirables then just how
paranoid am I. I was emphasizing with other Others with higher priority
such as Mexicans and Muslims. Since when is concern for others paranoia?
Shouldn't I be afraid the Jihadists are out to get me instead? If I thought
that "the Muslims" were itching to take over and make me a dhimmi instead
of my being concerned with unjustified profiling would that make me
paranoid too? Or is that acceptable?

I guess so:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html


And can you remember what you may have done to me to warrant my: "Hold his
feet to the fire and make it fucking burn! "? That was a while back and I
have a hard time remembering what had me irked enough with you to say such
a thing. You are so much better at recalling context and details from years
ago so maybe you could figure it out for us. Thanks in advance.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > In talk.origins, "paranoia" is so often misused as a talisman [1], it comes
> > as a surprise to see actual paranoia by several long-time regulars in
> > the wake of the unexpected election of Trump.
> >
> > One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
> > the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.
> >
>
> Refresh my memory on how I "recently misused the word "paranoid" in a
> bizarre way." I see nothing in the below summary posting.

It is preserved and dissected at length in the following post, to
which you still have not replied:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/zblZJ7_hAwAJ

Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3bc9b693-8a3c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>

Are you just pretending to have forgotten about it? That would be in line
with the rest of your behavior in this post, including the way you
breezed past your own tirade about Glenn as though it had never existed:

> > _________________________excerpt________________________
> >
> > Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
> >>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The topic title says it all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
> >>>>
> >>> Then get the fuck out.
> >>
> >> How charming can you be?
> >
> > His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
> > will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
> > but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
> > Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
> > disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
> >
> > ========================== end of excerpt
> > from:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
> > Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> > Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
> > Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>

<snip of other text you breezed past without comment>

> > Next up: Mark Isaak, with a prelude by jillery.
> >
> Is this a prelude to another list? Or a recasting of Magnificent Seven?

Your flippant attitude leads me to wonder: was that tirade an
elaborate hoax having nothing to do with the way you actually
think about Glenn or about his one-liner?

Peter Nyikos

PS A while back, you and jillery had a great time pretending to take
one of my "awards" seriously, but when I revealed that I hadn't been
taken in by your leg-pulling, you both disappeared from the thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/YVpSDtn6I-c/3p091_AUbigJ
Subject: Re: Low IQ Simulation of the Month for March 2015
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2d1473ae-4cd1-4de0...@googlegroups.com>

I view your one-liner at the end as more of the same
kind of flippant leg-pulling.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/17/16 2:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Here you will find out why Mark was so paranoid about me as to say
> that, if he is right about what our country is going to undergo,
>
> you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> have me disappeared.
>
> The explanation is that Mark has had a completely wrong understanding
> of my opinions about same-sex marriage, and has jumped to the false
> conclusion that I am a homophobe:

> [snip]

I have no idea what your being a homophobe has do to with projections
about treatment of aliens and other minorities under Trump's leadership.
However, since you want to wallow in it,

Did you, or did you not say that you oppose homosexual couples being
able to use the legal term "marriage" for their relationship?

If your answer is that you do not oppose that, then indeed I have a
completely wrong understanding of your opinion. If you do oppose that,
then either you do not understand that a legal marriage is more than
just a word (but I suspect your IQ is higher than 40, which rules out
that option), or you oppose legal and social benefits to homosexuals
solely on the basis of their sexual preference, which is just another
way of saying that you are a homophobe.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> > just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> > (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
> >
> > First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
>
> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.

It is a specific kind of delusion.

> When someone
> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
> to believe someone is out to get you.

Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?

<snip red herring, to be replied to if you insist>

> >>>> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
> >>>> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> >>>> have me disappeared.
> >>>
> >>> What makes you so paranoid about me?
> >>
> >> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.

Funny, that: in this earlier exchange, you neglected to hint at the
"fact" that you aren't paranoid about me. It took this new thread to make
you suddenly play a different tune on your pipe:

<snip of a side issue, to be dealt with in a separate post>

> I am not really paranoid about you. Your suspicion that I am stems from
> your own paranoia.

What are you trying to do, show Hemidactylus that you can be just
as flippant about what you wrote as he is about what he wrote?

If you really want to imitate Hemidactylus, you should also
consider telling eridanus how I may have volunteered to be the
local spokesman of the American people in a quest
to make you disappear. ;-)

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> In talk.origins, "paranoia" is so often misused as a talisman [1], it comes
>>> as a surprise to see actual paranoia by several long-time regulars in
>>> the wake of the unexpected election of Trump.
>>>
>>> One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
>>> the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.
>>>
>>
>> Refresh my memory on how I "recently misused the word "paranoid" in a
>> bizarre way." I see nothing in the below summary posting.
>
> It is preserved and dissected at length in the following post, to
> which you still have not replied:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/zblZJ7_hAwAJ
> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:15:01 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <3bc9b693-8a3c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>

That link isn't working for me on mobile browser so not sure what you're
going on about and hesitant about chasing down any of your infamously deep
and meandering rabbit holes. Your posts are often rabbit warrens without
the cute cuddly bunnies. They often recount bunnies run over on the
roadside or left at the front door half eaten by a sadistic cat. You.

Even when I try to be nice to you, which drives Jillery crazy, you
construct some obnoxious assclown narrative that pisses me off. Therefore
Jillery was correct.

You first thought Mark was more paranoid than me but reversed your position
based on the same metric whereby you can say some wildass assumption has a
10% chance of being correct? I used the Arabic phrase for peace upon you
and snarkily quipped I would wind up in Gitmo. Did that change your mind?
Or did it start with Glenn's truncheon post where he told me to get out of
his country and I reacted? Do you wish me deported too? And I seriously
asked about recruiting talent to your school from Muslim nations in a new
more suspicion oriented Trumpian environment and you completely sidestepped
that one with quirky irrelevancies. Or are you implicitly analogizing me to
some abortion newsgroup foe from wayback? Or are you lumping me with Harsh
and Mark as if we've met in person over beers and wings and plotted
strategy against you? Not that I wouldn't enjoy beer and wings with
alleged co-conspirators Harsh and Mark.

> Are you just pretending to have forgotten about it? That would be in line
> with the rest of your behavior in this post, including the way you
> breezed past your own tirade about Glenn as though it had never existed:
>

Oh it definitely existed. Why do I get the feeling you will be recounting
this 2 years from now alongside my masterpiece of the exploding head
excerpted from campy horror movie Scanners? That was a moment of heartfelt
sincerity on my part as your posts often cause my head to explode.

[movie review]
Speaking of campy horror I recently watched Phantasm Ravager on my DVR.
That was Angus Scrimm's last portrayal of the creepy Tall Man with the
brain sucking silver balls. The movie incorporated membrane theory and the
multiverse in a nifty way for how the main character Reggie was being
shifted between different times and places in search of his buddies from
the first movie. The best part was the 71 Cuda. Sweet car. Cudas are the
best muscle cars.

The Ravager movie was confusing but at least not as involved as watching
multiple seasons of Lost and wanting to throw a shoe at the TV after the
crappy finale.
[end movie review]

>>> _________________________excerpt________________________
>>>
>>> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The topic title says it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then get the fuck out.
>>>>
>>>> How charming can you be?
>>>
>>> His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
>>> will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
>>> but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
>>> Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
>>> disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
>>>
>>> ========================== end of excerpt
>>> from:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
>>> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
>>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
>>> Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>
>
>
> <snip of other text you breezed past without comment>
>

This thread is essentially a viciously intended hit piece against Mark and
I from someone with a reputation for carrying grudges and recycling ancient
posts. You are an abstract artist when it comes to painting narratives
about people you despise. It's a gift of yours for assembling meandering
connect the dot collages embellished with custom hues and textures. Picasso
or Pollock?

>
>>> Next up: Mark Isaak, with a prelude by jillery.
>>>
>> Is this a prelude to another list? Or a recasting of Magnificent Seven?
>
> Your flippant attitude leads me to wonder:

I wonder about your newfound romantic involvement with the word "flippant".
Get a room.

> was that tirade an
> elaborate hoax having nothing to do with the way you actually
> think about Glenn or about his one-liner?

How would that wild theory jibe with your wacko theory about my paranoia?
Mutually exclusive and both wrong.

> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS A while back, you and jillery had a great time pretending to take
> one of my "awards" seriously, but when I revealed that I hadn't been
> taken in by your leg-pulling, you both disappeared from the thread:

I gave it and you about as much regard as deserved. I file you into the
bozo bin with Ray. To be laughed at but not taken seriously. A virtual
bedlam tour.

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/YVpSDtn6I-c/3p091_AUbigJ
> Subject: Re: Low IQ Simulation of the Month for March 2015
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <2d1473ae-4cd1-4de0...@googlegroups.com>
>
> I view your one-liner at the end as more of the same
> kind of flippant leg-pulling.

There goes that word again. On November 2 I told you I didn't give a flip
about your analogy and you've been obsessed by the word "flippant" ever
since. That's linguistically disturbing. It makes me think you hang on my
every word. I've noticed these odd sorts of effects I have on you before.
Are you a starstruck groupie? If so I would rather you obsess over my rival
for your affection Harshman because following your thoughtstream is akin to
walking through the yard and collapsing into a failed septic tank. It's
hard to tread the nasty water and I feel dirty for several days after I get
out.

[erik simpson]

Bravo! A literary masterpiece! This should keep him going on you 'till the
end of time.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I first encountered him in the late 90's but I wonder if Nyikos is my "Tall
Man":

https://youtu.be/FpKLPklM6U0

RIP Angus Scrimm. If I could drive the Cuda it would be worth it:

https://youtu.be/GWXG7ELJZqE

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:5tCdnUDAYZcnArLF...@giganews.com...

If you need a job, I'm sure the Washington Post would hire you.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:41:30 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Even when I try to be nice to you, which drives Jillery crazy, you
>construct some obnoxious assclown narrative that pisses me off. Therefore
>Jillery was correct.

Your behavior toward any poster besides myself is no business of mine.
It's silly of you to pretend to misunderstand what I wrote.
Are you as hard up for attention from me that you need to ape
rockhead's bad habits?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is this the part of the story where you bend over backwards to take
offense. I am amazed at your ability to construct the unintended as
intended slights against you. Bravo.

[jillery]

Is this the part of the story where you infer offense, in order to run
away from admitting your own words. I am amazed at your ability to
blame others for your actions. Give yourself a yellow star.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yours should be gold. The mutual admiration continues unabated.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:55:52 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

More of your unsupported innuendo. You continue to prove my point for
me.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Another of your mountains out of molehills as when you accused me of giving
Peter a free pass when I was ribbing you about talking in the third person
about yourself? You generate more than your fair share of false positives.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:53:48 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

Which has nothing to do with your comments above. Either you wrote

"Even when I try to be nice to you, which drives Jillery crazy"

or you didn't. Either you meant what those words mean, or you didn't.
If you did, then back it up. If you didn't, then retract it. Don't
keep proving my point for me by blaming me for what you infer.

[*Hemidactylus*]

My point was that in the past I have tried to extend olive branches to
Peter or tried to be nice to him but he just continues his nonsense about
me. And that goes to show that you have been right about him being the
"rockhead" all along. "Jillery was correct." Are you going to take offense
to that too? Maybe I misperceived your stance on that and worded it poorly
"drives Jillery crazy." If so I am sorry. Try Sanka?

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:41:36 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

I take the above as your admission that your reference to me in that
post is gratuitous and adds nothing relevant to your expressed point
in that post. If you disagree then now is the time to explain why.

>And that goes to show that you have been right about him being the
>"rockhead" all along. "Jillery was correct." Are you going to take offense
>to that too?

You statement above repeats your baseless inference that I took
offense to your gratuitous reference to me. Such repetition removes
all value to your already ambivalent apology below.

>Maybe I misperceived your stance on that and worded it poorly
>"drives Jillery crazy." If so I am sorry. Try Sanka?

You keep proving my point for me. It's you who expresses such umbrage
and outrage over my response, not me about yours, and your entire
screed above illustrates your projection and evasion. Instead,
perhaps you shouldn't post such pointless comments about me in the
first place. Unless, of course, it's your intent to gratuitously
invoke such responses. I leave that conclusion as an exercise for the
reader.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I am confused. If you're not aggrieved by my silly and poorly thought aside
about me doing things allegedly driving you crazy then why are you dwelling
upon it so much even after I offered an apology in light of your
disproportionate response? If you took no offense why are you belaboring
the point?

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/18/16 11:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
>>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
>>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
>>>
>>> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
>>
>> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
>> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.
>
> It is a specific kind of delusion.
>
>> When someone
>> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
>> to believe someone is out to get you.
>
> Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
> at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
> you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?

The world includes more people than just you, Peter.

And since you snipped the main issue of my post, there is no point in
replying to the rest of yours.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/16 11:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
>>>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
>>>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
>>>>
>>>> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
>>>
>>> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
>>> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.
>>
>> It is a specific kind of delusion.
>>
>>> When someone
>>> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
>>> to believe someone is out to get you.
>>
>> Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
>> at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
>> you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?
>
> The world includes more people than just you, Peter.
>
> And since you snipped the main issue of my post, there is no point in
> replying to the rest of yours.
>

Interesting thing I learned is Peter and Jillery have a consensus. I am not
a good person.

[jillery]

Posting lies about me doesn't necessarily make you not a good person.
You have lots of company in T.O.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:20:19 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

Apparently the fact you posted as much as I have doesn't enter into
your thinking about who's belaboring the point here. And it's been
awhile since someone asked that stupid question. Still, you could try
to be more original with your stupid manufactured arguments, if only
to avoid copyright infringement.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You're doing this petulant whining on a thread intended as a hit piece
against me? Priceless. And saying something was driving you crazy was not
an intentional slight nor "lie". Your petty whiney crap turns this aside
into a deliberate injustice against me. My minor mistake was not deliberate
however you care to mischaracterize it for your silly ass debating points
you crave to score.

[jillery]

Your petty whiney crap disqualifies you from whining about my petty
whiney crap. Grow up.

[erik simpson]

Come on, Hemi. You've been here a long time. You know the rules.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You attributed bad intent to me. I am not letting that slip by.

And below we have an example of your hypersensitivity where a gentle
ribbing on my part transformed into me giving Peter a pass which almost
seems as if I was treating him too nicely for your taste.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CQW88Fk4yiA/g5coICjlAQAJ

[quote]
So you give rockhead a pass for posting irrelevant spew about me. Once
again, you show selective sensitivity to what bunches your panties.
[end quote]

The "once again" could be taken as me driving you crazy. Obviously there is
more going on with how you responded there.

And I was not giving him a pass although you felt free to use your dowsing
rod on me.

[jillery]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:08:48 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

Your attributions of bad intent disqualifies you from complaining
about my attributions of bad intent. Grow up.

>And below we have an example of your hypersensitivity where a gentle
>ribbing on my part transformed into me giving Peter a pass which almost
>seems as if I was treating him too nicely for your taste.
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CQW88Fk4yiA/g5coICjlAQAJ
>
>[quote]
>So you give rockhead a pass for posting irrelevant spew about me. Once
>again, you show selective sensitivity to what bunches your panties.
>[end quote]
>
>The "once again" could be taken as me driving you crazy. Obviously there is
>more going on with how you responded there.

That you infer more than I stated, that you take something I wrote
differently from what I wrote, says nothing at all about the veracity
of your inferences and how you took it. Unless you have demonstrated
omniscience, your opinions are not the same as reality.

I stand by my statement that your previous comment to which you refer
shows a selective sensitivity to what bunches your panties. That you
refuse to "let it slip by" continues to proves the point.

>And I was not giving him a pass although you felt free to use your dowsing
>rod on me.

In that specific post to which you refer, you commented only about my
comments, and said nothing at all about what my comments were in
response to. That qualifies to me as giving rockhead a pass.
Obviously your mileage varies. So go ahead and continue to blame me
for what you think; you give me a power over you I don't claim.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net>

documented an example of apparent paranoia by Hemidactylus:

> > >>> _________________________excerpt________________________
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
> > >>>>> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
> > >>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The topic title says it all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Then get the fuck out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How charming can you be?
> > >>>
> > >>> His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
> > >>> will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
> > >>> but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
> > >>> Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
> > >>> disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
> > >>>
> > >>> ========================== end of excerpt
> > >>> from:
> > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
> > >>> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> > >>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
> > >>> Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>

Hemidactylus gave a flippant reply to the post where this documentation
appeared, breezing past it as though it never existed.

> > > <snip of other text you breezed past without comment>

<snip flamebait by Hemidactylus, fulsomely applauded by erik simpson below>

> > > Your flippant attitude leads me to wonder:
> >
> > I wonder about your newfound romantic involvement with the word "flippant".
> > Get a room.
>>
> > > was that tirade an
> > > elaborate hoax having nothing to do with the way you actually
> > > think about Glenn or about his one-liner?

<snip unexplained denial by Hemi of both paranoia and a hoax>

<snip trolling by Hemi in reply to documentation of flippant behavior by
him last year>

> > > I view your one-liner at the end as more of the same
> > > kind of flippant leg-pulling.
> >
> > There goes that word again. On November 2 I told you I didn't give a flip
> > about your analogy and you've been obsessed by the word "flippant" ever
> > since. That's linguistically disturbing. It makes me think you hang on my
> >every word.

<snip additional trolling by Hemi, to get to trolling by you, erik:>

> Bravo! A literary masterpiece! This should keep him going on you 'till the
> end of time.

You thoroughly discredited yourself with your reckless behavior
earlier this year, Simpson. But the way it happened has nothing to do
with paranoia, so I won't go into that here.

On the other hand -- the reason for your fawning praise of
Hemidactylus's trolling is to deflect attention from the
apparent paranoia in his rant against Glenn, isn't it?

It's obvious that this is the purpose of Hemi's broad river
of flamebait. This includes his foppery about flippancy, above,
that I have kept here from that river.


Here is what a REAL literary masterpiece, C.S. Lewis's
_The Screwtape Letters_ [1], has to say about that subject:

But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical.
Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about
anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.
Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made.
No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in
a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.

If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest
armour-plating against the Enemy that I know, and it is quite free from
the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand
miles away from joy: it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect;
and it excites no affection between those who practice it,

Your affectionate uncle
Screwtape

-- C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_, beginning and end of Chapter XI.
Available, with cautions about copyright, in:
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-screwtapeletters/lewiscs-screwtapeletters-00-h.html


Hemidactylus is the very embodiment of flippancy in this newsgroup [2].
So it is no surprise to see him using his mastery of flippancy
to try and discourage me from using that word against him.

[1] In case you are unfamiliar with this book, it is a fiction
in which an experienced devil, Screwtape, gives lessons to
a much less experienced one, his "nephew" Wormwood. In it,
God is called "the Enemy," Satan is called "Our Father Below,"
and the person whom Wormwood has been assigned to tempt is
called his "patient."

[2] The only recent (rather distant) rival of Hemi's for that role,
"Roger Shrubber," [3] is gone, and has been missed by many
(including myself, but I think my reasons are different from those
of others who miss him).

[3] pseudonym picked from a Monty Python movie, of someone who
posted to talk.origins some time in 1995-2001 under a different nym.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip pointless rumination to get to a very nice chunk of prose]

>
> It's obvious that this is the purpose of Hemi's broad river
> of flamebait. This includes his foppery about flippancy, above,
> that I have kept here from that river.
>

"flamebait", "foppery", and "flippancy". An apparent attempt at
alliteration. Points for the "broad river" bit too. I like it. Makes me
wanna take a steamboat cruise.

[snip gratuitous plug for a CS Lewis book]

[erik simpson]

Your condescension is delicious. Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all,
I don't give a flip about Glenn, I think C.S. Lewis' work is a crashing bore,
I thought some of R. Shrubber's contributions were funny, as I did Hemi's, and
I expected to see something like this (your post) to show up here. For now,
I'm just going to sit back and watch.

[Burkhard]

Flagrant flippancy forces famous females fighting fearful flamebait
fastidiously foregoing festive foppery for follow-on fortitude.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 6:15:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
> > documented an example of apparent paranoia by Hemidactylus:
> >
> > > > >>> _________________________excerpt________________________

<snip to get to Hemi's tirade about Glenn's "Then get the fuck out.">

> > > > >>> His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
> > > > >>> will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
> > > > >>> but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
> > > > >>> Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
> > > > >>> disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ========================== end of excerpt
> > > > >>> from:
> > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
> > > > >>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
> > > > >>> Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>
> >
> > Hemidactylus gave a flippant reply to the post where this documentation
> > appeared, breezing past it as though it never existed.
> >
> > > > > <snip of other text you breezed past without comment>
> >
> > <snip flamebait by Hemidactylus, fulsomely applauded by erik simpson below>

<snip trolling by Hemi about my use of "flippant">

> > <snip additional trolling by Hemi, to get to trolling by you, erik:>
> >
> > > Bravo! A literary masterpiece! This should keep him going on you 'till the
> > > end of time.
> >
> > You thoroughly discredited yourself with your reckless behavior
> > earlier this year, Simpson. But the way it happened has nothing to do
> > with paranoia, so I won't go into that here.
> >
> > On the other hand -- the reason for your fawning praise of
> > Hemidactylus's trolling is to deflect attention from the
> > apparent paranoia in his rant against Glenn, isn't it?

Of course, you ducked this question, erik. Some things in talk.origins
are as predictable as the rising of the sun.

<snip to get to erik's crashingly boring comments>

> Your condescension is delicious.

Because it is fully deserved. And you make no attempt to show otherwise.

> Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all,

Sorry, that's not an attempt to show otherwise. It's a belaboring
of the obvious for no apparent reason.

> I don't give a flip about Glenn, I think C.S. Lewis' work is a crashing bore,

You need lessons in flippancy from Hemidactylus. I'm sure he
could discuss the book at great length in a way that suggests
that he has found ridiculous sides to innumerable passages that
C. S. Lewis used to give moral lessons to people who care about morality
[unlike you and Hemi, methinks].

That is, if he's read it. Otherwise this post of mine and my earlier
reply to you will probably flunk the test of Hemi's "seeing only those
posts he wants to see."

> I thought some of R. Shrubber's contributions were funny, as I did Hemi's, and
> I expected to see something like this (your post) to show up here. For now,
> I'm just going to sit back and watch.

Good riddance.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I am awestruck at an amazing alliterative aptitude. Astonishing.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:10:02 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip pointless rumination

This is Hemidactylus's Internet Hellion term for my deflating his madcap
ruminations about my use of the word "flippant". He snipped both
my deflation and his madcap ruminations; the latter included his use of
"love affair," "Get a room" "obsessed," and the self-adulating idiocy,

"It makes me think you hang on my every word."

More relevantly to the OP, he also deleted the context of what
came next.

> to get to a very nice chunk of prose]

That chunk is missing any referent to "this is the purpose":

> > It's obvious that this is the purpose of Hemi's broad river
> > of flamebait.

The meaning of "this is the purpose" becomes clear when my
preceding paragraph is reposted:

On the other hand -- the reason for your fawning praise of
Hemidactylus's trolling is to deflect attention from the
apparent paranoia in his rant against Glenn, isn't it?

> > This includes his foppery about flippancy, above,
> > that I have kept here from that river.
> >
> "flamebait", "foppery", and "flippancy". An apparent attempt at
> alliteration.

Unintended. And, unlike "flippancy" [1] I never really knew what
"foppery" meant until I chanced across the definition in my
dictionary just this past weekend, and saw how well it fit your
endless ruminations that stimulated erik simpson to write
his gushing "fan mail" to you.

> Points for the "broad river" bit too. I like it. Makes me
> wanna take a steamboat cruise.
>
> [snip gratuitous plug for a CS Lewis book]

You use the word "gratuitous" in a highly dishonest way. You know
damn well that it was your insincere comments [some quoted above]
about my use of "flippant" to describe you that stimulated me
to finally [2] post the following excerpt from the book.

But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical.
Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about
anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.
Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made.
No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in
a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.

If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest
armour-plating against the Enemy that I know, and it is quite free from
the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand
miles away from joy: it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect;
and it excites no affection between those who practice it,

-- C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_, end of Chapter XI.

[1] I first learned the word "flippancy" from this book. In the nearly
six decades since then, I have had ample experience in detecting it
in people.

[2] I was already tempted to use it on the following thread, but
decided the quote from _The Jungle Book_ was more to the point:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/YVpSDtn6I-c/3p091_AUbigJ
Subject: Re: Low IQ Simulation of the Month for March 2015
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2d1473ae-4cd1-4de0...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Of course, you ducked this question, erik. Some things in talk.origins
> are as predictable as the rising of the sun.
>

As are things forming perceived patterns in talk.origins, sunrise is an
apparition resulting from your vantage point. As geocentrism so goes your
interpersonal musings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise

"Architect Buckminster Fuller proposed the terms "sunsight" and "sunclipse"
to better represent the heliocentric model, though the terms have not
entered into common language."

And just because things appear so from your POV will they continue to do so
in the future? Are your inductions warranted? Are there true patterns and
have they a causal instead of casual basis? All is flux and you may be
seeing permanence where none obtains. Your ontology could be fundamentally
flawed alongside your epistemology.

And have you considered the importance of participant observer effects?

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:05:50 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Fabulous!

>> [snip gratuitous plug for a CS Lewis book]
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/18/16 11:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> >>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> >>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
> >>>
> >>> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
> >>
> >> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
> >> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.
> >
> > It is a specific kind of delusion.
> >
> >> When someone
> >> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
> >> to believe someone is out to get you.
> >
> > Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
> > at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
> > you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?
>
> The world includes more people than just you, Peter.

And you think this gives you *carte* *blanche* to insult me in the
apparently paranoid way you did here:

[repost of text snipped by you:]
But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
have me disappeared.

As you probably know, Burkhard has me killfiled, and he has shown
up on this thread. And I believe that your numerous snips on
this thread against me are (in part) designed to create the impression
in him (and others who have me killfiled) that my talk of "paranoia"
is just talk.origins business as usual about the word.

> And since you snipped the main issue of my post, there is no point in
> replying to the rest of yours.

You are being flagrantly hypocritical here, as anyone can see by
looking back at the few earlier posts to this thread.

They can also see how you used this hypocritical comment to run away
from demonstrations of two-faced behavior by you in the very
post to which you are replying.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

The sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of Mark's reply becomes clear when one
goes back over the few posts to this thread between me and Mark so
far. The hypocrisy is evident from the deceitful use he made of his snips,
as opposed to me, who even anticipated complaints about the snips
Mark is pretending to be concerned about, by writing:

<snip red herring, to be replied to if you insist>
and
<snip of a side issue, to be dealt with in a separate post>

Nobody posting to this thread will be surprised by the fact that
Mark snipped both of these lines in the very post to which he was
replying here.

But now, on to Hemidactylus:

> Interesting thing I learned is Peter and Jillery have a consensus. I am not
> a good person.

Be that as it may [What does a person like you call "good"?],
what is far more interesting is that both you and Mark acted on the
"OT: Trump Won" thread as though you were scared shitless by
Trump's victory, but on this thread you both act as though Clinton had won.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Here we see just how terminally self-centered you are: no mention
of Mark, who was on the hot seat in three of my first four posts to this
thread, and who was on the hot seat in the text above, except in the
oldest paragraph of all, where you and he got equal billing.

Speaking of those three posts, NO ONE has dealt with the contents
of two of them. Not coincidentally, the only one of the three
that has received attention is the only one where paranoia involving
me is dealt with. This is consistent with a frequent battle
cry against me, most often voiced by someone who is absent from
this thread,

It's all about you, isn't it?

Now we see who this battle cry should really be leveled at:
you, Hemidactylus.

> Priceless. And saying something was driving you crazy was not
> an intentional slight nor "lie". Your petty whiney crap turns this aside
> into a deliberate injustice against me.

"deliberate injustice", eh? For someone who keeps taking refuge in flippancy
when he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, you sure know how to
talk out of the other side of your mouth when you think you might still
be able to get the upper hand.

> My minor mistake was not deliberate
> however you care to mischaracterize it for your silly ass debating points
> you crave to score.

The irony is priceless.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[gratuitous snippage in the spirit of moving along]

>
> It's all about you, isn't it?
>
> Now we see who this battle cry should really be leveled at:
> you, Hemidactylus.
>

We all live in our solipsistic filter bubbles interpreting the world in
ways that buttress our self-esteem or in some cases overwhelmed by a
fatalistic pessimism where the world keeps stubbing toes. Much happens
beneath awareness within Schopenhauer's ream of Will what others, the
psychic moderns, see as implicit or nondeclarative.

Have you ever contemplated Plato's parable of the cave? I mean have you
ever really stopped to ponder its ramifications? We are watching the
ephemeral shadowplay and not sure what lies outside our box. Red pill or
blue? Does it matter which? Would we be satisfied either way? Could we be
satisfied knowing ding an sich beyond the apparitions upon our common wall?
I think not because the joy is in the journey itself. We analyze the
shadows and impose our own meaning and our own forms much as inkblots and
cloud formations do for us or we them. Which way does it go?

"We" depend upon the ebbs and flows in our synaptic clefts. We are mired in
those gaps though the thought patterns are indicated by the tornadoes and
cyclones of brain activity on fMRI. That's the ephemera we use to make
sense of the patterns in our world. So much flux and disturbance inside and
out. Amazing how one can track the other.

Have you ever wondered how ephemeral flux can provide for the apparition of
permanence? I mean where the rubber meets the road in biological
populations we have the flux of alleles. RMNS. But at a more holistic POV
we see the semblance of permanence in the phylogenic patterns resulting
from years upon years of ephemeral allelic flux within populational puddles
producing phylogenies of poodles and pandas. They share the alleged
caniform platform do they not?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caniformia

Remarkable that years of allelic flux can yield a semblance of permanence
in groups that share features reflecting deeply common roots. And we deeply
care about this stuff as long as our synaptic clefts are not clouded in the
shrouds of religious cobwebs that occlude the view of the cave wall and
make us think these shadows we see flickering by are immutable.

But this too shall pass and will be for nought as the sun eventually
expands and cooks our planet and any life that may still exist. Shadowplay
on a cave wall produces impermanent forms not eidos. Flux eternal.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]

Context restored:

>>> > On the other hand -- the reason for your fawning praise of
>>> > Hemidactylus's trolling is to deflect attention from the
>>> > apparent paranoia in his rant against Glenn, isn't it?

[end of restoration]

I've been familiar with relativity, both in the Einsteinian sense
and in the broader informal sense, for almost three fourths of my
life so far. I also know when to use common figures of speech that
offend people more literal-minded than myself, like "sunrise".

You do not qualify. Your feigned literal-mindedness is part and parcel
of the extreme lengths to which you are willing to go to divert
attention from the issue of whether the following actually represents
a sincere voicing of opinion:

His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.

In particular, you have denied that the above was expressing
paranoia about Glenn; you have also denied that it was a hoax
bearing no resemblance to your true feelings about Glenn.

But NOBODY, least of all you, has tried to explain why there is
not supposed to be any paranoia in the paragraph I've quoted
from you. Nor has anyone [1] tried to explain how all the flippant
evasion you've posted is supposed to be irrelevant to the issue
of whether that paragraph represents your true feelings about Glenn.

[1] That includes your gushing fan erik simpson, who applauded
a huge chunk of your flippant evasion of these issues as a
"literary masterpiece."

Erik was the one to whom my words at the beginning were addressed, but
Burkhard does not know the context, and will not know it unless you
or someone else has the guts to reply to this post, and to leave
in the part you snipped and I restored.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

Fricative fans feel fulfilled.

[*Hemidactylus*]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AIvuws_ZETA/geyXY9uoBQAJ

Where I say:

[quoting me]

Glenn demanded I get the fuck out of his country. I guess because the
American people have spoken and he volunteered as their local spokesperson?


If you noticed or cared to thoughtfully reflect as you never do you would
have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with. Recall
this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[quote]
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[/end quote]

[[and continuing my quote from that post]]

If I put myself toward the end of the list of undesirables then just how
paranoid am I. I was emphasizing with other Others with higher priority
such as Mexicans and Muslims. Since when is concern for others paranoia?
Shouldn't I be afraid the Jihadists are out to get me instead? If I thought

that "the Muslims" were itching to take over and make me a dhimmi instead
of my being concerned with unjustified profiling would that make me
paranoid too? Or is that acceptable?

I guess so:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html



And can you remember what you may have done to me to warrant my: "Hold his
feet to the fire and make it fucking burn! "? That was a while back and I
have a hard time remembering what had me irked enough with you to say such
a thing. You are so much better at recalling context and details from years

ago so maybe you could figure it out for us. Thanks in advance.
[end quoting myself]

How does that post I made square with the distorted narrative you are
spinning here? Did you ever see or reply to this post?

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
>

> Glenn demanded I get the fuck out of his country. I guess because the
> American people have spoken and he volunteered as their local spokesperson?
>
> If you noticed or cared to thoughtfully reflect as you never do you would
> have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
> and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with. Recall
> this:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
>
> [quote]
> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist.
>
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Jew.
>
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
> [/end quote]
>

> [snip boring stuff where Peter goes on and on about Mark]
>
>> Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
>> than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
>> Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP). The explanation will
>> be revealed in the next post I do to this thread. [Or maybe someone
>> will beat me to it.]

>
> If I put myself toward the end of the list of undesirables then just how
> paranoid am I. I was emphasizing with other Others with higher priority
> such as Mexicans and Muslims. Since when is concern for others paranoia?
> Shouldn't I be afraid the Jihadists are out to get me instead? If I thought
> that "the Muslims" were itching to take over and make me a dhimmi instead
> of my being concerned with unjustified profiling would that make me
> paranoid too? Or is that acceptable?
>
> I guess so:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html
>
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html
>
>
> And can you remember what you may have done to me to warrant my: "Hold his
> feet to the fire and make it fucking burn! "? That was a while back and I
> have a hard time remembering what had me irked enough with you to say such
> a thing. You are so much better at recalling context and details from years
> ago so maybe you could figure it out for us. Thanks in advance.

I am reposting this in full for the benefit of Peter and his current
obsession with my "paranoia". I shouldn't have to but he is making such a
fuss. No surprise there. 🐻

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/21/16 11:53 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [...]

> Speaking of those three posts, NO ONE has dealt with the contents
> of two of them.

Or rather, when someone has dealt with them, Nyikos called that part of
the content a red herring, presumably because it did not deal with him.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/21/16 10:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/18/16 11:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
>>>>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
>>>>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
>>>>>
>>>>> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
>>>>
>>>> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
>>>> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.
>>>
>>> It is a specific kind of delusion.
>>>
>>>> When someone
>>>> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
>>>> to believe someone is out to get you.
>>>
>>> Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
>>> at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
>>> you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?
>>
>> The world includes more people than just you, Peter.
>
> And you think this gives you *carte* *blanche* to insult me in the

> apparently paranoid way you did here: [...]

The world includes more people than just you, Peter.

And as for the insults, that (assuming you voted for Trump, which from
your other posts I consider a safe assumption) is just the sort of
discourse that you yourself voted for. You are starting to get what you
asked for. Grow up and stop whining.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:VtKdnY4UD-md4a7F...@giganews.com...

No, you paranoid lunatic liberal. You said that you were sincerely embarrassed to be American. America as the United States is called, is a great country with a great form of government. Since you are embarrassed to *be* an American, you should go find some country you can be proud of. Why would you voluntarily stay in a country you think is crappy and are embarrassed to be a citizen of, where people like me are Nazi's looking to round all you liberals up and kick out? "Then get the fuck out".

[*Hemidactylus*]

And as I replied then: "Contrary to your love it or leave it attitude I can
feel any damn way I please. Why don't you go somewhere else where that sort
of authoritarian stance is well regarded such as North Korea, China, or
Russia where they give jobs to willing dissent crushers as yourself."

People are free to be pissed off and dissent against nonsense. You see
waterhoses turned upon native dissenters in bitter cold?

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:UN-dnUQc7OEbNK7F...@giganews.com...

My response was not an "authoritarian stance", you paranoid dunce. And you *are* free to feel any damn way you please, including staying in a country you seem to despise. You're an asshole.

[Peter Nyikos]

In this post, the second reply to a deceitful post by Mark, people
will see just why I accused him of flagrant hypocrisy -- providing
they also read our exchange over my first reply.

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> > just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> > (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
> >
> > First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:

You snipped out the whole recap, Mark, but while that was
not nice, it is nothing compared to what you snipped below.

> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means

> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it. When someone

> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
> to believe someone is out to get you.
>

> Suppose I were to characterize an opposing opinion as literally insane
> even though there is objective support for it. How would you call that?

As I said in my first reply, I will reply to this red herring
if you insist. But so far from insisting, you snipped out this
offer of mine, to better pretend that I had ignored what you
had written here.

> >>>> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
> >>>> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> >>>> have me disappeared.

You sang a different song below about what my attitude is
"To all appearances". Wait for it.


> >>> What makes you so paranoid about me?
> >>
> >> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.

> > You remind me of a talk.abortion regular, as big on abortion rights
> > as you are on LGBT rights and privileges, who actually thought that if
> > Mahatma Gandhi, Cezar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr. had been
> > one of the subjects of Milgram's shock experiments, they too would have
> > administered what they thought were near-lethal shocks to the
> > purported "subjects."
>
> You are aware, are you not, that a large majority of the people were
> willing to administer potentially lethal shocks.

That old best-seller, _How To Lie With Statistics_, doesn't include
anything as bad as you making this general claim and then snipping out
what I wrote IMMEDIATELY after the paragraph that you left in -- the
LAST text of mine that you left in your reply!

________________repost of what you deceitfully snipped_______________

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:

> On 11/9/2016 1:28 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
> >> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The topic title says it all.
> >>

> >> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.

> >>
> > Then get the fuck out.

> Funny how Trump supporters are easy so to spot.
>
> You're gonna get a big surprise when you find
> out Trump is really a democrat in wolf's clothing.
> Trump said whatever he needed to get elected, his
> policies and his campaign rhetoric will be two
> entirely different things.

Well, I sure hope his outrageous "promise" to deport two million
illegal aliens and deny visas to countries that will not take them

back, is one of those promises that he will not try to keep.

I even have a slim hope that the office of the Presidency will
make a better man out of Trump, just as it did for Chester
Alan Arthur.

Unless that happens, my attitude towards the election will be summed
up in the following bit of dark humor:

I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that Clinton lost. The bad news is that Trump won.

Peter Nyikos
========================== end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/Opf0Qd9iAwAJ

Wait, it gets better: in the following post, I caught you acting
as though you never saw this, and proceeding to misrepresent me
in a libelous manner:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RwqlC_OKSmQ/1ah6oRblBgAJ


[first excerpt:]
> Nyikos logic: Clinton and Obama were imperfect. People who dislike
> Trump do not mention those imperfections every chance they get.
> Therefore, Trump is a saint.

Isaak logic is the logic of O'Brien in George Orwell's _1984_, who
talked as though anything he shoved down the memory hole "never existed".

Two days BEFORE he posted the deliberate misrepresentation you see
above, Isaak snipped the following post that I reposted in reply
to him:
[end of first excerpt]

And I proceeded to repost the same post which you cravenly snipped here
(and which I reposted above), and continued:

[second excerpt]
And so, Isaak logic seems to go: "If I delete it, I can act
as though the truth were the opposite of what the deleted material
shows."

Lying about me like this is a win-win situation for Mark. If
I don't refute his misrepresentations, people will believe them.
If I do refute them, people like eridanus will say I disgust
them with my "whining," people like Harshman will taunt me
with "It's all about you, isn't it?" and others will killfile
me on the grounds that I don't post enough on-topic in talk.origins.
Burkhard has used that excuse for killfiling me [but not jillery,
Isaak, eridanus, Harshman or even Martinez].

[end of second excerpt]

> And it does not
> require a majority to create a fascist police state. All it requires is
> a sizeable but minority group willing to do so, plus a majority who are
> willing either to look the other way or are afraid to act, plus the
> group which *is* willing to act against the police state being small
> enough to be ineffective. You, to all appearances, are placing yourself
> firmly in the do-nothing group.

You, to all appearances, are lying about your impressions as a result
of having snipped the post I've reposted.

And Burkhard probably thinks you are a saint to put up with me;
having killfiled me, he has not seen the post whose absence makes
a liar out of you.

> I have been hoping you would commit
> yourself to be in the group that does the right thing regardless of what
> the leaders order, but I guess that will not happen.

Someone indulging in wholesale deceit, like you, probably cannot
tell "the right thing" from the wrong thing. And you never did
spell out what you had in mind as being "the right thing".

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 7:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >>> In talk.origins, "paranoia" is so often misused as a talisman [1], it comes
> >>> as a surprise to see actual paranoia by several long-time regulars in
> >>> the wake of the unexpected election of Trump.
> >>>
> >>> One of the most paranoid posts was by Hemidactylus, who has recently misused
> >>> the word "paranoid" in a bizarre way.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Refresh my memory on how I "recently misused the word "paranoid" in a
> >> bizarre way." I see nothing in the below summary posting.

Is THIS your idea of an "olive branch" extended to me???

I assumed, based on your breezing past the repost of your apparently
paranoid reply to Glenn, that you were feigning forgetfulness
over a post that you saw on another thread:

> > It is preserved and dissected at length in the following post, to
> > which you still have not replied:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/zblZJ7_hAwAJ

> > Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

> > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:15:01 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID: <3bc9b693-8a3c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>
>
> That link isn't working for me on mobile browser so not sure what you're
> going on about

Here is the relevant part of the post that you have a phobia of
looking up in a public library (or laptop or pc if you have one):

___________________repost__________________________

> > [Your kind] is so used to seeing the word "paranoia" and its
> > derivatives misused on talk.origins, the original meaning
> > is something you cannot seem to remember when it applies to you.
>
>
> And it was Harsh calling you out for thinking I would email him?

[O]nly a warped mind would think there was anything wrong with
emailing someone to let them know that they were being attacked
on a thread where they weren't participating. I was actually hoping
you would let him know about it and save me the trouble of letting
him know myself.

I have nothing to hide. Until that gets through to you, you
will go on making a jackass of yourself as you do below.

> You still
> don't see how that looks odd at face value?

It might look odd to a grade school bully who calls someone a "tattletale"
for reporting his bullying to a teacher. It might look odd to the
character who killed all of the Marlon Brando character's pigeons
in "On the Waterfront" after that character testified in court about
Johnny's murder. The boy was so disappointed at that "ratting" that
he broke out crying when he said, "A pigeon for a pigeon!"

But it doesn't look odd to me.

> Me and Harsh don't quite mesh.
> You missed that.

So what? I would have thought that you wished each other well despite
some disagreements. Look at me: I eventually DID let him know about
him having been criticized, despite the fact that he has treated me like
dirt from time to time. I doubt that he has treated you like dirt even
once.

> But don't let it disrupt your repetitive narrative.
> Everyone who doesn't compare notes in private is out to get you?

Boy, do you ever have things backwards!

Or are you only PRETENDING to have them backwards?

> And I'm
> the paranoid one here?

You aren't making any sense, perhaps because you are just as screwed
up in your mind about what "paranoia" is all about as Harshman.

================== end of repost from the post linked above ============


> and hesitant about chasing down any of your infamously deep
> and meandering rabbit holes.

There is no such thing. You are making this off the top of your
head, when it is to your buddy Ron Okimoto whose links take one
to a prairie dog town of links branching off links branching
off links, NONE of which lives up to what is claimed of them,
and with the alleged reason for the original link fading
further and further into the background, the deeper one
goes into the prairie dog town.

There were NO links in my post which you were so reluctant
to look up.

> Your posts are often rabbit warrens without
> the cute cuddly bunnies. They often recount bunnies run over on the
> roadside or left at the front door half eaten by a sadistic cat. You.

You just hate it when I document dishonesty and hypocrisy and
idiocy by your kind. And that brings me to another excerpt
from the post you are trying to avoid dealing with:

___________________________ second excerpt____________________

> > Your kind
>
> That's not hateful. Or stereotypical. My kind? WTF.

Your kind has dominated talk.origins and the abortion newsgroup
for decades, playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
about each other's hypocrisy and deceit, and comfortably indulging
in it yourselves -- some to a greater extent than others -- knowing
the others will return the favor.

In short, by your kind I mean the flagrantly irresponsible kind.

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

I meant, of course, your hypocrisy and deceit aimed at the small
minorities (especially minorities of one, like myself or George
Kaplan before I came to his aid) in the respective newsgroups.

The members of the dominant cliques have indulged in transient tiffs
with each other, as you and jillery did over your comment below,
but they are like squabbling orcs who quickly drop their quarrels
when confronted with a Frodo or a Samwise:

> Even when I try to be nice to you, which drives Jillery crazy, you
> construct some obnoxious assclown narrative that pisses me off. Therefore
> Jillery was correct.

I'd like to see what your warped mind thinks of you being nice to me.

Remainder deleted, some of it to be replied to later -- I don't
want erik simpson to be TOO disappointed. ;-)

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

An asshole who compares you to leftist dictators or would-be dictators,
when he is far to the left of you politically, by all that I've seen.

Just in case you missed it, here is some additional apparent paranoia
that Hemi posted about you on another thread:

____________________excerpt____________________________

> Don't let Glenn get
> wind of this lest I wind up in one of his deportation camps. He just named
> his truncheon "Lucille" which is ironic really. The barbed wire wrap is
> gratuitous.

I'll start worrying when Glenn manages to round up a dozen like minded
people to do unto your kind what your kind has done unto lone dissenters
like him and me. Then I will fight any dishonesty and hypocrisy by that
crowd as I have fought it when your crowd does it.

I've done it on the abortion newsgroups. I fought one of the biggest
enemies of the dominant clique there as vigorously as I did the worst of the
dominant clique, when he did something despicable. If I ever catch Glenn
doing something as despicable as what jillery has done in hundreds of
posts, I would not spare Glenn either.

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/zblZJ7_hAwAJ

Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3bc9b693-8a3c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>

By the way, this is the same post which Hemidactylus was so
reluctant to read, and out of which I posted two excerpts
earlier this morning in a reply to him.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0e76838a-bda9-4cbd...@googlegroups.com...

From what I've seen during and after the election, it is Democrats who are of the "love it or leave it" crowd. At least in the sense of themselves leaving if Trump won. I suspect that mindset, whether or not kept to themselves, also applies to others. My life's experiences, whether or not they accurately reflect any majority, is that individuals identifying with the Democratic Party are very much more inclined to be racist and intolerant. What set my course to avoiding
what liberals would like to call "discussion" with them occured after watching the ACA formation in Congress. There is no talking to them.

Hemi doesn't seem to realize that no country is perfect, but to publicly state he is "sincerely embarrased to be" an *American citizen* is far beyond being critical of certain aspects of the political weather, or because he heard on fakenews.com that watercannons were used to disperse protesters in freezing weather. He is the epitome of liberalism, a hypocrite and a real asshole.

Note: fakenews.com occasionally gets part of the story right.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 2:10:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak again put
himself into the win-win situation about which I wrote in my earlier
reply to him today -- the situation of him lying about me.
> On 11/17/16 2:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > Here you will find out why Mark was so paranoid about me as to say
> > that, if he is right about what our country is going to undergo,

> >
> > you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
> > have me disappeared.
> >

> > The explanation is that Mark has had a completely wrong understanding
> > of my opinions about same-sex marriage, and has jumped to the false
> > conclusion that I am a homophobe:
> > [snip]
>
> I have no idea what your being a homophobe

Correction: your trumped-up charge that I am a homophobe, which you
have now "supported" by snipping out the falsehood that you
posted about me along with my correction of that falsehood.

Reposted below.

> has do to with projections
> about treatment of aliens and other minorities under Trump's leadership.
> However, since you want to wallow in it,
>
> Did you, or did you not say that you oppose homosexual couples being
> able to use the legal term "marriage" for their relationship?

Your aggressive tone here is made possible by your snipping out
the following, which makes it clear that the answer is nuanced
beyond a simple Yes or No answer ("Did you, or did you not"):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt, Mark going first +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> You oppose actual marriage, and the legal and social benefits which come
> >> with it, for people solely and exclusively on account of their sexual
> >> preference.
> >
> > You have learned nothing from what I wrote in direct reply to you
> > earlier this year. I do not oppose the benefits, but only the label
> > "marriage".
>
> That's like saying, "I do not oppose the benefits of you having a legal
> driver's license, but only your having one."

Did you stop to think before you posted this analogy? Can't you see
how you are conceding the fact that you posted a blatant falsehood
about what I want, and used it to support a trumped-up charge
of homophobia?

If a person can drive a car all he wants without the benefit of a license,
and has something to show a policeman when stopped for speeding,etc. that
serves the same purpose, what does he have to complain about?

To complete the analogy, he even has a right, granted by the First
Amendment, to claim that he has a driver's license, in informal
conversation with others. Like many did before they were legally
married.
=========== end of excerpt from post to which you are replying=========

I should add that the excerpt is itself taken from another thread.
And thereby hangs a tale. Keep reading.

> If your answer is that you do not oppose that, then indeed I have a
> completely wrong understanding of your opinion.

You already had one, and your failure to admit that here, coupled
with your deletia of the above excerpt, makes a *prima* *facie*
case for you having lied when you made that claim on another
thread. I bent over backwards to gave you the beneifit of the
doubt, even though you had seen me post my policy numerous times.

And with your closing spiel, you make it abundantly clear that
you are dissembling in a flagrantly obnoxious way about the fact that
I conceded ALL legal and social benefits:

> If you do oppose that,
> then either you do not understand that a legal marriage is more than
> just a word (but I suspect your IQ is higher than 40, which rules out
> that option), or you oppose legal and social benefits to homosexuals
> solely on the basis of their sexual preference, which is just another
> way of saying that you are a homophobe.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on

Wait. Maybe I *am* denying one legal/social benefit: the benefit of
pulling a marriage license out of a drawer and shoving it into the faces of
people who REALLY wanted to deny the benefits that go with same-sex civil
unions.

And the more they opposed it, the greater the Schadenfreude of watching
them squirm or turn red with suppressed anger, knowing that if they
strike the shover-in-the-face, they will be committing a "hate crime."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Well, you asked for it by paying lip service to "basic human kindness"
even though you conspicuously deny it to me.

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/16 6:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

... a heck of a lot, the gist of which is that I am a horrible person
for mischaracterizing Peter in some way, mostly by not saying good
things about him.

I will not say many more things here, but I will respond to some of his
points.

First, since Peter keeps complaining about this, I will comment:

>>>>>> But don't worry. Either I am wrong, and you can gloat, or I am right,
>>>>>> and you will be able to report me to the equivalent of the Gestapo and
>>>>>> have me disappeared.

Have you, Peter, noticed the words "be able to" yet? Do you realize
that being able to do something does not mean you will do it? My point
in that passage is that conditions very well could reach the point where
people are turning in their neighbors. And to the subject of this
thread, given what I have seen already, that belief is on the opposite
side of the street from paranoia.

>>>> Stanley Milgram's work and world history.
>
>>> You remind me of a talk.abortion regular, as big on abortion rights
>>> as you are on LGBT rights and privileges, who actually thought that if
>>> Mahatma Gandhi, Cezar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr. had been
>>> one of the subjects of Milgram's shock experiments, they too would have
>>> administered what they thought were near-lethal shocks to the
>>> purported "subjects."
>>
>> You are aware, are you not, that a large majority of the people were
>> willing to administer potentially lethal shocks.
>
> That old best-seller, _How To Lie With Statistics_, doesn't include
> anything as bad as you making this general claim and then snipping out
> what I wrote IMMEDIATELY after the paragraph that you left in -- the
> LAST text of mine that you left in your reply!
>
> ________________repost of what you deceitfully snipped_______________
>

> [Nyikos:]

> Well, I sure hope his outrageous "promise" to deport two million
> illegal aliens and deny visas to countries that will not take them
> back, is one of those promises that he will not try to keep.
>
> I even have a slim hope that the office of the Presidency will
> make a better man out of Trump, just as it did for Chester
> Alan Arthur.
>
> Unless that happens, my attitude towards the election will be summed
> up in the following bit of dark humor:
>
> I have some good news and some bad news.
>
> The good news is that Clinton lost. The bad news is that Trump won.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> ========================== end of post

Peter has a good point here. I grant that Peter is not one of those
who, like Trump, is actively out to destroy the lives of immigrant
families, and it was a minor faux pas for me not to acknowledge that
when Peter first posted. (I would still like to see Peter, and in fact
everyone, explicitly state similar views regarding Muslims.)

But he still misses a larger point. Defeating racist and anti-religion
hate attacks requires more than that someone "sure hope" such things do
not happen. It requires actively acting against it.

He misses another point, too. In Milgram's experiments, most of the
subjects who administered lethal shocks would have said, if asked before
the experiment began, "No way would I administer lethal shocks!"
Consider also Peter, in the New Testament, who is unpleasantly surprised
to find that he has denied Christ three times, which a little earlier he
never thought he would do. The potential for dark actions is in most of
us, and the only way I can think to minimize the chance of taking such
actions is, first, to recognize the possibility that we ourselves could
do them, and second, to make a positive commitment, to ourselves and
others, not to do so.

> [...] And you never did

> spell out what you had in mind as being "the right thing".

It should be obvious: Love your neighbor, no exceptions.

[ramat...@gmail.com]

Glenn setting new benchmarks for Christian charity.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 6:05:01 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Sorry-- due to your post being directly below that of eridanus,
I thought it was a reply to him and only gave it a cursory
glance earlier.

Turns out nobody has made any replies to either of eridanus's two
posts to this thread so far.

> >> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> >> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> >> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
> >
> > Glenn demanded I get the fuck out of his country. I guess because the
> > American people have spoken and he volunteered as their local spokesperson?

Glenn has called you on a similar piece of apparent paranoia about him specifically, which was reinforced by your clumsy attempt to defend yourself,
along with something I posted from another thread:

Don't let Glenn get
wind of this lest I wind up in one of his deportation camps. He just named
his truncheon "Lucille" which is ironic really. The barbed wire wrap is
gratuitous.

> > If you noticed or cared to thoughtfully reflect as you never do you would
> > have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
> > and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with.

"the last"? Your anti-Glenn comments suggest that you fear you
might be among the first after the ones you listed.

> > Recall
> > this:
> >
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
> >
> > [quote]
> > First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> > Because I was not a Socialist.

I promised on another thread to post a variation on this famous
quotation. I was going to do it in reply to Mark Isaak, but
after the thorough job I did in two posts this morning of
documenting how flagrantly dishonest and hypocritical and
arrogant he has been, I don't think he will ever return to this thread.

Were I as paranoid about visiting Islamic countries like Iran or
Libya as Mark has seemed to be about Trump's victory, I would
the following (purely illustrative) variation seriously:


First they came for the gays, and I did not speak out--
Because of a foreboding [see three paragraphs down].

Then they came for the people who indulged
in dishonest propaganda against people they thought to
be homophobes (like Mark Isaak did against me), and I did not speak out--
Because of a foreboding [see two paragraphs down].

Then they came for the people who had spoken out approvingly
of same-sex marriage and I did not speak out--
Because of a foreboding [see next paragraph].

Then they came for me -- and no one in America wanted to speak for me --
because I did not belong to either of the American mass consitituencies
on the subject of same-sex civil unions.

I had alienated the movers and shakers of one, where people voting
Republican predominate. This is because I repeatedly
said that I had no objection to people in those
civil unions getting all the benefits of marriage except for the word
"marriage" to describe the legal status of their civil union.

And I had alienated the movers and shakers of that
other mass constituency, where people voting Democratic predominate,
because of that one exception I made.

And most of the rank and file in either constituency go along
to get along, because America, although a free country,
is not a country of people who act the part of being free.

[Back to the reality of talk.origins.] I have alienated both the
creationists in talk.origins, and the movers and shakers of the anti-ID
constituency in talk.origins, so no one will say "Bravo!" to me for that
last paragraph [allusion to a Simpson post to this thread where he said
"Bravo!" to you].

So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. was fond of saying.

> > If I put myself toward the end of the list of undesirables then just how
> > paranoid am I.

Far more paranoid than I am, by YOUR standards for the word "paranoid",
which I've revealed today in a repost of something you either missed
on "OT: Trump Won" or pretend to have missed.

> > I was emphasizing with other Others with higher priority
> > such as Mexicans and Muslims. Since when is concern for others paranoia?
> > Shouldn't I be afraid the Jihadists are out to get me instead? If I thought
> > that "the Muslims" were itching to take over and make me a dhimmi instead
> > of my being concerned with unjustified profiling would that make me
> > paranoid too? Or is that acceptable?

No, that would be legitimate. But after years of jeering at me for
my "lists" which are designed to let people know whom not to
trust (like Isaak, and you, for very different reasons) you are
hardly in a position to claim that you care about other people.

> > I guess so:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html
> >
> > http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html

I will only look these up if you give me a synopsis. You reap what you sow.

> > And can you remember what you may have done to me to warrant my: "Hold his
> > feet to the fire and make it fucking burn! "?

I had patiently borne your mentally unbalanced posts in which you
had attacked me for no reason that you were willing to explain.

> > That was a while back and I
> > have a hard time remembering what had me irked enough with you to say such
> > a thing.

You were seriously irked when I reposted something about Aristotle
and you did the first of a protracted series of inexplicable insistences
that I look at a video featuring an exploding head.

Either you were still hung up on your irrational and unexplained
animosity for me, or you were cheering Mitchell Coffey for his
trumped up charges of homophobia. Like Mark Isaak has made on
this thread.

And that was the context of your one-liner at the very end of a
long post by Mitchell Coffey.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote in message news:o1208m$bhq$1...@dont-email.me...

snip

> My point
> in that passage is that conditions very well could reach the point where
> people are turning in their neighbors.

Liberals like doing that.

[Glenn]

<ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:80244ebc-7b7a-4637...@googlegroups.com...

I made no reference to Christianity, you asshole. And I'd certainly not take your word for what constitutes Christian charity.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is the first hint I've seen, in all my years of watching Glenn,
that he is a Christian.

If he is, I bet you are very glad that a pathologically dishonest person
like Mark Isaak is NOT a Christian.

But there are two pathologically dishonest people who claim to
be Christian. One is as isolated as Glenn, but the other,
Ron Okimoto, is very well liked by Hemidactylus.

On the thread, "What happened to the Biologic Institute?"
Ron O is showering torrents of abuse on Steady Eddie,
most of it centered on a bait and switch scam that Ron himself
has tried to perpetrate for about a decade now.

This scam consists of claiming that the Discovery Institute
was running a bait and switch scam in the past decade,
but whenever I asked him for documentation, he pulled a switch
on me, posting reams of evidence of what the "switch" would
have been, if there had been bait. And, as I told
Steady Eddie last night,

[REPOST]
what Ron O calls "bait" is nothing of the sort, just
a statement that teachers have a constitutional right
to teach about intelligent design in the public schools.

Ron O lied to you that this statement, which the First Amendment
shows to be true, is a promise that the Discovery Institute
has ID science in a form ready to be taught at the public
school level. This illogical claim is so ridiculous, nobody
but Ron O himself has ever endorsed it. In fact, Robert Camp,
who hates the DI almost as much as Ron O does, admitted that
there is no real evidence that the DI has claimed such a thing
since the Dover decision.
[END OF REPOST] from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/bhdfyrGHRzw/gzC9rnTsBgAJ

If you have the guts to go to that link, you will see -- at least until
the thread gets to 100+ posts -- a long back-and-forth between Eddie
and Ron O shortly above it. That is what I am referring to.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

That has happened a lot in Communist countries, but where have you
gotten wind of them doing it here?

In the part you snipped, Mark Isaak displayed his shameless hypocrisy
in a different sense of the word than "double standards". It consists
of acting [with the skill of someone who has had decades of practicing
in it] as though he were a far, far better person than he really is.

He has been caught red-handed snipping something to make a distortion
on this thread look like it was spot on. But he did far worse on
another thread, and he snipped out all hint of its existence, the
better to fool Burkhard [who has me killfiled, and will thus get
a completely false picture of what is going on between us].

What he did on another thread, two days AFTER the post where he
snipped out my repost that clearly shows I have no fond illusions
about Trump, was to post a flagrantly insincere comment that
some might construe as outright libel:

> Nyikos logic: Clinton and Obama were imperfect. People who dislike
> Trump do not mention those imperfections every chance they get.
> Therefore, Trump is a saint.

And let's not forget the other post I did in reply to him today,
where I showed what he had snipped out to further a libel
against me, that I am a homophobe who wants to deny all kinds
of social and legal benefits to people in same-sex marriages.

And in the wake of this, comes his flagrant display of hypocrisy
in the second sense of the word:

On 11/22/16 6:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

... a heck of a lot, the gist of which is that I am a horrible person
for mischaracterizing Peter in some way, mostly by not saying good
things about him.

You said elsewhere that Mark would make a great writer for the
Washington Post. But his talent for making molehills out
of mountains could also be used in serving the Russian
Communist Party as an apologist for Stalin. If he were to muster
half the skill in downplaying the crimes of Stalin as he does
in downplaying his own dishonesty, he would be a great asset to
their propaganda machine.

That machine has made great strides, making the Russian Communist
Party the strongest single party in Russia (AFAIK),
made Stalin the most admired leader in Russian polls of all
the leaders in the 20th Century, and enabled
it to do such things as get Volgograd its name of Stalingrad
back officially on several holidays of the year.

There is even a move towards a nationwide referendum
to make "Stalingrad" permanent. It would be a great
coup to get a skilled propagandist like Mark to be an
American proponent of that, practically assuring that
the referendum will take place and greatly increasing
its chance of succeeding.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

*
Glenn: When you get kicked in the ass, you are supposed to turn the
other "cheek."

earle
*

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/16 1:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> What he did on another thread, two days AFTER the post where he
> snipped out my repost that clearly shows I have no fond illusions
> about Trump, was to post a flagrantly insincere comment that
> some might construe as outright libel:
>
>> Nyikos logic: Clinton and Obama were imperfect. People who dislike
>> Trump do not mention those imperfections every chance they get.
>> Therefore, Trump is a saint.

How is that libel? You do it all the time. I exaggerate the
conclusion, of course, but you frequently deflect criticism from one
target by saying, "but this other person who is not part of the
discussion is so bad, too." Even more often, you use the fifth-grade
argument of "He hit me first!" Don't even try to pretend you don't.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Crickets? I referred to the caniforms above. I thought Peter was really
into discussing phylogeny. Guess not. Ironically this post of mine
eventually and intentionally veered back toward things topical for t.o. It
was a long segue but I managed. With so much flux how does a semblance of
permanence arise with animal groupings and given life on earth is not
eternal nor immutable are archetypes but an illusory notion or flawed idea?

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip everything]

Peter,

I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting on
every little thing you say, and for cutting out those that I do not
intend to comment on. I am sick of your indefensible churlishness in
general, and I would hardly reply to you at all except I *really* do not
like bullying.

Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for confirming
that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your post, and if
anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it out and show them
your own words. Yeah, I know you still don't see it. You are not
helping yourself by denying what is obviously there, though.

[Mark Isaak]

One issue was settled in this past election: There is no way in hell
that anybody now can rationally claim that this is a Christian country.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip everything]
>
> Peter,
>
> I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting on
> every little thing you say, and for cutting out those that I do not
> intend to comment on. I am sick of your indefensible churlishness in
> general, and I would hardly reply to you at all except I *really* do not
> like bullying.
>
> Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for confirming
> that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your post, and if
> anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it out and show them
> your own words. Yeah, I know you still don't see it. You are not
> helping yourself by denying what is obviously there, though.
>

I don't know if this is germane but it gets at my recent subtopic of flux
vs. permanence. Some folks prefer golden ages and tradition and abhor
change. But things do change, especially cultural situations and mores and
religious ideology often poses an anachronistic hindrance. The way our
brains are geared is hindrance enough so we have stone age minds cluttered
with bronze age morality trying to fathom the complexities of the modern
world. It's a maladaptive mismatch and results in much suffering,
especially for people who do not fit into traditional or accepted
categories. Our tendency to outgroup and despise the Other may have been
apt in the days of yore, but no longer.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Polemically you make an understandable point. But we are kinda de facto
Christian to the extent of demographics whereby people at least nominally
identify as Christian even if this identity is nonessential or weak. De
jure we are not Christian as the establishment clause, interpreted by
Jefferson as a wall, protects us in theory if not practice. But a small and
influential subset of Christians best identified as fundamentalists exists.
I've read of this strain in other books, but most recently in Reza Aslan's
_How to Win a Cosmic War_. Not all fundies are the same, but some are rabid
Christian Nationalists who would prefer theocracy. My assumption is that a
large number of Christians prefer a secular state as they realize that
secularity in politics is not the same as atheism or nonbelief in personal
preference. Jesus said something about praying in a closet and separating
the realms of Caesar and God.

But more topically if the ardent sects of Christian fundamentalism and
nationalism start holding sway in the halls of power the teaching of
evolution may fall into disfavor. We shall see what happens.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[mercy snip]

>
> By the way, this is the same post which Hemidactylus was so
> reluctant to read, and out of which I posted two excerpts
> earlier this morning in a reply to him.
>

So you felt empowered opening up a thread based on the separate reactions
of Mark and I to an election. You now have my exploding head, feet to the
fire, and the truncheon posts to reference ad nauseum. Not a bad oeuvre
there on my part and neither of us seem willing to back down from our
respective stances. So in the interest of animal rights I forbear beating
the proverbial dead horse. We should bury it instead.

As signaled by some of my recent posts excepting where I lapsed back into
the gutter with you and a cohort I am moving on topically to something less
tortuous of group members and lurkers. Have fun with yourself.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:45:53 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The members of the dominant cliques have indulged in transient tiffs
>with each other, as you and jillery did over your comment below,
>but they are like squabbling orcs who quickly drop their quarrels
>when confronted with a Frodo or a Samwise:

I suppose I should feel flattered that you compare me to the ranks of
the dominant cliques. But then you compare yourself to Frodo and
Samwise, and it's obvious that you're hopelessly delusional.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

But of course they do. They just redefine what it means to be a
Christian.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/16 5:53 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [re Peter]
>
> ... Yeah, I know you still don't see it. ...

I thought of something that might get the point through to you. Go to
your wife today and tell her, "In order to make a point in an ongoing
argument, I need for us to dissolve our marriage and replace it with a
civil union." I bet your wife will quickly persuade you that you are
being a lunkhead.

[eridanus]

to be a Christian must be to vote for Trump. Just a saying.
eri

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 8:35:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/22/16 1:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > What he did on another thread, two days AFTER the post where he
> > snipped out my repost that clearly shows I have no fond illusions
> > about Trump, was to post a flagrantly insincere comment that
> > some might construe as outright libel:
> >
> >> Nyikos logic: Clinton and Obama were imperfect. People who dislike
> >> Trump do not mention those imperfections every chance they get.
> >> Therefore, Trump is a saint.
>
> How is that libel?

Falsely attributing to me the attitude "Therefore, Trump is a saint."
And my case, that you knew it to be false, would stand up in
any lawsuit. You replied directly to the post in which I had
reposted my reply to Jonathan, where I called Trump's plan to
deport two million illegal aliens "outrageous"
and ended my message with "...the bad news is that Trump won."

What's more, I alerted you to this repost with the words,

Your inability to draw distinctions is clear from the way I am
the target of your paranoia despite my having posted the reply
to Jonathan that you see here -- or would see if you took
the bother to read it:

And you snipped both this and the post, then went on two days
later to post the above flagrant misrepresentation of me.

> You do it all the time.

I never lie about you, and I defy you to try and prove otherwise.

> I exaggerate the
> conclusion, of course,

You make me sick, the way you call something that totally
misrepresents me in a derogatory way a mere exaggeration.

> but you frequently deflect criticism from one
> target by saying, "but this other person who is not part of the
> discussion is so bad, too."

That "other person" was actually two people on the most memorable
occasion involving YOU. They were making malicious and totally false gossip
about me, enjoying themselves immensely. And YOU deflected criticism
from them by barging in and gratuitously expressing the insincere
"opinion" that you had never seen anyone taking as much delight
in poisoning people's opinions about others as I do.

Then, when I pointed out that those two were obviously taking more
delight, you came up with your spiel about how it was another bad
habit of mine to talk about people who weren't part of the discussion.

Let's see you come up with an example of ME deflecting criticism
that is anywhere near as bad as what you did on that occasion.

I bet if you do come up with what you think is an example, it will
turn out that I was letting people know about the flagrant
double standards of the "critic" towards someone guilty of
the same thing or worse things, but on good terms with the "critic."

> Even more often, you use the fifth-grade
> argument of "He hit me first!"

Like hell I do. The kind of situation you are describing is taking
place between us now, with me truthfully accusing you of posting
a derogatory falsehood about me that you almost surely knew to
be false, and me calling it "flagrantly insincere."

Eridanus has said I make him sick with my whining. I expect him
to say the same about my accusation of "flagrantly insincere."
And then, if I were to tell him about what YOU did, THAT
is what would come under your self-serving spin-doctored
rubric, "He hit me first!"

> Don't even try to pretend you don't.

Don't even try to pretend that you are a well-meaning person.
You have shown yourself to be a dirty fighter, an expert
in deceitful propaganda, and a person who epitomizes the formula,
"The Arrogance of Power."

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip everything]

Burying your head in the sand about you being caught red-handed
in outright libel -- this time beyond a reasonable doubt, and
not just according to the preponderance of evidence -- is not
going to make the libel go away.

And I hereby accuse you of doctoring your posts to make it look
to someone like Burkhard that I *am* a homophobe, because he
has me killfiled and can only see your posts, out of which
you have purged all evidence that would implicate you in libel.

> Peter,
>
> I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting on
> every little thing you say,

Catching you red-handed in defaming me is "inexcusably nasty" of me,
is it now?

> and for cutting out those that I do not
> intend to comment on.

Oh, but you do comment on them indirectly, by shamelessly
lying about my policies in a way made possible by you repeatedly
snipping them and accusing me of the exact opposite of what
is said in the things you snipped.

The following is reposted for the third time after having been
snipped twice by you:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt, Mark going first +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> You oppose actual marriage, and the legal and social benefits which come
> >> with it, for people solely and exclusively on account of their sexual
> >> preference.
> >
> > You have learned nothing from what I wrote in direct reply to you
> > earlier this year. I do not oppose the benefits, but only the label
> > "marriage".

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

Having snipped the above exchange, you then went on to
tell the following lie:

> either you do not understand that a legal marriage is more than
> just a word (but I suspect your IQ is higher than 40, which rules out
> that option), or you oppose legal and social benefits to homosexuals
> solely on the basis of their sexual preference, which is just another
> way of saying that you are a homophobe.

Of course, Burkhard has no way of knowing that it is a lie, which
suits you just fine.

> I am sick of your indefensible churlishness in
> general, and I would hardly reply to you at all except I *really* do not
> like bullying.

Tell me another whopper, you who love to bully me with accusations
of "homophobia" which you "justify" by lying about my policies,
as shown above.

Behind the soft exterior that you show people like Burkhard,
there beats a heart of stone, the heart of a cyberbully who
has no qualms about libeling people whom he hates.

You show that below:

> Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for confirming
> that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your post, and if
> anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it out and show them
> your own words.

What unmitigated gall! You snip out my whole post lest Burkhard and
others like him see it, and now you bluff like a seasoned con artist.
You know that it would hardly enter Burkhard's mind to question your word
after having seen only the things you want him to see, including your
aggressive "either/or" libel that you posted last time around, and
which appears above.

> Yeah, I know you still don't see it. You are not
> helping yourself by denying what is obviously there, though.

Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?


It's obvious now that the lesson of Joe McCarthy, to whom these words
were addressed with equal justice, has taught you to only indulge
in character assassination against people who are unpopular with
the others in the forums you are in.

And you may even tell yourself that you are utterly unlike McCarthy,
because after all, he was a flaming anti-Communist and you are not.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I would not make this generalization. One of my Jehovah Witness neighbors
was pro-Obama. Not sure his stance on Trump. Catholic social justice
liberals probably abhor him. Black Pentecostals probably didn't vote for
him. Nor many Catholic Hispanics.

Getting back to the Jehovah Witnesses they had a landmark case about
pledging allegiance to the flag which I think helps us now more than it
ever did. And of all people Jesse Ventura weighed in on how veterans should
feel about Kaepernick and why he served to protect Kaepernick's freedom to
dissent. I stand with JWs, Kaepernick, and Ventura's acknowledgement of
freedom. And look up Public Enemy's song Fight the Power on youtube.
Nostalgic fist pump.

https://youtu.be/8PaoLy7PHwk

[jillery]

You're quite correct. A large number of self-identified Christians
didn't support Trump's candidacy. OTOH many more did than didn't:

<http://religionnews.com/2016/10/15/christian-right-still-trump/>

<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/why-women-and-christians-backed-trump/507176/>

>Getting back to the Jehovah Witnesses they had a landmark case about
>pledging allegiance to the flag which I think helps us now more than it
>ever did. And of all people Jesse Ventura weighed in on how veterans should
>feel about Kaepernick and why he served to protect Kaepernick's freedom to
>dissent. I stand with JWs, Kaepernick, and Ventura's acknowledgement of
>freedom. And look up Public Enemy's song Fight the Power on youtube.
>Nostalgic fist pump.
>
>https://youtu.be/8PaoLy7PHwk
>

[Oxyaena]

On 11/21/2016 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:

>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net>

> documented an example of apparent paranoia by Hemidactylus:
>
>>>>>> _________________________excerpt________________________

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:su-dnZTT585grr7F...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The topic title says it all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sincerely embarrassed to be American.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then get the fuck out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How charming can you be?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> His truncheon is showing. One wonders when the roundups and deportations
>>>>>> will start, especially for those who "look" or "sound" Hispanic or Muslim,
>>>>>> but why stop there? Nationalism and purity obsession go hand in hand.
>>>>>> Mexicans and Muslims are Other as are feminists, LGBT, and atheists. And
>>>>>> disgusted Americans such as me. We all must go ASAP. Round us up Glenn.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ========================== end of excerpt
>>>>>> from:
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/lIRmofAtAwAJ
>>>>>> Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:21:40 -0600
>>>>>> Message-ID: <oMydnZQ1HZYZMr7F...@giganews.com>
>
> Hemidactylus gave a flippant reply to the post where this documentation
> appeared, breezing past it as though it never existed.

Another case of psychological projection of your own activities onto others.


>
>>>> <snip of other text you breezed past without comment>
>
> <snip flamebait by Hemidactylus, fulsomely applauded by erik simpson below>

More of the usual snide remarks coming from Paranoid Pete.


>
>
>>>> Your flippant attitude leads me to wonder:
>>>
>>> I wonder about your newfound romantic involvement with the word "flippant".
>>> Get a room.
>>>
>>>> was that tirade an
>>>> elaborate hoax having nothing to do with the way you actually
>>>> think about Glenn or about his one-liner?
>
> <snip unexplained denial by Hemi of both paranoia and a hoax>

Documentation of another instance of psychological projection of your
own problems unto others. Hypocrisy at its finest.


>
> <snip trolling by Hemi in reply to documentation of flippant behavior by
> him last year>

That was last year, asshole, but knowing you, you dig up otherwise
totally irrelevant posts from as far back as the 90's at times, so I`m
not surprised.


>
>>>> I view your one-liner at the end as more of the same
>>>> kind of flippant leg-pulling.
>>>
>>> There goes that word again. On November 2 I told you I didn't give a flip
>>> about your analogy and you've been obsessed by the word "flippant" ever
>>> since. That's linguistically disturbing. It makes me think you hang on my
>>> every word.
>
> <snip additional trolling by Hemi, to get to trolling by you, erik:>

Here we go again with more trolling by Usenet's Finest, Paranoid Pete.


>
>> Bravo! A literary masterpiece! This should keep him going on you 'till the
>> end of time.
>
> You thoroughly discredited yourself with your reckless behavior
> earlier this year, Simpson. But the way it happened has nothing to do
> with paranoia, so I won't go into that here.

Paranoia, delusions of persecution and grandeur, and a patronizing
attitude are all the trademarks of Paranoid Pete.

>
> On the other hand -- the reason for your fawning praise of
> Hemidactylus's trolling is to deflect attention from the
> apparent paranoia in his rant against Glenn, isn't it?

Glenn is a troll, like you, but puts much less effort into his posts
other than "Idiot" or "Fuck you." So how the Hell is Hemi's rant against
Glenn paranoid? More likely (by "likely" I mean "absolutely fucking
certain") is that you are the paranoid one, with your ravings against
Hemi and Simpson.


>
> It's obvious that this is the purpose of Hemi's broad river
> of flamebait. This includes his foppery about flippancy, above,
> that I have kept here from that river.


Paranoid Pete strikes again.



>
>
> Here is what a REAL literary masterpiece, C.S. Lewis's
> _The Screwtape Letters_ [1], has to say about that subject:
>
> But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical.
> Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about
> anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.
> Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made.
> No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in
> a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.
>
> If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest
> armour-plating against the Enemy that I know, and it is quite free from
> the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand
> miles away from joy: it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect;
> and it excites no affection between those who practice it,


That paragraph equally applies to you, Petey.


>
> Your affectionate uncle
> Screwtape
>
> -- C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_, beginning and end of Chapter XI.
> Available, with cautions about copyright, in:
> http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-screwtapeletters/lewiscs-screwtapeletters-00-h.html
>
>
> Hemidactylus is the very embodiment of flippancy in this newsgroup [2].
> So it is no surprise to see him using his mastery of flippancy
> to try and discourage me from using that word against him.

Like you. Ever hear of the "Dunning-Kruger effect", Nyikos?



>
> [1] In case you are unfamiliar with this book, it is a fiction
> in which an experienced devil, Screwtape, gives lessons to
> a much less experienced one, his "nephew" Wormwood. In it,
> God is called "the Enemy," Satan is called "Our Father Below,"
> and the person whom Wormwood has been assigned to tempt is
> called his "patient."

You certainly like to think you're God.


>
> [2] The only recent (rather distant) rival of Hemi's for that role,
> "Roger Shrubber," [3] is gone, and has been missed by many
> (including myself, but I think my reasons are different from those
> of others who miss him).


Probably, and they are probably incoherent reasons as well, reasons that
would only make sense to an insane paranoiac such as yourself.


>
> [3] pseudonym picked from a Monty Python movie, of someone who
> posted to talk.origins some time in 1995-2001 under a different nym.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>


--
http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -
Theodosius Doubzhansky

[Sneaky O. Possum]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in
news:NvydnVOPzptrZ6nF...@giganews.com:

> Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>> On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [snip everything]
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting
>> on every little thing you say, and for cutting out those that I do
>> not intend to comment on. I am sick of your indefensible
>> churlishness in general, and I would hardly reply to you at all
>> except I *really* do not like bullying.
>>
>> Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for
>> confirming that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your
>> post, and if anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it
>> out and show them your own words. Yeah, I know you still don't see
>> it. You are not helping yourself by denying what is obviously there,
>> though.
>>
> I don't know if this is germane but it gets at my recent subtopic of
> flux vs. permanence. Some folks prefer golden ages and tradition and
> abhor change. But things do change, especially cultural situations and
> mores and religious ideology often poses an anachronistic hindrance.

Depends on the religion, doesn't it? As a coping mechanism, there's much
to be said for Buddhism, and even some Western religions have shown
themselves adaptable on occasion - consider the way Roman Catholicism was
blended with the beliefs of various West African religions to form the
syncretic faiths of the West Indies.

> The way our brains are geared is hindrance enough so we have stone age
> minds cluttered with bronze age morality trying to fathom the
> complexities of the modern world.

Bronze Age morality? I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly
comfortable with a worldview that says it's immoral to truss people up,
cut their throats, and drop them into peat bogs. Sure and me Bronze Age
ancestors would be shocked, they would!

> It's a maladaptive mismatch and
> results in much suffering, especially for people who do not fit into
> traditional or accepted categories. Our tendency to outgroup and
> despise the Other may have been apt in the days of yore, but no
> longer.

There's little evidence that demonization of the Other was common during
the Stone Age: in fact, there's evidence that Stone Age peoples were, if
anything, too *open-minded* - when the Europeans started invading the New
World, the locals tended to treat them decently at first.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote in

news:o12t4n$4c7$2...@dont-email.me:

Some rational people might take a dim enough view of Christianity to
argue that the United States is too much of a Christian country. Me, I'll
just point out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a clear
majority (over two million, last time I checked), so the situation ain't
entirely hopeless. Too bad the Framers of the Constitution fucked us over
with that Electoral College bullshit.
--
S.O.P.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/23/16 4:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip a bit]

>> I exaggerate the conclusion, of course,
>
> You make me sick, the way you call something that totally
> misrepresents me in a derogatory way a mere exaggeration.

Seriously, Peter, you need to learn how to read at above a 6th-grade level.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:15:01 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> > On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > [snip everything]
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting on
> > every little thing you say, and for cutting out those that I do not
> > intend to comment on. I am sick of your indefensible churlishness in
> > general, and I would hardly reply to you at all except I *really* do not
> > like bullying.
> >
> > Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for confirming
> > that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your post, and if
> > anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it out and show them
> > your own words. Yeah, I know you still don't see it. You are not
> > helping yourself by denying what is obviously there, though.

Mark Isaak makes several weighty and derogatory claims about me
above. They happen to be utterly false, and I believe Mark is blatantly
insincere all through his post, and is just testing how much influence he has
in talk.origins; but that is not the main point I want to make right now.

My main point here is that you, Hemidactylus, seem to be not
the least bit interested in whether the Isaak is telling the truth
or not. And so I'm left wondering just what, if anything, motivated
you to post the following in reply to THIS post of Mark's.

> I don't know if this is germane but it gets at my recent subtopic of flux
> vs. permanence. Some folks prefer golden ages and tradition and abhor
> change. But things do change, especially cultural situations and mores and
> religious ideology often poses an anachronistic hindrance. The way our
> brains are geared is hindrance enough so we have stone age minds cluttered
> with bronze age morality trying to fathom the complexities of the modern
> world. It's a maladaptive mismatch and results in much suffering,
> especially for people who do not fit into traditional or accepted
> categories. Our tendency to outgroup and despise the Other may have been
> apt in the days of yore, but no longer.

Downright schizoid, the way this says nothing one way or the other
about the specific charges Mark brought up. It's unclear whether
it is directed at Mark, me, both, or neither-- or whether you
even read everything Mark wrote, or more than a few lines of it.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

As Artie Schopenhauer writes in his essay: "On books and writing": "...the
writer is satisfied so long as he himself understands what he means: the
reader* may be left to make of it what he can."

*- that "reader" would be you and I don't think Schopie was fond of this
sort of style much either. That's his problem.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in
> news:NvydnVOPzptrZ6nF...@giganews.com:
>
>> Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/22/16 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> [snip everything]
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> I am sick of your inexcusably nasty responses to my *not* commenting
>>> on every little thing you say, and for cutting out those that I do
>>> not intend to comment on. I am sick of your indefensible
>>> churlishness in general, and I would hardly reply to you at all
>>> except I *really* do not like bullying.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do need to thank you for one thing. Thank you for
>>> confirming that you are indisputably a homophobe. I have saved your
>>> post, and if anyone doubts that the label applies, I shall bring it
>>> out and show them your own words. Yeah, I know you still don't see
>>> it. You are not helping yourself by denying what is obviously there,
>>> though.
>>>
>> I don't know if this is germane but it gets at my recent subtopic of
>> flux vs. permanence. Some folks prefer golden ages and tradition and
>> abhor change. But things do change, especially cultural situations and
>> mores and religious ideology often poses an anachronistic hindrance.
>
> Depends on the religion, doesn't it?

Somewhat but we still have deep seated tendencies. One could call them
"reptilian" if one wanted to invoke a recapitulatory neuro-explanation
lacking serious traction.

> As a coping mechanism, there's much
> to be said for Buddhism,

As innocuous seeming Buddhism is I can point towards Sri Lanka and Myanmar
as examples where even Buddhists cannot transcend their darkest all too
human tropes.

> and even some Western religions have shown
> themselves adaptable on occasion - consider the way Roman Catholicism was
> blended with the beliefs of various West African religions to form the
> syncretic faiths of the West Indies.

Sure which is interesting as are Norse imports into Christmas but not
germane.

>> The way our brains are geared is hindrance enough so we have stone age
>> minds cluttered with bronze age morality trying to fathom the
>> complexities of the modern world.
>
> Bronze Age morality?

Or maybe further into Iron Age? Our brains seem stuck in one era and
Judeo-Christian morality largely another.

> I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly
> comfortable with a worldview that says it's immoral to truss people up,
> cut their throats, and drop them into peat bogs. Sure and me Bronze Age
> ancestors would be shocked, they would!

Though tit for tat retributive justice is maybe brain based we see the
formulation of *lex talionis* brought from Hammurabi into the later Torah.
There's still a deep sense of retribution to this day with the death
penalty. Catholics at least seem mostly opposed these days but they used to
enjoy a good auto de fe as public spectacle. Or whatever it was they did
to the grumpy Friar Savonarola.

And the bible has stuff to say about onanism and homosexuality which plague
us even now. That's one stellar example of how olden morality is a mismatch
today.

>> It's a maladaptive mismatch and
>> results in much suffering, especially for people who do not fit into
>> traditional or accepted categories. Our tendency to outgroup and
>> despise the Other may have been apt in the days of yore, but no
>> longer.
>
> There's little evidence that demonization of the Other was common during
> the Stone Age: in fact, there's evidence that Stone Age peoples were, if
> anything, too *open-minded* - when the Europeans started invading the New
> World, the locals tended to treat them decently at first.
>

In the vein of the anachronistic mismatch I was referring to the stone age
as a allusion to the fabled Pleistocene era modularizing of our mindbrains
in the EEA whereby because passing more haploids into future generations.
Rinse and repeat. Allelic flux results in a semblance of psychological
permanence.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 9:35:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/23/16 4:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > [snip a bit]

Now that ("a bit") IS an exaggeration! unlike your "Therefore, Trump is a
saint" derogatory misrepresentation.

> >> I exaggerate the conclusion, of course,

Again you deceive Burkhard and others who have me killfiled,
by making sure, thru wholesale snips, that they don't see how
thoroughly fallacious AND false that conclusion was.

> > You make me sick, the way you call something that totally
> > misrepresents me in a derogatory way a mere exaggeration.
>
> Seriously, Peter, you need to learn how to read at above a 6th-grade level.

I learned that already in the third grade. What you are referring to
here is "street smarts," including the ability to tell when someone is
bullshitting about you in a way that everyone reading his words
can see he is bullshitting.

However, it would have taken graduate courses in political science and
rhetoric and polemic, as well as the TRUE history of campus
protests and activism to make me see just how completely phony
you were being when you wrote,

Let us decide, right now,
that if a president of the US orders imprisonment of political enemies,
if he starts building and populating mass detainment facilities (aka
concentration camps), if he encourages violence against any ethnic or
religious group, if he starts hindering free speech, then it is right an
proper not just to complain, but to take up arms against him.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/whz3KB8wAwAJ

I started a whole thread where the full paragraph was on display
in the OP, and you've made a somewhat belated entry into it. [1] You made
no attempt whatsoever to refute my comment that, if the scenario
you describe up there ever came to pass,

I believe Mark would flee to Canada, while people acting on
"take up arms against him" rhetoric put their lives on the line.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Gi9Z9aSBDsE/mYbdalP7CAAJ
Subject: The Dynamics of Talk.origins II: Post-election Polarization and Bluster


But then, you never believed your scenario COULD come to pass, did you?


[1] What you did was to continue your campaign of character assassination
against me. You are a true Joe McCarthy of the Left, and readers
can already get an inkling of that from my reply to that post of yours:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Gi9Z9aSBDsE/gru0p7hECQAJ
Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Talk.origins II: Post-election Polarization and Bluster
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f83eb178-2e89-454b...@googlegroups.com>

How much longer do you plan to keep up this campaign of yours?

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/29/16 12:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> I started a whole thread where the full paragraph was on display
> in the OP, and you've made a somewhat belated entry into it. [1] You made

> no attempt whatsoever to refute my comment that . . .

So now I am a bad person for not jumping to your beck and call. Next, I
suppose, you will endorse holding me as a slave.

Incidentally, consider your comment refuted. Consider every comment you
ever made about me, and ever will, also refuted. It will save us both time.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 6:20:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/29/16 12:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > I started a whole thread where the full paragraph was on display
> > in the OP, and you've made a somewhat belated entry into it. [1] You made
> > no attempt whatsoever to refute my comment that . . .
>
> So now I am a bad person for not jumping to your beck and call.

So now, you are showing what a nihilist you are by insincerely
using the word "bad" in a morality-free context as well as
indulging in "logic" in which even Martinez might hesitate to indulge.

You are bad *morally* only because you are dishonest, insincere,
and hypocritical.

However, your badness is no ordinary badness, but of a kind seldom seen in
talk.origins: you have no qualms about indulging in wholesale fraud to
perpetrate the libel that I am a hompphobe, as shown here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AIvuws_ZETA/u5QIRyiBBwAJ
Subject: Re: Paranoia Like I Have Never Seen Here in Talk.Origins Before
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5f632187-d305-44e7...@googlegroups.com>

Even you cannot counter the searing indictment in that reply of
mine, and so you've avoided it like the plague.

> Next, I
> suppose, you will endorse holding me as a slave.

This wishful thinking of yours is of a piece with a fraudulent
GIGO that you uttered on the thread you are whining about up there:

Based on that last paragraph, plus your silence regarding actual hate
crimes, I have revised my estimation. I expect, if circumstances make
such behavior noncriminal and socially acceptable to your peers, that
you *would* actively destroy the lives of immigrant and minority
families.

This baseless piece of character assassination was thoroughly refuted
in my reply to you:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Gi9Z9aSBDsE/gru0p7hECQAJ
Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Talk.origins II: Post-election Polarization and Bluster
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f83eb178-2e89-454b...@googlegroups.com>

In a parody of John Harshman, you then did the following reply,
quoted in its entirety:

__________________________________________________________

On 11/29/16 11:28 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [...]

Nothing worth comment.
=============================================================

Harshman also pulls this kind of stunt, but it is almost always
when I've caught him in petty little misrepresentations,
and never in the wholesale fraud of which you are guilty.

> Incidentally, consider your comment refuted. Consider every comment you
> ever made about me, and ever will, also refuted. It will save us both time.

Consider yourself a Joe McCarthy of the Left. And Hemidactylus had better
watch his step, otherwise he will be an accessory to your campaign of libel.
I told this to him too:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RwqlC_OKSmQ/83LWCcGJCQAJ
Subject: Re: OT: The pain of losing this election
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c37bbc03-763a-4c5d...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>

> And Hemidactylus had better
> watch his step, otherwise he will be an accessory to your campaign of libel.
>

I consider this a blatant attempt at intimidation of me on your part. Add
to this your references to me as schizoid, unhinged and off my rocker along
the lines of Thrinaxodon and what have we? Character assassination. But you
assume it is OK when *you* do it because you are completely above reproach.
And you wonder why you are disliked or why Burk has you killfiled. You
toxify the general vicinity you inhabit.

Stop talking about me.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:t-udnVkmz50vo6LF...@giganews.com...

Peter, it looks like you have to either love Hemi or leave him.