Dirty Debating Tactics 1: The Broken.Usenet.Promise
pnyikos
"a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo like "False."
or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that might fool a
complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo is being
justified, whereas it is either irrelevant or actually supports the
claims of the opponent.
I'll be posting several examples to this thread, right from this
newsgroup. First up is a post by Rodjk#613. Another is by someone to
whom he has evidently shackled himself, Ron Okimoto.
On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is my "next post". I couldn't resist doing a "twofer" since
> > Rodjk#613 seems to have shackled himself ot Okimoto on this issue. So
> > I am following up to him instead of Ron O, killing two birds with one
> > stone.
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > >bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > > > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> > > > into one. What a loser. Can't you come up with some type of honest
> > > > counter to thebaitand switch? How low are you willing to go?
>
> > > This is Nyikos you are replying to...
> > > You expect honesty or actual understanding from him?
>
> > You obviously don't, yet you give not the slightest smidgin of a
> > reason why.
>
> > > You will have better luck dealing with Ray or Nashton...
>
> > > Rodjk #613
>
> > You are running out of luck, here and now, because I am going to show
> > you just how pathetically Ron O fails to show his case against the
> > Discovery Institute (DI) with his quotes from Johnson, and you will be
> > faced with the dilemma of either defending him or running away from
> > what I say below.
>
> > Pick your poison.
>
> > I begin with Ron's words, about Philip Johnson:
>
> > > he just points the finger at
> > > the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
> > > have taken to make the ID scam legit.
>
> > If Ron O. thinks the above is a description of what he quotes from
> > Johnson below, he is at best woefully ignorant of the scientific
> > issues, and at worst a mental basket case.
>
> > > QUOTE:
> > > I also don t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> > > at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> > > Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> > > worked out scheme.
>
> > Note the qualifiers. "the Darwinian scheme" refers to the neo-
> > Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
> > of Species_. That's because Johnson is talking about ID being a
> > rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not to a much
> > more fragmentary prototype. And so, by saying "at the present time,"
> > he is making it clear that he is contrasting less than two decades to
> > over two centuries.
>
> Wrong.
This is not exactly a Broken.Usenet.Promise, yet. You do make an
attempt to justify it below, except that you ONLY address the last
sentence--feebly, I might add.
> As usual from you...
Trolling. Is that usual for you?
> Do you really expect anyone to believe that ID has only had two
> decades?
The Argument from Design has been around since at least the Psalmist's
"The heavens declare the handiwork of God", but the point of this
thread is an alleged bait and switch scam, and so we are talking about
the scientific methodology of the Discovery Institute, which has only
been a serious undertaking for two decades AFAIK.
> > >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > > END QUOTE:
>
> > Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> > about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> > punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
>
> No,
Now this IS a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Note how utterly irrelevant the
next thing you say is to what I last said:
> he is saying there is no science to ID.
You really do enjoy trolling, I can see that. Do you really expect
readers to believe you overlooked the word "comparable" and "that's
for them to prove" and "ready"?
> > Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to Darwin's
> > original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. One is that Darwin
> > didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world of
> > his time either. Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
> > account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
> > their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
> > where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
>
> Which, of course, in no way takes away from Darwin's quite excellent
> explanation.
On this much, we are in agreement.
> > The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
> > findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
> > shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
> > amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
> > descent. Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
> > comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
>
> No, as I already pointed out.
Asking a question is not exactly the same thing as pointing something
out, but that's a minor quibble. What's important is that I've told
you what the context is. Your idol Okimoto has flamed me for daring
to ask him whether he believes that the creator of the universe in
which he believes designed the universe, and designed it
intelligently.
He never actually answered the questions, but he made it quite clear
that he does NOT consider claims like that of the Psalmist to be
relevant to what he calls "the creationist bait and switch scam".
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
[snip]
This reminds me of Stephen Colbert's Yom Kippur Hotline
(1-800-OOPS-JEW), which he answers with the question "How have you
wronged me?"
Why this need for all the world to agree that you are in the right and
your opponents are in the wrong? Just do like I do, and be smug to yourself.
pnyikos
way: the next promise came after its breaking, because he "promised"
that what he said above did a good job. And the insult came after the
"promise".
I'm repeating ust enough from my first post to this thread to make all
this reasonably clear.
On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
[Quoting Johnson:]:
> > >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > > END QUOTE:
> > Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> > about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> > punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
> No,
Now this IS a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Note how utterly irrelevant the
next thing you say is to what I last said:
> he is saying there is no science to ID.
You really do enjoy trolling, I can see that. Do you really expect
readers to believe you overlooked the word "comparable" and "that's
for them to prove" and "ready"?
But I'm not surprised you wrote this idiocy about what Johnson is
saying: you "promised" below that you did pretty well here, and
perhaps some ignoramuses witll agree with you.
[...]
[Okimoto quoting Johnson again:]
> > > In some respects, [...] I'm almost relieved, and
> > > glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> > > the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
>
> > Johnson is no spring chicken. "in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
> > assessment, in the light of what is said above.
>
> > > That isn't to me where the action really is and ought to be.
>
> > Of course not. Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
> > Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
>
> After hundreds of years of ID, what have they produced?
"They" is NOT the Discovery Institute. It's only been around for
something like two decades. See my first post to this thread for more
details on who "they" might include.
> > > END QUOTE:
>
> > >http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> > > Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> > > defeat.
>
> > Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
> > to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to show
> > that there is a dishonest scam going on.
>
> I think I did that pretty well.
This is the backwards "B.U.Promise". You never really touched the
"dishonest scam" aspect, and as far as admitting defeat is concerned,
your trolling up there hardly qualifies as doing "pretty well."
> You are, as usual, pretty incompetent.
This completes the backwards B.U.P. It is in the same spirit as "What
an idiot" in the description below. I've slightly amended the
original to better fit what you did;
The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is commonly called
"a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo like "False."
or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that might fool a
complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo is being
justified, whereas it is either irrelevant, or incompetent,
or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
....and played a joke of having CC's sent to John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>. Or was that just a malfunction of Google?
Anyway, I deleted it from the CC window.
> pnyikos wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This reminds me of Stephen Colbert's Yom Kippur Hotline
> (1-800-OOPS-JEW), which he answers with the question "How have you
> wronged me?"
>
> Why this need for all the world to agree that you are in the right and
> your opponents are in the wrong?
Why this need to put the worst possible spin on what I am doing? I am
posting these descriptions so that decent people will have a better
idea of what kinds of dirty debating tactics to be alert for in this
godforsaken newsgroup.
There is no need to make up a new name for what YOU are doing. It is
"outrageous hyperbole," what with no qualifying adjectives on "your
opponents" etc.
That's especially dirty, because you are only encouraging opponents to
reason, "Since Nyikos is going to go after me anyway for disagreeing
with him, I might as well make common cause with his opponents."
Yes, I know you wrote "in the right" rather than just "right," but
less scrupulous people have charged me this even dirtier way in the
past.
> Just do like I do, and be smug to yourself.
This from someone who got his knickers in a knot when I told him that
he was slow on the uptake in ONE specific exchange.
There's a well known word for this kind of behavior, but I'll leave it
up to readers to figure that one out.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Feb 24, 6:08 pm, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> ....and played a joke of having CC's sent to John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>. Or was that just a malfunction of Google?
I have no idea what you're talking about, so it must have something to
do with Google. "Don't be evil" indeed.
The reason I bother is that you have the ability to say something
interesting when you aren't posting self-referential crap. Which seems
to be your sole current occupation here. Why not try something real again?
Bill
Let it go. If you step on a rake, it's likely that the handle will
swing up and bop you in the face. It's nothing personal; you don't get
mad at the rake. If you come into t.o. and mention the Discovery
Institute, it's likely that Ron Okimoto will generate a stream of text
in your direction laced with "perps", "rubes", "bait-and-switch",
"scam" at high frequency and in various permutations. Don't take it
personally. If you find it personally annoying, frustrating or
irritating to engage with someone here, just disengage. There are lots
of people to debate with here. No need to focus on the ones that get
under your skin.
pnyikos
>
> > ....and played a joke of having CC's sent to John Harshman
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about, so it must have something to
> do with Google.
When I hit "Reply," one of the things I see above the window of the
reply is "Add CC" and when I click on it, usually I see an empty
window, but this time it displayed the above.
> "Don't be evil" indeed.
Huh?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
He's also called me a liar and dishonest in dozens of posts, and made
various other accusations against me, with ever-increasing intensity.
If I had some solid reassurance that the vast majority of people here
don't take these accusations seriously, I'll gladly ignore him.
I've already demonstrated how he has slandered Behe, but so far the
people who have spoken up about this issue are on his side. Rodjk
#613 is one of them, as you can see from what I've quoted right on
this thread. And he's even more enthusiastic about Ron O in the part
I deleted here, but replied to on the original thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9e5c005ec2342957
Richard A. Mathis, a.k.a. "RAM" is another Okimoto fan who has come in
on Okimoto's side, on the same thread.
> If you find it personally annoying, frustrating or
> irritating to engage with someone here, just disengage. There are lots
> of people to debate with here. No need to focus on the ones that get
> under your skin.
I appreciate your concern. It seems genuine, unlike that of other
people I could name.
Peter Nyikos
Bill
I don't know about the vast majority of people here, but I hadn't paid
attention to what Ron O had called you, and even if I had, I'd have
forgotten it as soon as you wrote some interesting post. I think you
can generally count on people's self-absorption to cause them to
forget bad stuff said about you. They're all only worried about
whatever bad stuff might be being said about them. In general, the
only way I get a bad impression of someone here is if they themselves
write a lot of either incoherent or mean-spirited stuff - I don't get
a bad impression of person X based on what person Y said about X.
It's like giving a bad talk in public. You remember every mistake you
made, ever stutter, every missed opportunity for a quick comeback to a
tough question. You feel terrible about it. But by the time you meet
somebody from the audience in the corridor during a coffee break,
they've already forgotten about it or they never noticed in the first
place.
So I'd say it's really fine to let it go and just engage with the
people who are interesting and easy to deal with. There are a good
number of such folks here.
Mitchell Coffey
"Don't be evil" is Google's informal corporate motto. Seriously. It
drew questions back when they were in bed with the government of the
PRC.
Mitchell Coffey
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
already.
Steven L.
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:90e74808-ddd7-4e3c...@k16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
Ron O seems to take these issues personally for some reason, and can't
refrain from using highly inflammatory language--even compared to the
usual Usenet banter. That's all he ever posts. I would suggest you
debate with others instead.
> I've already demonstrated how he has slandered Behe, but so far the
> people who have spoken up about this issue are on his side.
Behe's views have evolved (pun intended) quite a bit in the last 20
years.
The latest I've heard is that Behe now accepts evolution of species by
(mostly) natural selection, but draws the line at the appearance of new
genera by natural selection.
-- Steven L.
Frank J
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Not that I have any reason to doubt that, but I'd like a reference for
my files if you have one. The one I recall was from "Edge of
Evolution" which has some "maybe" categories, IIRC genera and
families, maybe even orders. But that was 2007, so his position might
have changed.
The one think that's almost certainly constant is that, whatever
alternate cause for changes, he is pretty clear that even the various
phyla share common ancestors.
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TomS
<77a3047b-c18c-4a98...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
What definition is there for "genus", "family", "order", "class" or
"phylum"? Once the "species barrier" is broken, where can one draw
a line which cannot be crossed? Try to make an objective division of
the tetrapods, for example.
Or is the sticking point "natural selection"? One could accept the
common natural ancestry of tetrapods, but think that there is a
mechanism other than natural selection involved.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
pnyikos
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:21:04 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
>
> For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
> already.
WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 25, 9:03 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:19 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Let it go. If you step on a rake, it's likely that the handle will
> > > swing up and bop you in the face. It's nothing personal; you don't get
> > > mad at the rake. If you come into t.o. and mention the Discovery
> > > Institute, it's likely that Ron Okimoto will generate a stream of text
> > > in your direction laced with "perps", "rubes", "bait-and-switch",
> > > "scam" at high frequency and in various permutations. Don't take it
> > > personally.
> .
>
> > He's also called me a liar and dishonest in dozens of posts, and made
> > various other accusations against me, with ever-increasing intensity.
> > If I had some solid reassurance that the vast majority of people here
> > don't take these accusations seriously, I'll gladly ignore him.
>
> I don't know about the vast majority of people here, but I hadn't paid
> attention to what Ron O had called you, and even if I had, I'd have
> forgotten it as soon as you wrote some interesting post. I think you
> can generally count on people's self-absorption to cause them to
> forget bad stuff said about you.
That would be nice, but I'm afraid the exceptions are just too
numerous.
>They're all only worried about
> whatever bad stuff might be being said about them.
If the majority here is anything like the majority in talk.abortion,
they don't worry the least about bad stuff being said about them. It
only whets their appetite for saying more bad stuff about the people
whom they have targeted.
Ron Okimoto certainly fits this description. Every expose of lying
and outright slander by him gets labeled "a misdirection ploy,"
because he refuses to deal with anything except what he calls "the
bait and switch scam." And he won't even deal with it to the extent
of documenting it or even describing it in any but the more general
terms: he wants ME to tell him about it. Take a look at the following
post, for instance: I posted what I thought might be what HE thinks it
is:
---------------------------- begin excerpt:
> Stop running and claiming someone else isn't answering when you know
> what you have to do to get the answer.
I have to obey your orders to hurry up and defend a "bait and switch"
that you haven't even described in detail
> Why keep running. You wanted proof that the Discovery Institute was
> involved. I gave it to you. Then you claimed that you didn't believe
> what I said about Ohio and I gave you the evidence that what I claimed
> was true. Then you started on about it isn't the bait and switch
> unless the ID perps were running both scams at the same time. I gave
> you evidence that they are still using the bogus ID junk as bait
The words "bogus" and "junk" are your cowardly shorthand for an
explicit description.
Judging from the way you moved the goalposts wrt the challenge by
Martinez, if you are ever backed into a corner and forced to describe
it, it will probably go something like this:
"DI perps say that they don't take a stand on who or what the
designer of this or that might be, but they will not rule out a divine
designer. That is the bait. Then, when fundies like those in Dover
or in Ohio start preaching that the designer is divine, and DI
officials are called in to testify on the matter, they switch to
saying something they've been saying since 2003: that though they
don't claim that the designer is divine, it is worthwhile to teach
about the controversy."
Did I get it right?
============================ end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
He never answered the question in reply. He floundered around for a
while, then went back to posting the same useless generalities:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650
> In general, the
> only way I get a bad impression of someone here is if they themselves
> write a lot of either incoherent or mean-spirited stuff
What Ron O says about me is mean-spirited to the nth degree.
> It's like giving a bad talk in public. You remember every mistake you
> made, ever stutter, every missed opportunity for a quick comeback to a
> tough question. You feel terrible about it.
You do, and I do, but I could name a dozen people in talk.abortion,
and at least four here, who seem to fit the description of
"psychopathic personality" in the 1990 Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary, at least up to the "and":
psychopathic personality
1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
clear perception of reality
except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
the pursuit of immediate
personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction, or sexual
perversion.
2: an individual having a psychopathic personality.
"sociopath" is synonymous.
One idea they have of immediate personal gratification is to falsely
accuse people of dishonesty, of hypocrisy, of defending pedophilia,
etc.
> So I'd say it's really fine to let it go and just engage with the
> people who are interesting and easy to deal with. There are a good
> number of such folks here.
So far, there is you, there is DIG who hardly ever shows up, there is
Steven L., there is Inez, and there are maybe three other people I've
encountered. I hope to run into more.
At the risk of being accused of posting lists, could you name a few
more?
Peter Nyikos
>
>
>
> > I've already demonstrated how he has slandered Behe, but so far the
> > people who have spoken up about this issue are on his side. Rodjk
> > #613 is one of them, as you can see from what I've quoted right on
> > this thread. And he's even more enthusiastic about Ron O in the part
> > I deleted here, but replied to on the original thread:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9e5c005ec2342957
>
> > Richard A. Mathis, a.k.a. "RAM" is another Okimoto fan who has come in
> > on
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
pnyikos
I've never seen anything like that from him.
Anyway, Okimoto's slander had nothing to do with Behe's views on
evolution. Behe gave a definition of "scientific theory" that one
could read in one old high school science book after another, but
which most people in talk.origins look down their noses at for not
being "awestruck" enough. The interrogator in the courtroom, probably
having been coached by anti-Behe fanatics, asked him if astrology fit
the description.
Behe very wisely gave the definition and explained it carefully before
answering the question directly. He mentioned that a theory does not
have to be true to be a scientific theory. He gave the example of the
luminiferous ether theory, which it took the two greatest revolutions
in physics in the 20th century (the quantum theory, and relativity) to
finally lay to rest. Than he said that yes, back in the middle ages
when people had no real idea what influence the stars and planets had
on us, it could have fit the definition.
Ron O claimed that with this, Behe had confirmed that the Discovery
Institute wants to take us back to the dark ages. And he made no
bones about how terrible that would be: burning heretics at the stake,
etc.
Peter Nyikos
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 9:36 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:21:04 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
>> already.
>
>WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>were it made logically consistent and defined
>broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
> it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
Seriously, and without malice, you need to grow up. You're coming off
as the loser in a schoolyard game at recess whining to the teacher
"Waah! He's cheating!". That's immature behavior in a child, much less
an adult. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, instead
of complaining *repeatedly* about how your opponent turned the oven
up. That doesn't make your opponent look unfair, it makes you look
weak and incompetent. And again, immature.
>and hence would encompass much or all
>of each of the following:
>the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>John the Baptist's denunciation of
>Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
Wow, I can see why Harshman thinks you're a narcissist.
pnyikos
ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
I can think of two explanations for what I relate above and what you
will see below:
1. Ron O is a shameless hypcrite who does not think it is morally
wrong to be dishonest, yet uses charges of dishonesty to undermine his
opponents' reputations, knowing that many people reading these posts
(including myself) DO think it is morally wrong to be dishonest.
2. Ron O is a shameless hypocrite who loves to (often falsely) accuse
people of doing reprehensible things that he loves to do, himself.
Perhaps some fans of Ron O can think of a third explanation--but I
advise them to read my documentation below before making up their
minds.
On Feb 18, 11:06 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
> On Feb 18, 8:32 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:59 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 9:17 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 11:06 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > [about the middle ages:]
>
> > > > > > > at that time intelligent design was the
> > > > > > > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > > > > > > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > > > > > > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > > > > > > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > > > > > > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > > > > > > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
>
> > > > > > The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> > > > > > and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> > > > > > which I am replying [...]
> > > > > No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
> > > > > from it at the same time.
>
> > > > So now, anyone you've targeted for defamation, who follows up to
> > > > anything you post, without discussing everything in it, gets charged
> > > > with running away?
Here comes the first bait, a modest one:
> > > No,
>
> > You did it just now. Why do you deny it?
No answer. Now comes the switch:
> > >but when you lie about what you snip out
>
> > You are indulging in a blatant and OBVIOUS misdirection ploy. You
> > accused me of running WITHOUT snipping just now. Deal with that, if
> > you can.
>
> What a bonehead.
This is the beginning of a classic Broken.Usenet.Promise [compare
"What an idiot" in the canonical definition at the end of this post].
Ron delivers an insult, making the reader think that he is about to
refute what I have said...but instead he completely changes the
subject.
> I just have to go to the posts where you know that
> you did it and put them up as examples.
Ron O has switched back to talking about snipping and then running:
> This is one of the most recent unless Nyikos does it again in this
> post. He snipped the quote from the packet
Ron O is here talking about the briefing packet put out by the
Discover Institute.
> and stupidly claimed that
> I was lying about the packet.
The quote I snipped did not support Ron O's claim that the Discovery
Institute claimed to "have the science to teach" in the public
schools. I never claimed he was lying about that, only that his
evidence fell way short of supporting his allegation.
I'll be replying to the next part of Ron O's post [it's a very long
one] on the original thread.
The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is
commonly called "a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo
like "False."or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that
might fool a complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo
is beingjustified, whereas it is either irrelevant, or obviously
incompetent, or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
This collusion is something I am keenly interested in, and I've only
seen little snippets. Do you have some websites that I could look at,
that treat this matter in depth?
By the way, an informal saying that seems to apply in some newsgroups
I've had lots of experience with (including t.o.) is:
"Atheism covers a multitude of sins."
For example, there was a woman who posted to talk.abortion for a
while, who wanted abortion banned except for rape, incest, and the
life of the mother. Ordinarily this would have made her a target of
dozens of people spewing vitriol on her (as they did on another pro-
life woman, who was a Roman Catholic), but she was an atheist, so the
reactions were suprisingly mild.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:01:50 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> >On Feb 25, 9:36 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:21:04 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
> >> already.
>
> >WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
> >were it made logically consistent and defined
> >broadly enough to encompass the most influential
> >uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
> > it would mean "anything that can be construed,
> >in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>
> Seriously, and without malice,
Never mind the usual Usenet baloney. Is there anything in this
definition with which you disagree? If not, could you please explain
why you used the word "whining" if you are NOT a shill for Ron
Okimoto.
[deletia of raven1 acting like a shill for Ron Okimoto]
> >and hence would encompass much or all
> >of each of the following:
> >the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
> >Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
> >dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
> >in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
> >John the Baptist's denunciation of
> >Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
> >and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
These are famous, oft-studied examples that I believe fit the
definition I gave up there. That is, I don't think anyone will deny
that much or all that you find in each of these examples can be
construed as complaining. If you disagree, "raven1" let me know why.
[By the way, what is your real name?]
Peter Nyikos
Rodjk #613
> "Rodjk #613" continued his Broken.Usenet.Promises in a novel backwards
> way: the next promise came after its breaking, because he "promised"
> that what he said above did a good job. And the insult came after the
> "promise".
>
> I'm repeating ust enough from my first post to this thread to make all
> this reasonably clear.
>
> On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [Quoting Johnson:]:
>
> > > >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > > > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > > > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > > > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > > > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > > > END QUOTE:
> > > Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> > > about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> > > punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
> > No,
>
> Now this IS a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Note how utterly irrelevant the
> next thing you say is to what I last said:
>
> > he is saying there is no science to ID.
Wow! I am getting into the big-time!
A mention by the grate-one...
Of course, he is lame as usual, but at least my name is getting out
there...
>
> You really do enjoy trolling, I can see that. Do you really expect
> readers to believe you overlooked the word "comparable" and "that's
> for them to prove" and "ready"?
I know you cannot read for comprehension...
>
> But I'm not surprised you wrote this idiocy about what Johnson is
> saying: you "promised" below that you did pretty well here, and
> perhaps some ignoramuses witll agree with you.
>
> [...]
>
> [Okimoto quoting Johnson again:]
>
> > > > In some respects, [...] I'm almost relieved, and
> > > > glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> > > > the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
>
> > > Johnson is no spring chicken. "in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
> > > assessment, in the light of what is said above.
>
> > > > That isn't to me where the action really is and ought to be.
>
> > > Of course not. Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
> > > Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
>
> > After hundreds of years of ID, what have they produced?
>
> "They" is NOT the Discovery Institute. It's only been around for
> something like two decades. See my first post to this thread for more
> details on who "they" might include.
Oh, so the Discovery Institute is not about ID???
Wow...you are a fount of totally inane uselessness...
This is your argument...that the ID is new and has only had two
decades because the Discovery Institute is all that there is to ID?
>
> > > > END QUOTE:
>
> > > >http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> > > > Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> > > > defeat.
>
> > > Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
> > > to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to show
> > > that there is a dishonest scam going on.
>
> > I think I did that pretty well.
And still do.
>
> This is the backwards "B.U.Promise". You never really touched the
> "dishonest scam" aspect, and as far as admitting defeat is concerned,
> your trolling up there hardly qualifies as doing "pretty well."
Sure I did.
>
> > You are, as usual, pretty incompetent.
>
> This completes the backwards B.U.P. It is in the same spirit as "What
> an idiot" in the description below. I've slightly amended the
> original to better fit what you did;
You are an idiot...a self centered blowhard. What is the problem with
that?
>
> The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is commonly called
> "a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo like "False."
> or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that might fool a
> complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo is being
> justified, whereas it is either irrelevant, or incompetent,
> or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Thanks for getting my name in lights, petey...you are still an idiot.
Rodjk #613
John Harshman
Haven't read any of the previous back-and-forth between you and Peter
(too boring), but this post doesn't make you seem at all rational,
consisting as it does of nothing more than trash talk. Just sayin'. You
seem to be feeding on each other nicely.
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 10:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:01:50 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 25, 9:36 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:21:04 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
>> >> already.
>>
>> >WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>> >were it made logically consistent and defined
>> >broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>> >uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
>> > it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>> >in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>>
>> Seriously, and without malice,
>
>Never mind the usual Usenet baloney. Is there anything in this
>definition with which you disagree?
Yes, the fact that it's your own self-serving definition, and that
you're in denial about how petulant and narcissistic your incessant
whining sounds.
> If not, could you please explain
>why you used the word "whining" if you are NOT a shill for Ron
>Okimoto.
>[deletia of raven1 acting like a shill for Ron Okimoto]
Because, as you deleted, it's genuinely painful to watch a grown adult
incessantly whining like a five-year old, and you really should grow
up.
>> >and hence would encompass much or all
>> >of each of the following:
>> >the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>> >Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>> >dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>> >in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>> >John the Baptist's denunciation of
>> >Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>> >and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
>
>These are famous, oft-studied examples that I believe fit the
>definition I gave up there.
No, the examples you gave are from adults, speaking as adults, to
adults.
>That is, I don't think anyone will deny
>that much or all that you find in each of these examples can be
>construed as complaining. If you disagree, "raven1" let me know why.
You need to learn the difference between complaining and whining.
>[By the way, what is your real name?]
That's hardly your business.
Rodjk #613
It isn't as though I am a major participant here; I mostly lurk and
post very few comments. In this case, I gave in to a weakness of
tweaking Peter a few weeks ago...I was actually surprised that he made
a point to bring it up again in this thread.
I will try harder to restrain myself...
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
pnyikos
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:20:40 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 10:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:01:50 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 25, 9:36 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:21:04 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Something I deleted to save space, but readers can see it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a9b2eff508387e04
Readers taking the trouble to click on the link and read what is there
can verify that only by stretching the word "complaint" to the limit
can anything I write there be construed as complaining. The troll who
calls himself "raven1" never attempted to show otherwise.
The two replies to Rodjk #613 to date play the role of explaining,
with the help of a concrete example, a very frequently used dirty
debating tactic. Just as almost every seasoned regular here finds it
helpful to have the term "ad hominem" handy in polemics, because it is
such a common tactic, so I have found it helpful to have
"Broken.Usenet.Promise" handy.
But by the warped non-standards of "raven1", anyone who accuses his
opponent of using an *ad hominem* or a strawman argument, or a red
herring, is like a whining 5 year old schoolboy who runs to his
teacher because his opponents cheated in a game.
I say "non-standards" because I don't think "raven1" abides by any
coherent standards. He is simply a quintessential polemicist who says
all kinds of farfetched things because they score some kind of
debating points in his polemical world.
> >> >> For heaven's sake, either quit whining or take your ball and go home
> >> >> already.
>
> >> >WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
> >> >were it made logically consistent and defined
> >> >broadly enough to encompass the most influential
> >> >uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
> >> > it would mean "anything that can be construed,
> >> >in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>
> >> Seriously, and without malice,
>
> >Never mind the usual Usenet baloney. Is there anything in this
> >definition with which you disagree?
> Yes, the fact that it's your own self-serving definition,
That's not part of the definition, so your "Yes" is a
Broken.Usenet.Promise.
I think you are intelligent enough to know that I never meant it to
describe the USUAL meanings of "whine". It is a meaning quite
different from the usual dictionary definitions, but then the
dictionaries often acknowledge many different (and sometimes highly
contrasting) meanings of words.
Do you deny that the word "whine" is very popularly used on Usenet in
just the way the definition describes?
[more of the same misdirection deleted]
> > If not, could you please explain
> >why you used the word "whining" if you are NOT a shill for Ron
> >Okimoto.
> >[deletia of raven1 acting like a shill for Ron Okimoto]
>
> Because, as you deleted, it's genuinely painful
Now that's a REAL whine! You don't even need to stretch the usual
dictionary definition the way my suggested definition stretches it.
In stark contrast, your initial flame about schoolboys, and the sequel
below, strongly suggest that the word "whining" is still an inchoate
concept in your mind, what with the word "incessant" modifying it:
> to watch a grown adult
> incessantly whining like a five-year old, and you really should grow
> up.
I'd like to see you try and take a snippet from the post linked above
and say in your own words why it fits the above description.
> >> >and hence would encompass much or all
> >> >of each of the following:
> >> >the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
> >> >Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
> >> >dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
> >> >in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
> >> >John the Baptist's denunciation of
> >> >Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
> >> >and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
>
> >These are famous, oft-studied examples that I believe fit the
> >definition I gave up there.
>
> No,
Another Broken.Usenet.Promise. Watch the sequel:
> the examples you gave are from adults, speaking as adults, to
> adults.
So, apparently, they all DO fit the extended definition I gave.
"Whine" is just a label for the actual definition, which stands by
itself.
> >That is, I don't think anyone will deny
> >that much or all that you find in each of these examples can be
> >construed as complaining. If you disagree, "raven1" let me know why.
>
> You need to learn the difference between complaining and whining.
I'm calling your bluff: quote from the post to which you originally
replied, and explain why a certain passage is not just complaining,
but whining.
>
> >[By the way, what is your real name?]
>
> That's hardly your business.
Your answer is most unsurprising. You wish to remain a dummy-analogue
manipulated by a ventriloquist-analogue who would, I believe, be
utterly mortified if someone filmed him, sans dummy, talking this way
to another adult in a social setting.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Thanks. If everyone stopped poking him, he might settle down eventually,
and I could find out what he's trying to say.
Ron O
> The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is commonly called
> "a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo like "False."
> or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that might fool a
> complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo is being
> claims of the opponent.
Just remember I am here by request. Nyikos claims that I am running
if I don't follow him all over TO.
Actually the definition of bait and switch that you are running from
and lying about is when a scam artist or group of scam artists sell
the rubes one thing, but when it comes time to deliver they only give
the rubes the switch scam that isn't what the wanted and is usually
only a booby prize replacement for the real thing.
In the case of the intelligent design scam the bogus scam artists
never had the science of intelligent design to teach in the public
schools. When the rubes fell for the scam and claimed to want to
teach the ID science the ID perps ran the bait and switch on them and
only give them a bogus switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID
ever existed.
Nyikos keeps lying about this issue, but that is Nyikos. Beats me
what he is going on about this when he is doing so miserably lying
about the ID scam.
>
> I'll be posting several examples to this thread, right from this
> newsgroup. First up is a post by Rodjk#613. Another is by someone to
> whom he has evidently shackled himself, Ron Okimoto.
Why set up a bogus thread to whine about getting your butt kicked in
other threads? Why not respond to the posts in place without snipping
out the relevant material and lying about what the people say?
>
> On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Here is my "next post". I couldn't resist doing a "twofer" since
> > > Rodjk#613 seems to have shackled himself ot Okimoto on this issue. So
> > > I am following up to him instead of Ron O, killing two birds with one
> > > stone.
>
> > > On Feb 3, 3:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
I think that it is obvious who is trying some bogus deception here.
>
> > > > QUOTE:
> > > > I also don t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> > > > at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> > > > Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> > > > worked out scheme.
>
> > > Note the qualifiers. "the Darwinian scheme" refers to the neo-
> > > Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
> > > of Species_. That's because Johnson is talking about ID being a
> > > rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not to a much
> > > more fragmentary prototype. And so, by saying "at the present time,"
> > > he is making it clear that he is contrasting less than two decades to
> > > over two centuries.
Note that none of this matters. If you go to the reference that was
put up with this quote you would find out that Johnson was making this
admission in response to the IDiot loss in Dover where the IDiots
claimed that ID was science that they could teach in the public
schools, and their legal team requested that judgement be rendered as
to whether ID was science or not. The IDiots lost and to the ID perps
dismay intelligent design as it exists today was determined to not be
any type of science that should be taught in the public school science
class. Nyikos is just making junk up so that he can lie to himself
about what Johnson meant. ID had failed and Johnson was admitting
that failure. There is nothing that Nyikos can say that changes that.
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
>
> > Wrong.
>
> This is not exactly a Broken.Usenet.Promise, yet. You do make an
> attempt to justify it below, except that you ONLY address the last
> sentence--feebly, I might add.
You are wrong. Your distinctions are irrelevant and just a bogus
dodge. If you want me to respond to this nonsense why not respond to
my post instead of someone elses?
>
> > As usual from you...
>
> Trolling. Is that usual for you?
>
> > Do you really expect anyone to believe that ID has only had two
> > decades?
>
> The Argument from Design has been around since at least the Psalmist's
> "The heavens declare the handiwork of God", but the point of this
> thread is an alleged bait and switch scam, and so we are talking about
> the scientific methodology of the Discovery Institute, which has only
> been a serious undertaking for two decades AFAIK.
>
> > > >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > > > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > > > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > > > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > > > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > > > END QUOTE:
>
> > > Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> > > about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> > > punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
Beats me where Nyikos got this idea. Read the article that the quote
came from. And even if he was talking about this what would it
matter? ID would still be bogus science, and there would still be
nothing ready for competition in the educational world. This is the
type of insane hair splitting that Nyikos likes to indulge in in order
to lie to himself. Beats me what good it does, but he likes to do
it. "Mandate," "implicated" or "involved" and some others that I just
can't recall at this time. Can anyone figure out what the neo-
Darwinian synthesis has to do with ID being too bogus to teach or the
price of tea in China? Johnson could have been talking about the best
or the worst science taught in the public schools. ID could not
compete at any level.
The full quote of mine that Nyikos is just supplying part (another
lame Nyikos trick) is:
QUOTE:
For anyone that wants to believe that there was ever anything to the
intelligent design creationist scam the fat lady has already sung.
These are quotes from Philip Johnson that has not been retracted as
far as I know, and he even presented similar feelings on the video of
the Dover fiasco. This is the guy that the other ID perps called the
"godfather" of the intelligent design scam because of his efforts to
get the scam rolling in the early 1990's. He doesn't accept blame
for
running the bogus scam for over a decade, he just points the finger
at
the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
have taken to make the ID scam legit.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the
scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
In the same piece he is again quoted:
QUOTE:
For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are
just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at
all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
END QUOTE:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c527701b7475775d?hl=en
Nyikos snipped out part of this post and used it somewhere else, but I
can't remember where at the moment. I doesn't matter the quoted
material says exactly what I claim.
>
> > No,
>
> Now this IS a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Note how utterly irrelevant the
> next thing you say is to what I last said:
Why should someone else defend something that I wrote where you don't
even give the full quote?
>
> > he is saying there is no science to ID.
>
> You really do enjoy trolling, I can see that. Do you really expect
> readers to believe you overlooked the word "comparable" and "that's
> for them to prove" and "ready"?
Johnson is admitting that the ID science never existed. What don't
you get about the quote. Where does he claim that there is any ID
science that is worth teaching? Science equivalent to astrology of
the dark ages isn't any type of science worth mentioning at this time,
and Johnson knew it. Even the top level ID perps understood what a
bogus scam that they were running.
>
> > > Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to Darwin's
> > > original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. One is that Darwin
> > > didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world of
> > > his time either. Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
> > > account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
> > > their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
> > > where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
>
> > Which, of course, in no way takes away from Darwin's quite excellent
> > explanation.
>
> On this much, we are in agreement.
>
> > > The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
> > > findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
> > > shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
> > > amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
> > > descent. Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
> > > comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
>
> > No, as I already pointed out.
>
> Asking a question is not exactly the same thing as pointing something
> out, but that's a minor quibble. What's important is that I've told
> you what the context is. Your idol Okimoto has flamed me for daring
> to ask him whether he believes that the creator of the universe in
> which he believes designed the universe, and designed it
> intelligently.
You left out the context, what a bonehead. What flame. Put up the
post. I admitted that I was a creationist. You were the one trying
to make a big issue out of the scam that the ID perps run about
creationists. They claim to not be creationists, because they lie to
themselves that it only applies to the YEC fundy types. Just like
Nyikos splits hairs and has to lie about his religious motivation.
Beats me where junk like this comes from. You kept claiming that I
hadn't defined creationists, but you had just snipped out the part
where you would have gotten it. You do that so often that it is
almost comical.
>
> He never actually answered the questions, but he made it quite clear
> that he does NOT consider claims like that of the Psalmist to be
> relevant to what he calls "the creationist bait and switch scam".
I can't make enough sense out of this statement to know if I would
agree with it or not. What does this have to do with the ID perps
running the bait and switch scam on their IDiot supporters? They
could be devil worshipers and they would still have no ID science to
teach and they would still be running the bait and switch.
Why not answer the posts in place so that it isn't so much trouble to
go back and see what you are lying about? I guess that I just
answered my own question.
Ron Okimoto
>
> Peter Nyikos
Ron O
For some stupid reason Nyikos is demanding that I come to this thread
and put in my 2 cents. Seems to be no different from the other
threads that he is running from posts in and lying his butt off in.
> "Rodjk #613" continued his Broken.Usenet.Promises in a novel backwards
> way: the next promise came after its breaking, because he "promised"
> that what he said above did a good job. And the insult came after the
> "promise".
>
> I'm repeating ust enough from my first post to this thread to make all
> this reasonably clear.
>
> On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [Quoting Johnson:]:
>
> > > >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > > > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > > > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > > > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > > > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > > > END QUOTE:
> > > Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> > > about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> > > punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
> > No,
I gave the full quoted material in my first response. I can't figure
out what Nyikos is talking about when he seems to introduced Darwin
into the discussion when the Johnson quote didn't even mention Darwin.
>
> Now this IS a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Note how utterly irrelevant the
> next thing you say is to what I last said:
>
> > he is saying there is no science to ID.
>
> You really do enjoy trolling, I can see that. Do you really expect
> readers to believe you overlooked the word "comparable" and "that's
> for them to prove" and "ready"?
He is claiming that there is no science to ID, at least, none that can
compete with what real science has.
If you want to stretch the definition of science to include astrology
of the dark ages, I agree ID qualifies as science as it was practiced
in the dark ages.
>
> But I'm not surprised you wrote this idiocy about what Johnson is
> saying: you "promised" below that you did pretty well here, and
> perhaps some ignoramuses witll agree with you.
>
> [...]
>
> [Okimoto quoting Johnson again:]
>
> > > > In some respects, [...] I'm almost relieved, and
> > > > glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> > > > the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
>
> > > Johnson is no spring chicken. "in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
> > > assessment, in the light of what is said above.
Johnson is still alive and the bait and switch has gone down for
another half decade since he made his admission. One day would be too
long to continue to run the bogus bait and switch scam. The ID perps
have made it their lifetime ambition. Hey Nyikos, the bait and switch
has been going down for 9 years now. When you started your denials in
December I could only say over 8 years. Another year and it will be a
decade. When do you think that the bait and switch will stop going
down? The only IDiots left that support the ID scam are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. Even Nyikos knows why that is true.
Any honest competent and informed IDiots would have dumped the
pretenders by now.
>
> > > > That isn't to me where the action really is and ought to be.
>
> > > Of course not. Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
> > > Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
>
> > After hundreds of years of ID, what have they produced?
>
> "They" is NOT the Discovery Institute. It's only been around for
> something like two decades. See my first post to this thread for more
> details on who "they" might include.
Kenyon and Thaxton are still fellows at the Discovery Institute and
they are responsible for the Pandas and People intelligent design
fiasco of the 1980s.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists
All the fellow at the Discovery Institute are currently involved in
running the bait and switch, at least, none of them have objected to
the Discovery Institute running the bait and switch on their own
supporters, or resigned in protest. It seems that they are all still
one big happy family. It is probably the case where if one hangs they
all go down.
>
> > > > END QUOTE:
>
> > > >http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> > > > Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> > > > defeat.
>
> > > Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
> > > to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to show
> > > that there is a dishonest scam going on.
>
> > I think I did that pretty well.
>
> This is the backwards "B.U.Promise". You never really touched the
> "dishonest scam" aspect, and as far as admitting defeat is concerned,
> your trolling up there hardly qualifies as doing "pretty well."
Why was I supposed to be commenting on this junk?
>
> > You are, as usual, pretty incompetent.
>
> This completes the backwards B.U.P. It is in the same spirit as "What
> an idiot" in the description below. I've slightly amended the
> original to better fit what you did;
It is just a fact. You are incompetent. Not only that, but you are
an incompetent liar. Your most recent posts demonstrate that.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0313b422eb297745?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f557c56353788956?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8fa5c1948953aa84?hl=en
Respond to them in place. I don't want to be looking around for your
posts to someone else.
Why did you want me to post to this thread?
Ron Okimoto
>
> The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is commonly called
> "a bait and switch". It consists of an opening salvo like "False."
> or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that might fool a
> complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo is being
> justified, whereas it is either irrelevant, or incompetent,
> or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Ron O
This is getting ridiculous. Nyikos expects me to follow him around TO
and gets upset when I don't respond to posts that aren't even directed
at me, but responses to other people.
Nyikos is talking about getting his butt kicked in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80db368cbdf6?hl=en#
The post below is just Nyikos running from the reality of posts like
this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963?hl=en
He tries the misdirection ploy. You can't make this junk up. Nyikos
can't deal with reality so he has to try to change the subject.
>
> ---------------------------- begin excerpt:
>
> > Stop running and claiming someone else isn't answering when you know
> > what you have to do to get the answer.
>
> I have to obey your orders to hurry up and defend a "bait and switch"
> that you haven't even described in detail
I've already dealt with this bogus junk:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ec761aceeb6f4f1?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650?hl=en
Of course Nyikos ran away and tried this post about a month later.
What a boneheaded incompetent.
Anyone that wants to can go back to my response from Dec. I don't
have to respond to the claptrap a second time.
SNIP redundant material responded to in the links above.
Isn't this thread on dirty debating tactics. What is the tactic about
bringing up old posts that you ran away from in other threads and
posting the responses to other people?
>
> He never answered the question in reply. He floundered around for a
> while, then went back to posting the same useless generalities:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650
Nyikos has just embarrassed himself by claiming that I ran a way to
this movie. No. You can't make junk like this up. Some people will
try anything to deny reality.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8fa5c1948953aa84
QUOTE:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ec761aceeb6f4f1?hl=en
> It is you, because:
> That was your FIRST response, and you ignored what I wrote THEN, but
> then you did a SECOND response, replying to your first response:
What a bonehead. In the second post I clearly said that I had to go
to a movie and I continued. What good does misrepresenting reality
get you? It was just a post in two parts. You ran away. Face the
facts. Trying some kind of bogus nonsense after the fact is not just
dishonest, but stupid. Just check out your own excerpt of the post
below. What a bonehead.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650
> -------------------- beginning excerpt
> On Dec 20, 6:50 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 4:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Continued:
> Sorry, I had to go to a movie.
> ========================== end of excerpt
> > Of course Nyikos ran
> No, YOU ran to a movie, then returned and behaved exactly as I
> described above.
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to once Ron O acknowledges these
> corrections and deals with them.
> Peter Nyikos
This is pretty insane. Why can’t I go to a movie before completing a
post? What kind of reality does Nyikos live in? I ran to a movie in
order to do what? I hate to tell Nyikos this, but I go to movies all
the time. This is so tragically insane that it almost makes me feel
sorry for such a low life scum bag liar.
Anyone can go to the post and see why Nyikos is running from it.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
END QUOTE:
This is how Nyikos deals with reality.
>
> > In general, the
> > only way I get a bad impression of someone here is if they themselves
> > write a lot of either incoherent or mean-spirited stuff
>
> What Ron O says about me is mean-spirited to the nth degree.
Nyikos complaining about what people say about him? Just look at why
he started this thread. He should worry about what he actually is and
deal with the reality that some people do tell the truth from time to
time..
>
> > It's like giving a bad talk in public. You remember every mistake you
> > made, ever stutter, every missed opportunity for a quick comeback to a
> > tough question. You feel terrible about it.
>
> You do, and I do, but I could name a dozen people in talk.abortion,
> and at least four here, who seem to fit the description of
> "psychopathic personality" in the 1990 Merriam-Webster Collegiate
> Dictionary, at least up to the "and":
>
> psychopathic personality
> 1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
> clear perception of reality
> except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
> the pursuit of immediate
> personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction, or sexual
> perversion.
Nyikos seems to be describing himself.
> 2: an individual having a psychopathic personality.
I don't know if lying about lying quailfies, but it probably comes
close.
>
> "sociopath" is synonymous.
>
> One idea they have of immediate personal gratification is to falsely
> accuse people of dishonesty, of hypocrisy, of defending pedophilia,
> etc.
What does Nyikos get out of falsely accusing people?
>
> > So I'd say it's really fine to let it go and just engage with the
> > people who are interesting and easy to deal with. There are a good
> > number of such folks here.
>
> So far, there is you, there is DIG who hardly ever shows up, there is
> Steven L., there is Inez, and there are maybe three other people I've
> encountered. I hope to run into more.
>
> At the risk of being accused of posting lists, could you name a few
> more?
>
> Peter Nyikos
Nyikos likely head the list, that is why he is probably searching for
company.
Respond to the posts in place and don't expect me to know when you
post junk to other people that you think that I should be responding
to.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> acknowledging having been caught at it. �Documentation below.
What a bonehead. You just linked to a case in point in your response
above. This is the post that you linked back to where you tried to
misdirect the argument to a Nov. post that you had nothing to do with.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
Just look at your post that you responding to yourself in this post.
You started a new thread to perpetrate the misdirection ploy.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c60cb1344526ce96#
What are you complaining about when you are guilty?
>
> I can think of two explanations for what I relate above and what you
> will see below:
>
> 1. �Ron O is a shameless hypcrite who does not think it is morally
> wrong to be dishonest, yet uses charges of dishonesty to undermine his
> opponents' reputations, knowing that many people reading these posts
> (including myself) DO think it is morally wrong to be dishonest.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> 2. �Ron O is a shameless hypocrite who loves to (often falsely) accuse
> people of doing reprehensible things that he loves to do, himself.
Projection is a sign of insanity. I think that anyone that wants to
follow this sordid affair would see who the dishonest and bogus one
is. What a bonehead. You can link to an example of doing exactly
what you are trying to deny doing and you can claim that someone else
is doing it in order to cover your own dishonest butt?
Nyikos forgets to mention that he left the material in, but he ignored
the point to obfuscate the issue by claiming something stupid about
him leaving it in when he obviously did it just to run from having to
deal with it. Did Nyikos deal with the point of the passage? No. He
only blabbed on about not snipping it. What a bonehead. If that
isn't running from something what is? He could have just acknowledged
reality and agreed with the facts, but what did he do?
>
> > I just have to go to the posts where you know that
> > you did it and put them up as examples.
>
> Ron O has switched back to talking about snipping and then running:
Wasn't that your point about not snipping out the material?
>
> > This is one of the most recent unless Nyikos does it again in this
> > post. �He snipped the quote from the packet
>
> Ron O is here talking about the briefing packet put out by the
> Discover Institute.
>
> > and stupidly claimed that
> > I was lying about the packet.
>
> �The quote I snipped did not support Ron O's claim that the Discovery
> Institute claimed to "have the science to teach" in the public
> schools. �I never claimed he was lying about that, only that his
> evidence fell way short of supporting his allegation.
This is the quote that Nyikos snipped out and it obviously says that
the Discovery Institute has the science that some poor teacher can
teach. If they don't have it who does?
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
Anyone with a functional brain can see why Nyikos snipped this quote
so that he could deny that the Discovery Institute ID perps were still
claiming that they had the ID science to teach. This is such a lame
lie by this time, and he has repeated it over and over that it is
pathologic.
>
> I'll be replying to the next part of Ron O's post [it's a very long
> one] on the original thread.
>
> The Broken.Usenet.Promise is a special case of what is
> commonly called "a bait and switch". �It consists of an opening salvo
> like "False."or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something that
> might fool a complete ignoramus into thinking that the opening salvo
> is beingjustified, whereas it is either irrelevant, or obviously
> incompetent, or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Anyone can go there and see how Nyikos deals with reality. Lying
about lying is just a way of life for Nyikos. Sad but it is all true.
Starting threads like this to try and cover Nyikos' dishonest butt is
tragically stupid and shows a lack of integrity that for some reason
Nyikos can't see that he lacks.
What is really sad is that Nyikos is the one that ragged me about
coming to this thread to defend myself. He claimed that I was running
away. What a low life scum bag.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Feb 25, 10:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
In response, Ron O. indulges in yet another misdirection ploy, yet
another bait and switch, starting with:
> What a bonehead.
This is another example of a Broken Usenet Promise. Instead of
talking about the actual event to which I am referring above, Ron O
starts with an insult and then "breaks the promise" by writing
something having nothing to do with the event to which I was referring
above.
The insult was the bait, now watch the switch:
> You just linked to a case in point in your response
> above.
The "case in point" had nothing whatsoever to do with the following:
> This is the post that you linked back to where you tried to
> misdirect the argument to a Nov. post that you had nothing to do with.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
This was where, back in December, I documented Ron O. indulging in
ANOTHER bait and switch misdirection ploy.
Ron O is trying to confuse the issue by dragging this earlier
documentation, rather than dealing with the far more recent
misdirection ploy that I am talking about on this thread.
> Just look at your post that you responding to yourself in this post.
>
> You started a new thread to perpetrate the misdirection ploy.
There is no such thing as "the misdirection ploy". There are
misdirection ploys, and I deny that my documentation of dishonesty and
hypocrisy by Okimoto in November constituted one. And even if it
were, it would NOT negate ANYTHING I wrote in the post to which Ron
O. is responding.
Ron O, perhaps confusing himself with his god, has demanded that I
defend something I have no intention of defending. Since I have not
met his demand, every documentation of dishonesty, hypocrisy, bait and
switch, and misdirection ploys by HIM gets converted in his sick mind
to "the misdirection ploy."
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c60cb13...
That thread did mention that December documentation, but again, this
is old hat having nothing to do with this thread nor my opening words.
> What are you complaining about when you are guilty?
No moral guilt by me is established by anything Ron O. says above.
Perhaps Ron O. is too amoral to see that.
> > I can think of two explanations for what I relate above and what you
> > will see below:
>
> > 1. Ron O is a shameless hypcrite who does not think it is morally
> > wrong to be dishonest, yet uses charges of dishonesty to undermine his
> > opponents' reputations, knowing that many people reading these posts
> > (including myself) DO think it is morally wrong to be dishonest.
Ron O. does not deny this.
> Projection is a sign of insanity.
Not always, but in your case it may well be. You've brought charges
of "misdirection ploys" by me and yet you are demonstrating an
addiction to them yourself.
> > 2. Ron O is a shameless hypocrite who loves to (often falsely) accuse
> > people of doing reprehensible things that he loves to do, himself.
Ron O. does not deny this either. Instead, he indulges in yet another
misdirection ploy:
> Projection is a sign of insanity. I think that anyone that wants to
> follow this sordid affair would see who the dishonest and bogus one
> is.
Yes. It is Ron Okimoto. See above. The post to which he is
responding is another good example.
But one of the best examples to date was on the thread where he
originally attacked me in December. Here is where I really started to
lay bare the pathological dishonesty to which he is increasingly
turning:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2ce0bdf8467102d6
Ron O. has replied to that one, continuing the same pattern of
covering lies with new lies and new misdirection ploys. Perhaps in
his sick mind, he thinks getting in the last word, no matter how full
of garbage it is, makes him the victor in the argument.
And note how, below, he continues to avoid dealing with the issue of
his OWN attitude towards misdirection ploys, and towards dishonesty.
>What a bonehead. You can link to an example of doing exactly
> what you are trying to deny doing
Note the extreme generality; the reader is left to guess just what
this "example" is. I have explained why the December "example" he
gave above is bogus.
>and you can claim that someone else
> is doing it
I not only claim Ron O. is doing it, I am documenting it.
> in order to cover your own dishonest butt?
There is no dishonesty in exposing the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Ron
O. He just rants about my "dishonest butt" because of his *ipse
dixit* that "misdirection ploys are dishonest" and his ridiculous
charge that my exposes constitute "the misdirection ploy".
> > Perhaps some fans of Ron O can think of a third explanation--but I
> > advise them to read my documentation below before making up their
> > minds.
Since Ron O. has provided a fresh example of him indulging in a
misdirection ploy, I will deal with his pathetic attempt to deal with
"my documentation below" later. One thing he did NOT even TRY to do
"below" was to exonerate himself of having done a bait and switch, a
misdirection ploy, a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Instead, he indulged in
more of the same, just like he is doing above.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
alextangent
[snippety snip]
>
> TO BE CONTINUED
Damn. Do you have to?
>
> Peter Nyikos
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
Some cheese with your whine, monsieur?
pnyikos
Me feed on him?? I suppose you could call using him to illustrate a
concept feeding on him, but that seems like a stretch to me.
> > It isn't as though I am a major participant here; I mostly lurk and
> > post very few comments. In this case, I gave in to a weakness of
> > tweaking Peter a few weeks ago...I was actually surprised that he made
> > a point to bring it up again in this thread.
>
> > I will try harder to restrain myself...
>
> Thanks. If everyone stopped poking him, he might settle down eventually,
> and I could find out what he's trying to say.
I've been active on the following thread these last three days, with
on-topic arguments about directed panspermy. If you wish to try and
figure out what I am trying to say, it's a good place to start:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5e840a9968c6d5fe/332a3676956df557
The last two posts, done yesterday, are sufficiently
nonconfrontational even to satisfy you, I hope. The first is in
response to "Vend" as in "Vendian":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abf590b604813b87
The second is in response to "Arkalen":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9269a66d90e1fa8
I don't recall running across either of these before engaging them on
that thread, and so I'll probably stay nonconfrontational for quite
some time there.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mar 25, 4:13 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [snippety snip]
>
>
>
> > TO BE CONTINUED
>
> Damn. Do you have to?
Not if someone else weighs in with comments about how Ron O.
hypocritically indulged in a misdirection ploy in the part that I
still haven't addressed.
I can't really blame you if you do not wish to go that route
yourself. I know very few people have the guts to go on record that
way when they know Ron O. is likely to turn on them and start falsely
accusing them of being blatant liars and hypocrites, and knowing that
no amount of proof of innocence on their part is likely to halt the
torrent of false accusations.
In fact, I may be the first person to stick with Ron O. long enough
for him to resort to really open and transparent displays of hypocrisy
and dishonesty. And he shows every sign of continuing in this vein
with me indefinitely, openly displaying his dishonesty and hypocrisy
for all to see, as if to say: "if you mess with me, this is the kind
of treatment YOU will be subjected to, and there isn't a damn thing
you can do about it."
I've seen his kind operate in talk.abortion, and they've become
spectacularly successful, coming to dominate the newsgroup simply
because hardly anyone wants to expose himself to that kind of
unstoppable abuse.
"All that is needed for evil to prevail
is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
> <snip>
"raven1" reminds me of the main narrator in Dostoyevski's _Notes from
Underground_. This is the book with the famous quotation by this main
narrator, that if a perfect society, with no suffering and everyone
being good, were to come about, human beings would rebel and impose
suffering just to assert their freedom.
"raven1" seems the embodiment not only of this person, but of the
anarchists Dostoyevsky probably based him on, such as Nechayev, the
arch-anarchist whom even that famous anarchist Bakunin found too
anarchistic for his taste.
> Some cheese with your whine, monsieur?
This Horn-clone taunt is all this anarchistic jerk could muster in the
wake of the following challenge, which he completely ignored:
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2011 2:43 pm
Subject: Re: Dirty Debating Tactics 1: The Broken.Usenet.Promise
On Feb 28, 6:15 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:20:40 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 25, 10:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:01:50 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Seriously, and without malice,
============== end of repost
Peter Nyikos
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 1:09 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 4:13 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snippety snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> > TO BE CONTINUED
>>
>> Damn. Do you have to?
>
>Not if someone else weighs in with comments about how Ron O.
>hypocritically indulged in a misdirection ploy in the part that I
>still haven't addressed.
No one cares, just as no one would care if the situations were
reversed. Do you seriously not understand that?
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Some cheese with your whine, monsieur?
>
>This Horn-clone taunt is all this anarchistic jerk could muster in the
>wake of the following challenge, which he completely ignored:
Quite frankly, a taunt is all your post merited. Quit whining or take
your ball and run home to mommy.
Ron O
> On Mar 15, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
>
> In response, Ron O. indulges in yet another misdirection ploy, yet
> another bait and switch, starting with:
Nyikos has kept claiming that he doesn’t know what the bait and switch
is, but I doubt that lying like this counts as some type of
confirmation that he doesn’t really know what a bait and switch is.
What am I baiting with and what am I switching?
>
> > What a bonehead.
>
> This is another example of a Broken Usenet Promise. Instead of
> talking about the actual event to which I am referring above, Ron O
> starts with an insult and then "breaks the promise" by writing
> something having nothing to do with the event to which I was referring
> above.
It is a statement of fact. Only a bonehead would lie to themselves to
the extent that you do.
>
> The insult was the bait, now watch the switch:
>
> > You just linked to a case in point in your response
> > above.
You can’t make this junk up. There is no switch here because my claim
is that I never lied about Nyikos running the misdirection ploy
because he just linked to a post where he was caught doing it. This
is the boneheaded type of bogus behavior that Nyikos has become known
for in the four threads that I have interacted with him. How can I be
running a bait and switch about him running misdirection ploys when he
accommodates me by linking to posts where he is caught running
misdirection ploys. Real misdirection ploys not made up bogus lies.
This demonstrates that Nyikos’ idea of a misdirection ploy is when he
gets caught red handed and has to lie about someone else doing
something that he is guilty of.
>
> The "case in point" had nothing whatsoever to do with the following:
What a bonehead. It is proof that you run misdirection ploys so how
can I possibly be running misdirection ploys to lie about you running
misdirection ploys? You are guilty so there can’t be any lying on my
part or any reason for me to run a misdirection ploy. Demonstrating
that you do what you deny doing isn’t a misdirection, it is direct
evidence that you are lying.
>
> > This is the post that you linked back to where you tried to
> > misdirect the argument to a Nov. post that you had nothing to do with.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
>
> This was where, back in December, I documented Ron O. indulging in
> ANOTHER bait and switch misdirection ploy.
State what the bait and switch is. You are just lying again.
>
> Ron O is trying to confuse the issue by dragging this earlier
> documentation, rather than dealing with the far more recent
> misdirection ploy that I am talking about on this thread.
You are the one that is claiming that you haven’t run the misdirection
ploy. Getting caught red handed is pretty definitive proof that you
are the one that is lying.
>
> > Just look at your post that you responding to yourself in this post.
>
> > You started a new thread to perpetrate the misdirection ploy.
>
> There is no such thing as "the misdirection ploy". There are
> misdirection ploys, and I deny that my documentation of dishonesty and
> hypocrisy by Okimoto in November constituted one. And even if it
> were, it would NOT negate ANYTHING I wrote in the post to which Ron
> O. is responding.
You claimed that I was lying about you running the misdirection ploy.
Now you claim that even if you were caught running the misdirection
ploy that it would not have any bearing on your claim that I was lying
about you running the misdirection ploy. This is the insane type of
reasoning that Nyikos employs over and over. I just can’t figure out
why anyone would think that it was valid.
This is the Nyikos statement that Nyikos is lying about from right up
at the start of this post:
QUOTE:
> > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
END QUOTE:
How can anyone falsely accuse Nyikos of running misdirection ploys
when he is guilty of doing it. There were no false accusations.
There obviously is no misdirection about demonstrating that Nyikos is,
in fact, guilty and was lying about false allegations.
>
> Ron O, perhaps confusing himself with his god, has demanded that I
> defend something I have no intention of defending. Since I have not
> met his demand, every documentation of dishonesty, hypocrisy, bait and
> switch, and misdirection ploys by HIM gets converted in his sick mind
> to "the misdirection ploy."
Your projection is a sign of insanity. I would put money on it at
this time.
You are guilty. Nothing that you can claim about what I have done
will change that fact. Stop lying to yourself and deal with reality.
You tried to run a bogus misdirection ploy and got caught. You then
started a whole new thread to pull the trigger again and again and got
caught. Denial is stupid and insane at this point. Claiming that
someone else is lying about the situation when you stupidly link to a
post where you were running the misdirection ploy in question is not
just stupid, but denial is insane. It was not “dozens” of false
accusations. Whatever the number they were all true and valid
accusations and you linked to a post where you were demonstrated to be
doing it.
How sad is it that after all your lying and bogousity about your
efforts to dishonestly divert the issue, that you have not addressed
the issue that you are running from? The only IDiots left that still
support the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, incompetent and
or dishonest. Nyikos has shown himself to be all three in the four
threads that we are discussing. The ID perps have been running the
bait and switch on their own IDiot supporters for 9 years. What other
types of supporters can they possibly have left? Nyikos can deny that
the bait and switch has been going down, but he knows that he would be
lying. All he can do is junk like this post to run from reality and
lie to himself.
It is just a fact that the ID perps sold the IDiot rubes that they had
the intelligent design science to teach to school kids. They are
still making that claim. It is also a fact that whenever any IDiot
rubes pop up and want to teach the nonexistent ID science that the ID
perps run in the switch scam. The switch scam is just a stupid
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. That
is the classic bait and switch. Sell the rubes one thing and only
give them the booby prize.
The ID perps aren't running the bait and switch on the science side.
The victims are their own IDiot supporters. Nyikos has even stooped
to blaming the IDiot victims as some type of excuse that he won't
explain the relevance of in relation to the ID perp's bait and switch
scam.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c60cb13...
>
> That thread did mention that December documentation, but again, this
> is old hat having nothing to do with this thread nor my opening words.
What a bonehead. You claimed that I was lying about what you did. I
wasn’t. You were the liar and claiming that someone else is running a
misdirection ploy when they are demonstrating that there was no
misdirection because it is you that is the liar is stupid. You don’t
deny that you tried the misdirection ploy. You only claim that it was
an old example. How old is too old when it is what you are lying
about?
>
> > What are you complaining about when you are guilty?
>
> No moral guilt by me is established by anything Ron O. says above.
> Perhaps Ron O. is too amoral to see that.
Projection is a sign of insanity in this case. Anyone just has to
check the posts and see who the liar is.
>
> > > I can think of two explanations for what I relate above and what you
> > > will see below:
>
> > > 1. Ron O is a shameless hypcrite who does not think it is morally
> > > wrong to be dishonest, yet uses charges of dishonesty to undermine his
> > > opponents' reputations, knowing that many people reading these posts
> > > (including myself) DO think it is morally wrong to be dishonest.
>
> Ron O. does not deny this.
There is nothing to deny. You are obviously projecting your own
behavior onto someone else as some excuse for your pathetic
existence. Who lied about not running the misdirection ploys? Who
got caught? Who tried to lie about getting caught lying?
>
> > Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> Not always, but in your case it may well be. You've brought charges
> of "misdirection ploys" by me and yet you are demonstrating an
> addiction to them yourself.
I think we know who the addict of dishonest boneheaded arguments is.
>
> > > 2. Ron O is a shameless hypocrite who loves to (often falsely) accuse
> > > people of doing reprehensible things that he loves to do, himself.
>
> Ron O. does not deny this either. Instead, he indulges in yet another
> misdirection ploy:
Because you are obviouisly projecting your own dishonest behavior onto
someone else. There is nothing for me to deny.
>
> > Projection is a sign of insanity. I think that anyone that wants to
> > follow this sordid affair would see who the dishonest and bogus one
> > is.
>
> Yes. It is Ron Okimoto. See above. The post to which he is
> responding is another good example.
You are the one that got caught lying. What a bonehead. This type of
juvenile denial is so stupid that who do you think that you are
fooling?
>
> But one of the best examples to date was on the thread where he
> originally attacked me in December. Here is where I really started to
> lay bare the pathological dishonesty to which he is increasingly
> turning:
The one that has obviously degenerated badly is Nyikos. At the
beginning he was at least pretending to be sane.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2ce0bdf8467102d6
>
> Ron O. has replied to that one, continuing the same pattern of
> covering lies with new lies and new misdirection ploys. Perhaps in
> his sick mind, he thinks getting in the last word, no matter how full
> of garbage it is, makes him the victor in the argument.
The projection is so obvious when all anyone has to do is follow the
thread in order and see who kept running and lying. Projection is
insanity in this case. I mean that. Look at how far you have fallen
and what lies you have to keep telling yourself. How can anyone exist
in a reality where they are guilty and have to keep blaming everyone
else for their own tragically bogus behavior?
>
> And note how, below, he continues to avoid dealing with the issue of
> his OWN attitude towards misdirection ploys, and towards dishonesty.
>
> >What a bonehead. You can link to an example of doing exactly
> > what you are trying to deny doing
>
> Note the extreme generality; the reader is left to guess just what
> this "example" is. I have explained why the December "example" he
> gave above is bogus.
It is just fact. You linked back to an example of you pulling the
trigger again on the misdirection ploy. Learn to deal with it. How
can anyone keep denying reality when they link back to their own
dishonest behavior and try to keep lying about it. There is no
misdirection on my part. All that I had to do was to demonstrate that
you were lying about what I have done. How could I be the one running
a misdirection ploy when I was the one telling the truth and you were
the one that was lying? Wasn’t your opening statement a bogus lie?
How is it misdirecting the argument to demonstrate that that is the
case when that is what you are claiming that I was misdirecting and
lying about?
The post is exactly what I claim that it is. It is an example of you
running the misdirection ploy that you lie about ever running. What
was your explanation? Why is it bogus to demonstrate that you did
exactly what I said that you did?
>
> >and you can claim that someone else
> > is doing it
>
> I not only claim Ron O. is doing it, I am documenting it.
What? Telling the truth is some kind of dishonest ploy? All that you
have demonstrated is that it is you that was caught lying and running
the misdirection ploy. You even tried to dismiss one example as
happening long ago and not mattering. That doesn’t mean that you
didn’t do it. What a bonehead.
>
> > in order to cover your own dishonest butt?
>
> There is no dishonesty in exposing the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Ron
> O. He just rants about my "dishonest butt" because of his *ipse
> dixit* that "misdirection ploys are dishonest" and his ridiculous
> charge that my exposes constitute "the misdirection ploy".
You obviously got caught lying. Why keep denying it when even you
have to dismiss some examples as being too old to be relevant when it
is exactly what you are denying doing? You have degenerated into
tragic farce. Really, who is the liar? Didn’t I demonstrate that you
were the one lying? Why does that make me the dishonest one? You
aren’t just guilty of running the misdirection ploy, but you are
guilty of lying about doing it. How sad is that?
>
> > > Perhaps some fans of Ron O can think of a third explanation--but I
> > > advise them to read my documentation below before making up their
> > > minds.
>
> Since Ron O. has provided a fresh example of him indulging in a
> misdirection ploy, I will deal with his pathetic attempt to deal with
> "my documentation below" later. One thing he did NOT even TRY to do
> "below" was to exonerate himself of having done a bait and switch, a
> misdirection ploy, a Broken.Usenet.Promise. Instead, he indulged in
> more of the same, just like he is doing above.
What fresh example? My response was directly to the point. I
demonstrated that there was nothing for me to misdirect from. You are
guilty of running the misdirection ploy multiple times. You started a
whole thread to continue to pull the trigger on it. Where is the
misdirection in demonstrating that you are guilty of what you claim
that I falsely accused you of? You lied and got caught. Projection
about who is using dishonest debating tactics is stupid.
Your argument is so lame. What bait and switch on my part?
Demonstrating that you were lying about me falsely accusing you is
directly to the point. You don’t have to be a genius to see that.
How can I falsely accuse you of running misdirection ploys when you
link to a post where you are doing it and I can point to a thread that
you started in order to run the misdirection ploy?
Ron Okimoto
alextangent
An observation; you're beginning to resemble the object of your
pursuit.
Ron O
It isn't any type of beginning to exhibit his current behavior.
Nyikos was a long time poster to TO a decade ago. He has just decided
to come back from other forums to start his old shtick again. Like
Pagano Nyikos likes to start threads like this. It seems to make him
feel better about how bogus he is. One such thread was linked to and
one that Nyikos is currently lying about. He started that thread to
pull the trigger again on the misdirection ploy that he is currently
lying about. I am not making this up. You can go to the links posted
in my responses to check it out. Kind of strange, but that is just
the way it is. The misdirection ploy that Nyikos is lying about isn't
even of any significance to what he is actually running from. He is
only making a big deal about it because he is Nyikos and probably
can't think of anything else to do at this point.
Ron Okimoto
alextangent
I'd rather not dig too deeply, if you don't mind. It all seems rather
personal.
Ron O
It has actually been educational. I've tried to be in the face or any
IDiot that still wants to support the ID scam and Nyikos is the only
one stupid enough to try to defend what the ID perps are doing. Not
even someone as lost as Pagano ever tried to deny what was going on.
Kalk was about the last one that even tried to put up resistance, but
all he could think to do was try juvenile misdirection ploys to divert
from the issues. He never tried to deny what was going on, he would
just snip out the relevant bits of the post and leave it, not even
making comments. This is sad in anyones book. It really means that
the only IDiots left that support the ID scam are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. There really are no other types left.
Just guys like Kalk, Pags, and Nyikos that want to lie to themselves
about the issues, or the people that have managed to keep themselves
ignorant of what is going on. Willlful ignorance is dishonest.
I don't recommend going to the 4 threads that Nyikos is beefing
about. He has tried just about every dirty trick to avoid addressing
reality. This thread is just one aspect of that. He has lied,
stooped to blaming the IDiot victims, misdirected the argument, makes
a big deal about senseless things like "could," "taught," "involved,"
etc. What is strange is that he will snip something out of a post and
then lie about it as if the material was never presented. It is as if
he can't see it then it doesn't exist. He has done that so often that
it is pathologic. It would be simple if he could just find an IDiot
that got the ID science to teach, but none exists. He knows how the
ID perps sold and are still selling the ID scam, and like all the
other IDiots he has no explanation for reality.
Just ask someone like Pags for the ID science that they would have
taught to school kids. You will just get some bogus reply. Nyikos is
so extreme that when he was confronted by the evidence that the ID
perps were still claiming that they had the ID science to teach that
he snipped it out and lied about it and then kept denying that it
existed no matter how many times I put up the evidence. It really is
that sad. The fact is that not a single IDiot that fell for the ID
scam ever got the promised ID science to teach.
I don't call the ID perps scam artists because of the bogus political
scam that they tried to run, but because they are running a bogus bait
and switch scam on their own creationist support base. The bait and
switch wasn't run on the science side. It was run on the IDiots. The
sad fact is that the bait and switch has been going down for 9 years
now and there are no competent, informed and honest IDiots left
supporting the ID scam.
This is from the ID perp's Dover briefing packet that the Discovery
Institute put out after the Dover fiasco. I think that the breifing
packet was published in 2007 and the Discovery Institute had been
running the bait and switch for half a decade by that time (They
started in March 2002 with the Ohio IDiot rubes). What excuse do they
have for still claiming to be able to teach the junk with that track
record?
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
The ID perps are still claiming to have the ID science to teach, but
not a single IDiot has ever gotten the ID science to teach when they
have needed it for the last 9 years. Not a single one of their IDiot
supporters are willing to ask themselves why that is the case. We
aren't talking about a few weeks or months, but years.
The last group that I recall was the Louisiana IDiots that just last
November claimed that they wanted to put the ID science in their high
school textbooks. Where is the ID science? What did they get to put
in the textbooks?
Ron Okimoto
Earle Jones
<52854967-919d-4e13...@x8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
*
Note to Ron and Peter:
Why don't you two take your juvenile shouting match somewhere else?
Anywhere else.
earle
*
Burkhard
> In article
> <52854967-919d-4e13-b0ed-4f913ab58...@x8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Motion seconded.
Ron O
> In article
> <52854967-919d-4e13-b0ed-4f913ab58...@x8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Make the note to Peter. He is the one that started this thread, and
demanded that I come and participate. I hadn't even noted the thread
before he started going on about how I was running away from this
junk. Heck, he was posting this junk to other posters and expecting
me to take note.
You can try to deal with Peter's quirks. I just answer his posts. Go
for it. From experience you won't get anywhere.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Who started this thread? Who demanded that I participate in it? Get
Nyikos to fly straight and narrow and you won't have a problem. Just
look at this thread. What am I supposed to do? I didin't even take
note of this thread until Nyikos started to go on in other threads
about how I was running away. Beats me how he expects anyone to keep
track of posts that he expects responses from when he posts them to
other people, but that is Nyikos.
Go for it. Try to change the situation. If you have any suggestions
just make them.
Or you could just not read the junk. I didin't read this thread until
Nyikos started to make a big deal about it. I turn off most of the
junk that goes on, on TO. You should learn to do the same.
Ron Okimoto
alextangent
> In article
> <52854967-919d-4e13-b0ed-4f913ab58...@x8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Seconded
Ron O
Just stop reading the thread. I didn't even read this thread until
Nyikos started ragging me in other threads that I was running away
from him in this thread. Beats me how he gets these ideas. Just look
at this thread. He said that I should come and participate in this
thread and so I responded to his first two posts, but what happened?
He then said that I was still running and what was I running from? It
turned out that in his second response to Bill that he put up two
posts that he expected me to respond to. Why should I respond to
second responses to someone else? This is what I am dealing with.
You've tried to interact with Nyikos so what did you do? You might
want to try to inform yourself about the issue at hand.
I basically just respond when Nyikos posts a response to one of my
posts. Just check it out before you put your foot in it. I don't
read most of Nyikos' crap so why should you? Why should anyone?
Just ask yourself what you would do if some jerk put up a thread like
this that involved you. If Nyikos hadn't made such a big deal about
it, this thread would have passed under my radar and he would have
gotten away with being a jerk. Instead he started pestering me about
it as if this was some type of legitimate thing to do. You might want
to check out just what Nyikos is going on about. Nyikos isn't just a
liar, but he is a pretty incompetent liar. It is pretty senseless by
now since he has gone over the edge and is lying about lying. No one
can do much to change that reality.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:45:46 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >On Mar 25, 1:09 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 4:13 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> [snippety snip]
>
> >> > TO BE CONTINUED
>
> >> Damn. Do you have to?
>
> >Not if someone else weighs in with comments about how Ron O.
> >hypocritically indulged in a misdirection ploy in the part that I
> >still haven't addressed.
>
> No one cares,
"Le talk.origins, c'est moi."
Getting rather narcissistic, aren't you?
> just as no one would care if the situations were
> reversed.
You seem to care tremendously, since you've played "see no evil, hear
no evil, speak no evil" where Ron O.'s torrents of abuse and
slanderous accusations against me are concerned, and you even
acclaimed his shill, Rodjk #613, as the alleged victor in our dispute
near the beginning of the thread.
In fact, one could reasonably suspect that you are a shill for Ron O.
yourself.
> Do you seriously not understand that?
Do I seriously not understand that pigs have wings? ;-)
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:57:46 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> Some cheese with your whine, monsieur?
>
> >This Horn-clone taunt is all this anarchistic jerk could muster in the
> >wake of the following challenge, which he completely ignored:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e6de7d510cacbf5c
...and snipped what I quoted from it this time around, and taunted
again, like the Black Knight of Monty Python fame:
> Quite frankly, a taunt is all your post merited. Quit whining or take
> your ball and run home to mommy.
I think you deserve the title, "Black Knight" at least as much as Tony
Pagano, to whom John Harshman responded as follows:
From: John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:40:04 -0700
Local: Sat, Mar 19 2011 4:40 pm
Subject: It's been over from the beginning
T Pagano wrote:
[blah, blah, blah]
ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
For the rest of this entertaining exchange, see Harshman's post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d373f983797d3162?dmode=source
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mar 25, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
>
> > In response, Ron O. indulges in yet another misdirection ploy, yet
> > another bait and switch, starting with:
>
> Nyikos has kept claiming that he doesn’t know what the bait and switch
> is,
I have known what the expression "bait and switch" means since I was
one-third the age I am now. What I have not been able to
unambiguously ascertain is whether the Discovery Institute (DI) is
engaged in one, like Ron O. has said literally hundreds of times by
now, but never produced sufficient documentation for.
> but I doubt that lying like this counts as some type of
> confirmation that he doesn’t really know what a bait and switch is.
I told the truth up there, and as for what I was "claiming" before,
Ron O. has indulged in the dishonest ploy of leaving out absolutely
essential identifiers as to what the hell "the bait and switch"
actually refers to.
So, if I had not set the record straight here and now, many people
might get the impression that I was obivously lying when I claimed not
to know what it is, since I evidently DO know what the expression
means.
OTOH, if it is pointed out to him that I never claimed to be ignorant
about what the expression "the bait and switch" MEANS, he can simply
talk about the alleged DI bait and switch, and drown the whole dispute
in so much excess verbiage that many casual readers won't read far
enough to realize that he is indulging in a bait and switch himself.
> What am I baiting with and what am I switching?
The answer was already provided in the post to which Ron O. is
following up here. However, Ron O far below resorts to a half-truth
for an escape clause to exonerate himself from running the bait and
switch this second time around.
But my statement at the beginning is true, for he did indeed indulge
in an earlier bait and switch which was documented in the same post
where I wrote that opening paragraph. My documentation consisted of
the following url:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
> > > What a bonehead.
>
> > This is another example of a Broken Usenet Promise. Instead of
> > talking about the actual event to which I am referring above, Ron O
> > starts with an insult
i.e., "what a bonehead" was the bait, and...
> > and then "breaks the promise" by writing
> > something having nothing to do with the event to which I was referring
> > above.
And that was the switch I had in mind. I honestly thought that, by
positioning his insult in such a way, Ron O was trrying to create the
impression that I was a bonehead for having said something at the END
of the opening paragraph:
Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing
"a misdirection ploy," and has repeatedly said,
"misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet when I caught him
red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait
and switch) to avoid acknowledging having been
caught at it. Documentation below.
> It is a statement of fact.
Below, Ron O. reveals that "It" is the very first clause of the above
paragraph to which he was referring, and calls me a bonehead for not
realizing this.
> Only a bonehead would lie to themselves to
> the extent that you do.
I have not lied to myself in any of our voluminous exchanges, and your
"evidence" is based on false premises.
> > The insult was the bait, now watch the switch:
>
> > > You just linked to a case in point in your response
> > > above.
False, see above.
> You can’t make this junk up.
> There is no switch here because my claim
> is that I never lied about Nyikos running the misdirection ploy
This claim is here being made for the first time to this thread. Ron
O is finally revealing that his "What a bonehead" was really meant to
refer to my very first clause, where I said,
Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a
misdirection
ploy,"
But instead of interrupting there immediately, he waited until the end
and then posted some crap about me linking to something. Here he is
at it again:
> because he just linked to a post where he was caught doing it.
An undocumented and highly dubious claim. I linked to a post where
RON O. was caught doing it. The post to which I linked was:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
The only one explicitly accusing the other of a misdirection ploy
there is me accusing Ron O.
>This
> is the boneheaded type of bogus behavior that Nyikos has become known
> for
in the addled mind of Ron Okimoto.
> in the four threads that I have interacted with him. How can I be
> running a bait and switch about him running misdirection ploys
I documented him doing it, in the following post to this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7acf3532515d1b0
> when he
> accommodates me by linking to posts where he is caught running
> misdirection ploys.
"How could Obama accuse Ghadafi of massacring his own people when
Obama massacres his own people?"
Some would argue that Obama does massacre his own people by sending
them to fight in futile wars, but that does not exonerate Ghadafi of
the charge of massacring his people, nor does it mean that Obama is
disqualified from making the accusation about Ghadafi.
Anyway, this strained logic is the kind of straw the sick mind of Ron
Okimoto grasps at to avoid responsibility for his own baits and
switches.
Continued in next post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mar 25, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > There is no such thing as "the misdirection ploy". There are
> > misdirection ploys, and I deny that my documentation of dishonesty and
> > hypocrisy by Okimoto in November constituted one. And even if it
> > were, it would NOT negate ANYTHING I wrote in the post to which Ron
> > O. is responding.
I had forgotten about my opening clause by this point. Yes, it would
obviously negate the claim that I made in that opening clause:
Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing
"a misdirection ploy,"
> You claimed that I was lying about you running the misdirection ploy.
Wrong. I was saying that you falsely accused me of running *A*
misdirection ploy. I still maintain that, because I use "misdirection
ploy" to refer to a kind of action that is morally reprehensible.
On the other hand, I did NOT accuse you of lying because you have your
own private definition of "misdirection ploy" which allows you to
arbitrarily claim completely innocent changes of subject as
"misdirection ploys" and to draw on the pejorative connotations of
"misdirection ploys" to conclude that your opponent is being
dishonest.
NOTE TO READERS:
The original thing that Ron O. labels "the misdirection ploy" here
came about like this. Very early in the original thread where I
encountered Ron O early in December, Ray Martinez told me that if I
wanted to know what manner of man I was dealing with, I should take a
look at a post which he then linked.
I clicked on the link, and saw a November post where Ron O made the
fantastic charge that Michael Behe, of all people, had admitted that
he hadn't been able to formulate a verilfiable definition of
"Irreducible Complexity." I saw there too, how when Ray Martinez rose
to this bait, Ron O made a twofold switch, to something he might have
been able to document, that Behe had admitted that there was no proven
instance of a case of a biological system being the result of
"Intelligent Design".
I saw, too, how Ray kept Ron O's feet to the fire by pointing out that
he hadn't justified his original "bait" claim, and how Ron O
shamelessly evaded responsibility for his bait and switch by saying
that he would not deal with an "insane" man like Ray.
Of course, Ron O never provided documentation of Ray's alleged
insanity on that thread, nor on any other where this irresponsisble
behavior of Ron O. was discussed by me.
But back in December, I figured that since Ron O had not accused me of
insanity up to that point, I would go ahead and follow up to Ron O's
post on that thread. Which I did.
But time went by and Ron O hadn't replied to my post, I brought up his
shameless show of irresponsiblity back in November to Ron O's
attention in the thread where we had first encountered each other.
And in Ron O's sick mind, my mentioning this incident there
constituted a "dishonest" "misdirectlion ploy."
Up until now, I never mentioned having found that November post via
Ray Martinez's post, and so Ron O has been claiming that I had to 'dig
up' a November post to work this alleged "misdirection ploy."
So now y'all know the rest of the story.
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
In what respect? Can you document a single example of dishonesty or
hypocristy by me?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mar 25, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> QUOTE:
> > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
>
> END QUOTE:
>
> How can anyone falsely accuse Nyikos of running misdirection ploys
> when he is guilty of doing it.
I'd like to see how Ron O. justifies calling any of the December
behavior of which I spoke in the immediately preceding post "the
misdirection ploy". He has been relying on a broken record repetition
of the charge, with no attempt at justifying his pejorative language,
in post after post, thread after thread.
One hundred repetitions three nights a week
for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was
an expert on hypnopaedia. Sixty-two thousand
repetitions make one truth. Idiots!
--Aldous Huxley, in _Brave New World_
> > Ron O, perhaps confusing himself with his god, has demanded that I
> > defend something I have no intention of defending. Since I have not
> > met his demand, every documentation of dishonesty, hypocrisy, bait and
> > switch, and misdirection ploys by HIM gets converted in his sick mind
> > to "the misdirection ploy."
Again, Roh O makes no attempt to justify his pejorative language:
> Your projection is a sign of insanity. I would put money on it at
> this time.
You'd lose.
Now the broken record goes into action:
> You are guilty. Nothing that you can claim about what I have done
> will change that fact. Stop lying to yourself and deal with reality.
> You tried to run a bogus misdirection ploy and got caught.
...broken record continues...
> You then
> started a whole new thread to pull the trigger again and again and got
> caught.
...broken record...
> Denial is stupid and insane at this point. Claiming that
> someone else is lying about the situation when you stupidly link to a
> post where you were running the misdirection ploy in question
A double broken record, this time ALSO about my linking to a post
where I see no sign of having run "the misdirection ploy in question"
although I do explicitly accuse Ron O. of running one himself:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
> is not
> just stupid, but denial is insane. It was not “dozens” of false
> accusations.
There were several different misdirection ploys of which I've been
accused across four threads, and I do believe the number of
repetitious accusations was in the dozens.
> Whatever the number they were all true and valid
> accusations and you linked to a post where you were demonstrated to be
> doing it.
...broken record...
> How sad is it that after all your lying and bogousity about your
> efforts to dishonestly divert the issue, that you have not addressed
> the issue that you are running from?
I have addressed it dozens of times, but you keep refusing to
acknowledge that because of your understood "to MY EXALTED
satisfaction" following the word "addressed".
This is the way you play games with words.
> The only IDiots left that still
> support the intelligent design scam are the ignorant, incompetent and
> or dishonest. Nyikos has shown himself to be all three in the four
> threads that we are discussing.
This is yet another broken record routine. Ron O has never tried to
justify the claim of "ignorant" and "incompetent," and has never
posted strong evidence of me lying; and so as it now stands, his
statement is outright slander.
I suppose he'll try to justify "ignorant" and "incompetent" Euthydemus
style, by sticking in the qualifier "of the bait and switch scam I
keep accusing the Discovery Institute (DI) of" after "ignorant", and
the qualifier "to divine the fact that the quotes I keep posting
establish the existence of a scam by DI beyond a shadow of a doubt"
before "incompetent."
But even if he does that, he'll just be committing the fallacy of
Begging the Question both times.
[deletia of stuff dealt with in the first two replies to Ron O's post]
> > > What are you complaining about when you are guilty?
>
> > No moral guilt by me is established by anything Ron O. says above.
> > Perhaps Ron O. is too amoral to see that.
Ron O makes no attempt to show any moral guilt by me. He just goes on
indulging in Truth by Blatant Assertion:
> Projection is a sign of insanity in this case. Anyone just has to
> check the posts and see who the liar is.
It isn't me, and the above is a standard spiel by Ron O to avoid
dealing with the truth.
> > > > I can think of two explanations for what I relate above and what you
> > > > will see below:
>
> > > > 1. Ron O is a shameless hypcrite who does not think it is morally
> > > > wrong to be dishonest, yet uses charges of dishonesty to undermine his
> > > > opponents' reputations, knowing that many people reading these posts
> > > > (including myself) DO think it is morally wrong to be dishonest.
>
> > Ron O. does not deny this.
>
> There is nothing to deny. You are obviously projecting your own
> behavior onto someone else
False. I have documented dishonesty by you and will continue to do so
-- dishonesty which you show no sign of dealing responsibly with.
> as some excuse for your pathetic
> existence. Who lied about not running the misdirection ploys?
No one, so far. You have merely avoided admitting to having run a
number of them yourself. But I've provided ample documentation of you
doing it.
> Who got caught?
You got caught, repeatedly.
> Who tried to lie about getting caught lying?
No one, so far. You have merely avoided confirming or denying that
you have lied yourself. But I've provided ample documentation of you
doing it, especially in the following post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2ce0bdf8467102d6
> > > Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> > Not always, but in your case it may well be. You've brought charges
> > of "misdirection ploys" by me and yet you are demonstrating an
> > addiction to them yourself.
True to form, you neither confirm nor deny this, but change the
subject instead:
> I think we know who the addict of dishonest boneheaded arguments is.
Nobody knows that at this point, but I am confident that by the time I
go over all your demented posts with a fine toothed comb, it will
emerge that it is you.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
My "old shtick" has to do with directed panspermia and possible
intelligent design by the panspermists, and Ron O has never tried to
argue with me about the reasoning I present for these things.
[...]
> The misdirection ploy that Nyikos is lying about
I've dealt with this false charge at great length today. Perhaps it
is all wasted on an amoral audience whose members care not a whit
about who is being honest and who is being dishonest, nor even with
where the truth lies. But I hope not.
> isn't
> even of any significance to what he is actually running from. He is
> only making a big deal about it because he is Nyikos and probably
> can't think of anything else to do at this point.
I've been doing plenty else about my old shtick, but Ron O probably
isn't the least bit interested in it.
If anyone reading this is interested, the following post done earlier
today may be especially interesting:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/msg/4b1cb580afe06940
This is in response to a long post that was not crossposted to t.o.,
and which consisted mostly of two press releases by an online journal
with a grievance -- how legitimate that grievance is, I don't know,
and I only just today learned of the existence of this journal:
http://journalofcosmology.com/
Anyway, here is the url for that long article:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/msg/4616eedc3fab8d60
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
Ron O
> On Mar 25, 10:44 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 10:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
>
> > > In response, Ron O. indulges in yet another misdirection ploy, yet
> > > another bait and switch, starting with:
>
> > Nyikos has kept claiming that he doesn’t know what the bait and switch
> > is,
>
> I have known what the expression "bait and switch" means since I was
> one-third the age I am now. What I have not been able to
> unambiguously ascertain is whether the Discovery Institute (DI) is
> engaged in one, like Ron O. has said literally hundreds of times by
> now, but never produced sufficient documentation for.
If you know what a bait and switch is you do not have an honest excuse
for running and pretending or snipping the explanations out and lying
about them, right?
What did you do when I presented the evidence that the DI was running
the bait and switch? You ran. After, what? a month or two of running
you finally had to confront the evidence and what did you do. Abject
denial and then snipping out the relevant quoted material and
continuing to lie about it. How can anyone do that and still spout
off and lie like you? Why did you snip the material and then lie
about it instead of addressing it and demonstrating that Meyer wasn't
involved in giving the Ohio rubes the switch scam instead of any ID
science to teach? You got the web link to the Ohio fiasco and you
know what the Ohio rubes got from the Discovery Institute instead of
the ID science to teach. You got the evidence that Meyer (then
director and still director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery
Institute) ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes personally. The
Ohio rubes wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but what
did Meyer give them? You have the lesson plans. You could look up
what they gave every single IDiot rube after that. You are just
lying. It is as simple as that.
A bait and switch scam is where the perps sell the rubes one thing and
only give them something else. The rubes do not get the promised
item. The ID perps sold the IDiot rubes like yourself the lie that
they had the science of intelligent design to teach to school kids,
but when it came time to put up or shut up they ran a bogus bait and
switch scam. The switch scam doesn't even mention that the science of
intelligent design ever existed. No mention of intelligent design, no
mention of irreducible complexity. No mention of specified
information or the ID perp's new law of thermodynamics. That is the
classic bait and switch scam and you have lied about not getting the
description for months. Has any IDiot rube that wanted to teach the
science of intelligent design ever gotten any ID science to teach in
the public schools? You could even produce the junk that they are
teaching in the private schools and compare it to what they give the
rubes to teach in the public schools. How sad is that? It won't
matter will it? The bait and switch has been going down for 9 years.
Stupid dishonest denial does not change that fact.
You have even been given the evidence that the ID perps are still
claiming that some rube IDiot teacher can teach the bogus ID science,
so you know that the bait and switch will continue to go down. You
could easily counter if you had a single example of where the bait and
switch did not go down. Do you have such an example? What did happen
to every IDiot rube that ever wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design to school kids?
Lying to yourself like this is not just stupid, but insane.
>
> > but I doubt that lying like this counts as some type of
> > confirmation that he doesn’t really know what a bait and switch is.
>
> I told the truth up there, and as for what I was "claiming" before,
> Ron O. has indulged in the dishonest ploy of leaving out absolutely
> essential identifiers as to what the hell "the bait and switch"
> actually refers to.
You have lied and gotten caught so many times that it is pathologic by
now.
Just deal with the explanation of the bait and switch above instead of
baseless denial and bogus lying.
>
> So, if I had not set the record straight here and now, many people
> might get the impression that I was obivously lying when I claimed not
> to know what it is, since I evidently DO know what the expression
> means.
You, are just admitting that you have been lying about not
understanding what the ID scam bait and switch is. It has been
described multiple times and you have constantly lied about it.
Snipped out and lied about the relevant material. Run and lied about
ever getting the relevant material. Done whatever you could except
tell the truth. What for? The ID perps are likely laughing at you
all the way to the bank. They depend on rubes that are ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest because they know that there are no other
types left that would try to support them.
>
> OTOH, if it is pointed out to him that I never claimed to be ignorant
> about what the expression "the bait and switch" MEANS, he can simply
> talk about the alleged DI bait and switch, and drown the whole dispute
> in so much excess verbiage that many casual readers won't read far
> enough to realize that he is indulging in a bait and switch himself.
You have constantly lied about getting the explanations. You go back
and count how many times that you have lied about it. Start with this
post and start counting backwards. Go for it. It should do you some
good to get slapped by reality once in a while and get knocked out of
your dream world. Just state what is wrong with the description
above. You know that you have gotten it so many times that it is just
a joke that you would even try lying at this point.
>
> > What am I baiting with and what am I switching?
>
> The answer was already provided in the post to which Ron O. is
> following up here. However, Ron O far below resorts to a half-truth
> for an escape clause to exonerate himself from running the bait and
> switch this second time around.
What did I bait with and what did I switch in?
>
> But my statement at the beginning is true, for he did indeed indulge
> in an earlier bait and switch which was documented in the same post
> where I wrote that opening paragraph. My documentation consisted of
> the following url:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
This is crazy. This is where Nyikos is claiming that I am running a
misdirection ploy? I am accusing him of leaving in the material, but
making some stupid statement that doesn’t address the material and
then running. That is one type of misdirection ploy, but anyone can
read the thread and see that it is true. That Nyikos did exactly
that. Did he address the material with his bogus verbage about not
snipping it out? Did I misrepresent what he did? No. He did not
address the material, he only made some inane comments about not
snipping it and ran. Why would anyone be proud enough of doing
something that bogus, link back to it? It didn’t occur to me that
Nyikos was claiming that I was misdirecting the argument. I just
thought that he was denying his own stupidity again.
This is my statement about what Nyikos did when he did it without all
Nyikos’ manipulations and deletions.
QUOTE:
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
> > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
> The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> which I am replying --- AND because RonO's post is short enough so
> that leaving in everything he wrote won't make this post of mine so
> long that people reading it in Google won't have to click "read more"
> in order to be able to see it all.
No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
from it at the same time. You are misdirecting the argument because
you have no counter to the statement. That is also bogus and
dishonest. You would likely have been better off just snipping and
running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the
reason
why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with intelligent
design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
design never advanced past that point.
END QUOTE:
The last statement was what I claimed Nyikos did and it is what he
actually did. There is no denying it. I did not claim that he
snipped and ran. I just claimed that he left the material in and ran
from it anyway. Anyone can see that Nyikos only made some bogus
statement about not snipping and then did not address the material.
This is the kind of stupid and boneheaded junk that Nyikos constantly
does. Why would I misdirect from something bogus that Nyikos actually
did?
The statement that I am supposed to be bait and switching about in
this thread is this one from up this post:
QUOTE:
> > > > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
END QUOTE:
From what I now understand it is apparent that Nyikos is likely
acknowledging that he was lying about my falsely accusing him of
running the misdirection ploy. It is a no brainer that he is guilty.
What he is apparently going on about is claiming that he caught me
running a misdirection ploy. As anyone can see from the quote that I
put up from that thread I was very clear about what Nyikos did. There
was no false accusation to run from or misdirect from. I just assumed
that Nyikos was lying about his own stupid and bogus misdirection ploy
behavior again. What was I supposed to be running from? I never
claimed that Nyikos snipped the material and ran. When he went on
about that I assumed that he was talking about the other bogus junk
that he was constantly denying doing. Anyone can just look at my
response and know that I did not accuse Nyikos of snipping and
running. I stated exactly what he did. He left the material in, but
ran from it anyway after making stupid and inane comments about not
snipping it. Nyikos never caught me doing anything. He only made it
up in his own head. It really didn’t occur to me that I was supposed
to be running from falsely accusing Nyikos of snipping and running,
because I never accused him of it in that instance. I have accused
him of snipping and running multiple other times when he was guilty.
Nyikos produced this whole thing in his own feeble mind. You can’t
make up junk like this. Who would believe you?
>
> > > > What a bonehead.
>
> > > This is another example of a Broken Usenet Promise. Instead of
> > > talking about the actual event to which I am referring above, Ron O
> > > starts with an insult
>
> i.e., "what a bonehead" was the bait, and...
It was just a statement of fact. Even more so now that I understand
what you are going on about. You just made this whole misdirection
ploy thing up in your own head. I never falsely accused you of
snipping and running in this instance. I stated exactly what you were
guilty of.
>
> > > and then "breaks the promise" by writing
> > > something having nothing to do with the event to which I was referring
> > > above.
>
> And that was the switch I had in mind. I honestly thought that, by
> positioning his insult in such a way, Ron O was trrying to create the
> impression that I was a bonehead for having said something at the END
> of the opening paragraph:
>
> Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing
> "a misdirection ploy," and has repeatedly said,
> "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet when I caught him
> red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait
> and switch) to avoid acknowledging having been
> caught at it. Documentation below.
What a bonehead. It is apparent that I was demonstrating that the
first part of the statement was totally bogus. I have not falsely
accused you of doing a misdirection ploy because you are guilty of
it. I didn’t understand what the second part was about or I would
have corrected you sooner. What was I supposed to be misdirecting
from in the instance that you are referring to? Did I make any false
accusations to run from? You were so off base that I didn’t even know
what you were going on about.
>
> > It is a statement of fact.
>
> Below, Ron O. reveals that "It" is the very first clause of the above
> paragraph to which he was referring, and calls me a bonehead for not
> realizing this.
Boneheaded Nyikos is a statement of fact. More so now than ever in my
book.
>
> > Only a bonehead would lie to themselves to
> > the extent that you do.
>
> I have not lied to myself in any of our voluminous exchanges, and your
> "evidence" is based on false premises.
What you call evidence is just plain false and doesn’t reflect
reality. What was I supposed to be misdirecting from? Can even you
figure it out? Did I falsely accuse you of snipping and running? Why
would I have to run from telling the truth?
>
> > > The insult was the bait, now watch the switch:
>
> > > > You just linked to a case in point in your response
> > > > above.
>
> False, see above.
What above would tell anyone anything about you linking to the post in
question?
>
> > You can’t make this junk up.
> > There is no switch here because my claim
> > is that I never lied about Nyikos running the misdirection ploy
>
> This claim is here being made for the first time to this thread. Ron
> O is finally revealing that his "What a bonehead" was really meant to
> refer to my very first clause, where I said,
>
> Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a
> misdirection
> ploy,"
It was the important part as far as I was concerned. Are you
admitting that you lied about this part of the statement?
>
> But instead of interrupting there immediately, he waited until the end
> and then posted some crap about me linking to something. Here he is
> at it again:
>
> > because he just linked to a post where he was caught doing it.
>
> An undocumented and highly dubious claim. I linked to a post where
> RON O. was caught doing it. The post to which I linked was:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
I am talking about the first second response to Bill not this link.
[Just as a side note: Are you ever going to explain why I should
respond to your second responses to someone else? Why accuse me of
running from these posts when they are posted to someone else?]
This is the above post that I am talking about. I should have made it
clear, but I thought that I had the first time that I referenced
Nyikos’ foible in this thread about him linking to an example of him
running the misdirection ploy. It was in the post directly above the
one that I was responding to.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9e5baa16676655c5?hl=en
And this is the link that Nyikos posted that has Nyikos running the
misdirection ploy in question.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
Nyikos did link to an example of him running the bogus misdirection
ploy. To claim that it wasn’t a misdirection ploy he would have to
explain why he misdirected the argument to a post that did not involve
him, that was a couple weeks old the first time he ran the ploy, and
it was a post that wasn’t even in the thread under discussion. Good
luck Nyikos.
>
> The only one explicitly accusing the other of a misdirection ploy
> there is me accusing Ron O.
Falsely accusing too. There was nothing to misdirect from.
Demonstrate that there was. I put up the full exchange without all
the Nyikos editing above. I stated exactly what you did? I did not
falsely accuse you of snipping and running. There was no false
statement for me to run from. You made it up in your own head. Your
view of reality was so bogus that I didn’t even realize what you were
going on about.
>
> >This
> > is the boneheaded type of bogus behavior that Nyikos has become known
> > for
>
> in the addled mind of Ron Okimoto.
I am beginning to doubt that Nyikos has a mind, at least, one that
works.
>
> > in the four threads that I have interacted with him. How can I be
> > running a bait and switch about him running misdirection ploys
>
> I documented him doing it, in the following post to this thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7acf3532515d1b0
This is just the second response to Bill that we are currently going
on about. Written by a basket case Nyikos that made up some
misdirection ploy in his head and lied about someone falsely accusing
him of running misdirection ploys.
>
> > when he
> > accommodates me by linking to posts where he is caught running
> > misdirection ploys.
>
> "How could Obama accuse Ghadafi of massacring his own people when
> Obama massacres his own people?"
Why make up stories when you can just check out the link, and it was
Nyikos that linked to it (I put it in above). You can’t make this
junk up.
>
> Some would argue that Obama does massacre his own people by sending
> them to fight in futile wars, but that does not exonerate Ghadafi of
> the charge of massacring his people, nor does it mean that Obama is
> disqualified from making the accusation about Ghadafi.
Nyikos gets off on telling these stories, but they are usually about
something stupid that he is doing. Projection is a sign of insanity
in this case. I would bet money on it at this time.
>
> Anyway, this strained logic is the kind of straw the sick mind of Ron
> Okimoto grasps at to avoid responsibility for his own baits and
> switches.
>
> Continued in next post.
>
> Peter Nyikos
I see that you cut this post up and have more responses, but it looks
like this is a misunderstanding that makes you look pretty pathetic.
I will go off and address some other posts. If you want to carry on
this misunderstanding on your part just let me know and I will
continue. If you carefully read this post you will see how tragically
stupid or insane you are. Who could make such mistakes? Who would
link to a post where they are caught running the misdirection ploy and
then claim that someone is falsely accusing them of running the
misdirection ploy in question? Who would claim that someone else was
misdirecting the argument, when there was nothing to misdirect from?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 10:44 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 10:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ron O. has falsely accused me dozens of times of doing "a misdirection
> > > > > > ploy," and has repeatedly said, "misdirection ploys are dishonest",yet
> > > > > > when I caught him red-handed at a misdirection ploy, he indulged in a
> > > > > > Broken.Usenet.Promise (what he would call a bait and switch) to avoid
> > > > > > acknowledging having been caught at it. Documentation below.
>
> > > > In response, Ron O. indulges in yet another misdirection ploy, yet
> > > > another bait and switch, starting with:
>
> > > Nyikos has kept claiming that he doesn’t know what the bait and switch
> > > is,
>
> > I have known what the expression "bait and switch" means since I was
> > one-third the age I am now. What I have not been able to
> > unambiguously ascertain is whether the Discovery Institute (DI) is
> > engaged in one, like Ron O. has said literally hundreds of times by
> > now, but never produced sufficient documentation for.
>
> If you know what a bait and switch is you do not have an honest excuse
> for running and pretending
I don't need an honest excuse for something that never happened in the
first place (the pretending part, that is; as for "running," that's a
word you use at the drop of a hat to describe, e.g. not replying on
your timetable).
>or snipping the explanations out and lying
> about them, right?
See above ("...never happened in the first place").
Anyway, knowing what "a bait and switch is" does NOT equate to
"agreeing, when presented with inadequate evidence, that a bait and
switch was actually perpetrated by the DI."
Lately, by the way, you've taken to dropping the words "bait and" in
some contexts. For example, you simply talked about Meyer running
"the switch scam since 2002." Were you inspired to resort to this
peculiar usage by the old Zen riddle, "What is the sound of one hand
clapping?"?
Or were you starting to have second thoughts about the evidence you've
presented so far for your allegation that the DI actually claimed to
have THEIR version of ID in a form ready to teach on the grade school
or public school level?
That was the alleged bait, wasn't it?
In any event, I'd like to know what meaning you attach to the phrase
"the switch scam" in isolation from any mention of bait, before I
reply to the rest of your post.
Peter Nyikos
Bill
You'd almost certainly be happier if you could just drop this issue.
Really, truly. Nothing bad would happen if you just stopped responding
on this business. When individuals bug you in this forum the best
thing to do is stop responding. Your blood pressure will go down and
you'll be happier.
Ron O
Denial is insanity at this point. I don't even know why you even
attempt it.
My timetable? Your own timetable was three days for a post that
wasn't even posted to me. Whining about a timetable when you yourself
has been running for months is just stupid. Compared to you I have
the patients of Job. What a boneheaded lying IDiot. Do you even
realize how off base you are?
>
> >or snipping the explanations out and lying
> > about them, right?
>
> See above ("...never happened in the first place").
See above and throughout four threads for documented cases. What a
bonehead.
>
> Anyway, knowing what "a bait and switch is" does NOT equate to
> "agreeing, when presented with inadequate evidence, that a bait and
> switch was actually perpetrated by the DI."
They ran the bait and switch on IDiots like yourself and they will
continue to do it because they never had the ID science that they are
still claiming that they have to teach in the public schools.
Snipping out the evidence and lying about it is just as stupid as
anyone can get, but that is just about all that you can think of to do
except make bogus junk up about "could," "taught," etc. Do you
realize what that means?
>
> Lately, by the way, you've taken to dropping the words "bait and" in
> some contexts. For example, you simply talked about Meyer running
> "the switch scam since 2002." Were you inspired to resort to this
> peculiar usage by the old Zen riddle, "What is the sound of one hand
> clapping?"?
The ID perps obviously sold IDiots like yourself the science of
intelligent design, but what happens to every rube that believes them
and needs the science to teach? The switch goes down and all they
ever get is an obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed. That is the classic bait and switch. You can only deny that
by lying to yourself about it.
>
> Or were you starting to have second thoughts about the evidence you've
> presented so far for your allegation that the DI actually claimed to
> have THEIR version of ID in a form ready to teach on the grade school
> or public school level?
What second thoughts? You were the one that had to snip out the
evidence and lie about it ever being presented multiple times before
you even tried to address it, and then what did you do. You snipped
out the quote about Meyer giving the Ohio rubes the switch scam
instead of any ID science to teach and lied about the evidence. How
sad is that? Why can you even do something like that and believe that
it is a valid form of discourse. Why do it twice for the same quoted
material? That was really dishonest and bogus.
>
> That was the alleged bait, wasn't it?
The lie about having the science of intelligent design to teach to
school kids is the bait and you know it. It doesn't take a genius to
understand that the switch scam doesn't mention intelligent design,
IC, specified information, etc. Why keep claiming to have the science
of intelligent design if they are never going to put it forward when
an IDiot needs it for the purpose that they claim it can be used for?
Instead of creating new threads like this one, you should just stick
to the original and defend your stupidity there. That isn't a command
that is just common sense. If you think that I am wrong, just
demonstrate it instead of all this bogus empty denial.
>
> In any event, I'd like to know what meaning you attach to the phrase
> "the switch scam" in isolation from any mention of bait, before I
> reply to the rest of your post.
>
> Peter Nyikos
So I guess you understand that you accusations of misdirection ploy on
my part was a mutual mistake? Sort of a stupid mistake since there
was nothing that I was supposed to be running from, but I admit that I
didn't understand what you were going on about.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
You are being sort of stupid about this whole thing. For one, you
likely haven't even taken the time to figure out what Nyikos is lying
about. For another Nyikos just abused you in this thread by venting
with a couple of post to you (basically insane crap, Feb 25th posts)
and then in other threads where we were going at it he demanded that I
come to this thread and responses to you. You are trying to reason
with a boneheaded whack job. He claims that I am running from him and
I didn't even know that this thread existed. Why am I supposed to
respond to Nyikos' posts to other posters? I'm not the whiner that
has to create threads to rag on other people. I am the one that is
just responding to Nyikos' posts. Just check it out. There are so
many open ended responses from me simply because Nyikos put up a
response to one of my posts and then ran from my response. I am not
the one that is actively multiplying posts and threads. This is the
second thread that Nyikos has started to go on about me. Just check
it out.
Nyikos may whine about demanding that he stop running, but that is
only because he makes it a point to claim that everyone else is
running from him. Just go to the other threads. There are links in
the Mar 15th post below:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95b6f03e1216114d?hl=en
It also has an example of Nyikos ragging on me for going to a movie
before finishing one of my posts. Really, that is how sick Nyikos is.
Basically I am responding to his posts to demonstrate just how
bankrupt the whole ID scam is. You have to get some idea of just how
bogus something is when only a dishonest whack job like Nyikos will
defend the ID perps. Look at what Kalkidas resorted to doing when he
couldn't defend the ID perps. Do you recall that? Sort of juvenile
and self defeating, right? Misdirection ploys are standard for IDiots
and if they are like Nyikos they no longer are aware that they are
doing it. It is just a way of life for them and allows them to keep
lying to themselves. Kalk was supposed to be one of the better IDiots
posting. No one can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that is
what the IDiots are stuck doing when they know that the guys that sold
them the ID claptrap won't even defend it when they have to. Instead
all they give the rubes that need the ID science is a stupid
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. No
one can deny that the switch scam is coming from the same guys that
lied to them about the science of intelligent design, but they are all
willing to pretend that everything is fine. Why would the ID perps
need an obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed if the ID science was all that they claimed? It is a simple
question and no IDiots want to address reality.
Nyikos is just an example of the only types left that support the ID
scam. You have to be ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to still
be an IDiot supporter of the ID scam. Nyikos just happens to be all
three. There really are no other types left. You can point some out
if you think that exceptions exist.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
I'd love to believe you, but Ron O has accumulated several shills who
will trumpet his "victory" if I quit: Rodjk#613, RAM, and raven1.
"raven1" has even trumpeted the alleged "victory" of Rodjk in one
little exchange between us.
>When individuals bug you in this forum the best
> thing to do is stop responding. Your blood pressure will go down and
> you'll be happier.
I've seen what happens to newsgroups where dishonest hypocrites are
allowed to do their work without serious challenge; talk.abortion is
one of them; it is now dominated by the likes of "jillery," Okimoto
and his shills. You may have seen a minor incursion by three of them
in talk.origins a while back.
RAM
is mostly overwhelmingly silly and/or irrelevant.
For this sequence of posts it is painfully obvious that you have no
moral foot to stand on.
I know you wont quit when you are so far behind so this minion/shill
wants it to be known you lost a long time ago and as you continue your
silliness I'll gloat when I feel the occasion. This being such an
occasion.
Rich Mathers AKA RAM
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Go ahead, underscore your status as a shill for Ron O. You have gone
far enough already with your ridiculous accusation of "willful
ignorance" on my part about Ron O's allegations about "the bait and
switch scam," without ever lifing a finger to back him up with your
own evidence of such a scam.
> and what you have done
> is mostly overwhelmingly silly and/or irrelevant.
>
> For this sequence of posts it is painfully obvious that you have no
> moral foot to stand on.
I'm calling your bluff: show how the following excerpt, cherry-picked
by Ron O. from a Discovery Institute (DI) website by Ron O,
establishes the claim about which I am allegedly in "willful
ignorance":
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
If you bother to look up that link, you will see that Ron O ripped the
above quote out of a context where the DI is covering its ass in case
some teacher teaches his/her version of ID and claims the DI as the
authority for it. It keeps recommending the teaching of "the
controversy" surrounding the Darwinian theory of evolution and never
recommends teaching Intelligent Design (ID).
Support, if you can, his bombastic claim that this very quote
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that:
"the Discovery Institute is obviously still
claiming that they have the ID science
for some teacher to teach."
--Ron O in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8804178f839912a3
He has never supported that bombastic claim, and only relies on a
broken record routine about how the quote establishes what you see in
this quote from him. And make no mistake: by "some teacher" he means
in the public schools, not on the university level.
> I know you wont quit when you are so far behind so this minion/shill
> wants it to be known you lost a long time ago and as you continue your
> silliness I'll gloat when I feel the occasion. This being such an
> occasion.
>
> Rich Mathers AKA RAM
I'll be vastly more fair to you than you are to me: if you can find
something that does a better job than the above quote of supporting
Ron O's claim, you can freely substitute that for meeting the
challenge I issued above.
And you can either do that here or on a thread that I started just
now, where the issue is laid out systematically:
Subject: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch scam"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2437ba1ac91c46ef
Peter Nyikos
jillery
> I've seen what happens to newsgroups where dishonest hypocrites are
> allowed to do their work without serious challenge; talk.abortion is
> one of them; it is now dominated by the likes of "jillery," Okimoto
> and his shills. You may have seen a minor incursion by three of them
> in talk.origins a while back.
I don't post to talk.abortions. I don't comment on abortion threads.
Leave my nym out of your spew.
RAM
Your reading comprehension of Ron's DI citation is foreordained by
your obvious intent to remain willfully ignorant of the DI "bait and
switch scam".
Ron's Trumpeting Shill
RAM
Dear Bluff Caller,
I have familiarized myself with the history of the DI's religious,
educational and political activities. Have you?
Quote:
The truth is, I really know very little about the Discovery
Institute,
and almost everything I know about it has come to me through a single
filter: the posts of Ron Okimoto. And so I feel ill equipped to
discuss anything about it except that which I've been able to
ascertain in the course of our <cough> conversations.
Unquote.
Now about that "willful ignorance" - QED.
pnyikos
You and Okimoto and his shills are some of the *counterparts* in
talk.origins of those dishonest hypocrites who dominate
talk.abortion.
Right now, talk.origins seems to be at about the same level as
talk.abortion was in the mid-90's. Back then, basically sincere if
terribly opinionated people formed a majority, with the low-lifes who
now dominate it formed a decided minority.
Your kind keeps on trying to impose your virtual reality as to what
people are like on thread after thread in talk.origins. You are more
the hit-and-run type, and you also post a good variety of on-topic
stuff, while Okimoto sticks like a leech to whomever he is puking all
over, and posts a very limited range of on-topic drivel while he is
doing it.
He and his shills seem to go in for character assassination a far
greater part of the time than you do. But both kinds tend to drag
newsgroups down.
The time may come when most of the people who now post here will no
longer want to associate with your kind, leaving the newsgroup at your
mercy, and then talk.origins could well sink to the same abysmal level
to which talk.abortion has sunk.
Peter Nyikos
jillery
> On Apr 13, 10:51 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 4:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > I've seen what happens to newsgroups where dishonest hypocrites are
> > > allowed to do their work without serious challenge; talk.abortion is
> > > one of them; it is now dominated by the likes of "jillery," Okimoto
> > > and his shills. You may have seen a minor incursion by three of them
> > > in talk.origins a while back.
>
> > I don't post to talk.abortions. I don't comment on abortion threads.
>
> You and Okimoto and his shills are some of the *counterparts* in
> talk.origins of those dishonest hypocrites who dominate
> talk.abortion.
You mean like you?
> Right now, talk.origins seems to be at about the same level as
> talk.abortion was in the mid-90's. Back then, basically sincere if
> terribly opinionated people formed a majority, with the low-lifes who
> now dominate it formed a decided minority.
>
> Your kind keeps on trying to impose your virtual reality as to what
> people are like on thread after thread in talk.origins. You are more
> the hit-and-run type, and you also post a good variety of on-topic
> stuff, while Okimoto sticks like a leech to whomever he is puking all
> over, and posts a very limited range of on-topic drivel while he is
> doing it.
>
> He and his shills seem to go in for character assassination a far
> greater part of the time than you do. But both kinds tend to drag
> newsgroups down.
Piffle. You have no character.
pnyikos
> On Apr 18, 4:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:51 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 4:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I've seen what happens to newsgroups where dishonest hypocrites are
> > > > allowed to do their work without serious challenge; talk.abortion is
> > > > one of them; it is now dominated by the likes of "jillery," Okimoto
> > > > and his shills. You may have seen a minor incursion by three of them
> > > > in talk.origins a while back.
>
> > > I don't post to talk.abortions. I don't comment on abortion threads.
>
> > You and Okimoto and his shills are some of the *counterparts* in
> > talk.origins of those dishonest hypocrites who dominate
> > talk.abortion.
In "dominate" I include this: the highly fictitious virtual reality
they produce has a good chance of being accepted as truth by casual
readers. They cooperate very well to produce this virtual reality,
and I am one of the people it is most directed against.
> You mean like you?
Is this Pee Wee Hermanism the best reply you have? A reminder:
PEE WEE HERMANISM: (1) An unsupported retort to a taunt;
the retort implicitly denies the validity of the taunt
while making the claim that the taunter is the one
the taunt should have been directed at.
("I know you are, but what am I?" is the line
immortalized by Pee Wee Herman.)
[(2) is a definition I've never seen applied outside of Usenet, and it
doesn't apply here, so I'm omitting it.]
NOTES.
a) In definition (1) it is irrelevant whether
the original taunt was supported or not;
it is only necessary that the retort be
unsupported.
> > Right now, talk.origins seems to be at about the same level as
> > talk.abortion was in the mid-90's. Back then, basically sincere if
> > terribly opinionated people formed a majority, with the low-lifes who
> > now dominate it formed a decided minority.
>
> > Your kind keeps on trying to impose your virtual reality as to what
> > people are like on thread after thread in talk.origins. You are more
> > the hit-and-run type, and you also post a good variety of on-topic
> > stuff, while Okimoto sticks like a leech to whomever he is puking all
> > over, and posts a very limited range of on-topic drivel while he is
> > doing it.
>
> > He and his shills seem to go in for character assassination a far
> > greater part of the time than you do. But both kinds tend to drag
> > newsgroups down.
>
> Piffle. You have no character.
You *do* know what the term "character assassination" really means --
or do you?
Most Usenet posters I have come across don't realize that slander is
an INTEGRAL part of the concept. True statements, no matter how
defamatory, do not qualify as character assassination.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
to illustrate what Nyikos did when he changed the header, and what he
was doing when he started this thread. You wonder how such a boob can
look at himself in the mirror without flinching.
You can't make this junk up. Nyikos starts a thread to continue his
dirty debating tactics and tries to lie about someone else. Sort of
sad, but nothing that isn't expected out of an IDiot. The only IDiots
left that still support the intelligent design scam are the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. Anyone checking out this thread will
understand that Nyikos is all three rolled into one.
"Premature." Who said that? Why would anyone start a thread like
this after making such an admission and constantly lying about what
that means in terms of what the ID perps have been doing for the last
9 years.
Another thread that Nyikos started to continue his bogousity:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d83215dd624?hl=en#
A thread he started to pull the trigger on the misdirrection ploy
again:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45
The thread that started the series:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80db368cbdf6?hl=en#
Is there a new thread in Nyikos' future. It is about time to start
another one.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue". This
is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
"the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
that
The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
for public school teachers to teach".
Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
On Apr 26, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Premature." Who said that? Why would anyone start a thread like
> this after making such an admission
Okimoto isn't expaining what that single word refers to, so I'll
explain it instead.
It denies that the ID science in such a simple AND mature form as to
make it suitable to be taught in public school as a competitor to the
neo-Darwinian explanation. Absent such a competitive position, I
agree that there is no point in teaching it in the public schools.
Hence the "Premature".
But even if I am correct, it is premature [there's that word again, in
a totally different context] to conclude the existence of a "bait and
switch scam" until the Central Issue is resolved in Okimoto's favor.
But Okimoto's arguments for "the bait" all boil down to a single quote
about which he admitted:
"Anyone can just read the quote and understand
that they are telling a teacher that it is legal to teach the science
of intelligent design because intelligent design is a "legitimate"
scientific theory. "
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8aa75c789ebedeb3
Note, "intelligent design" in general, not the methodology of the DI;
and note especially, "legal to teach," not "recommended to teach." I
keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
Issue:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
The reason Ron O cannot add anything to this quote from this LONG
website is that the DI's actual recommendations there as to what ought
to be taught have to do only with teaching about the weaknesses of neo-
Darwinism.
Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<3079219f-58df-457b...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
don't accept that the statement that "ID is a legitimate scientific
theory" is an implicit claim that they have the ID science to teach.
Do you think that the Discovery Institute's position was
1) irreducible complexity is not (evidence of) ID
2) irreducible complexity is not science
3) irreducible complexity is not teachable
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> In this latter half of April, I am following the policy in all my
> replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue". This
> is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
> "the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
> that
>
> The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
> for public school teachers to teach".
>
> Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
> seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
This just means that Nyikos will try to pretend that he never lied
about all the things that he got caught lying about and that he will
snip and lie whenever convenient as he has done often in the past.
>
> On Apr 26, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Premature." Who said that? Why would anyone start a thread like
> > this after making such an admission
Good thing it was a short post because Nyikos isn't even marking his
snips.
>
> Okimoto isn't expaining what that single word refers to, so I'll
> explain it instead.
>
> It denies that the ID science in such a simple AND mature form as to
> make it suitable to be taught in public school as a competitor to the
> neo-Darwinian explanation. Absent such a competitive position, I
> agree that there is no point in teaching it in the public schools.
> Hence the "Premature".
What does Nyikos think that I have been saying for months? The ID
perps never had the science of intelligent design to teach. They sold
the rubes a scam. When it came time to put up or shut up they ran the
bait and switch and all the IDiots like Nyikos got from the ID perps
was a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed.
Nyikos is at this very moment over in another thread lying about what
the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach. Even the ID perps do
not deny that they claimed that they had the ID science to teach.
They only claimed that they never wanted it "mandated" to be taught.
If they were trying to deny that they wanted to teach the bogus junk
that they were selling the rubes they obviously would just say that
they never wanted to teach the junk and they wouldn't have to make up
lame excuses and blame the IDiot rubes.
Nyikos is just confirming that the bait and switch went down because
he knows that the ID perps never had the ID science to teach. All the
lies and snipping involviing the Johnson quote and the quotes about
Meyer etc. were just stupid lies that Nyikos had to tell himself for
some reason.
The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
Nyikos is currently lying about that. What kind of bogus moron would
try something as stupid as that. Why not just face reality?
Nyikos even puts up the quote that no sane person would read in
context (it was from a pamphlet on the Dover fiasco and about what
could be taught in the public schools) and not know what the ID perps
are claiming.
>
> But even if I am correct, it is premature [there's that word again, in
> a totally different context] to conclude the existence of a "bait and
> switch scam" until the Central Issue is resolved in Okimoto's favor.
The ID perps sold the rubes the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools and they have never denied doing it. Instead of
the rubes getting any ID science to teach the ID perps ran the bait
and switch and all anyone has ever gotten to teach from the ID perps
is a bogus obfuscation scam.
That is the classic bait and switch scam. What makes it really bogus
and dishonest is that the ID perps didn't run the scam on their
opponents, but they ran the bait and switch on their loyal IDiot
supporters like Nyikos.
>
> But Okimoto's arguments for "the bait" all boil down to a single quote
> about which he admitted:
I only use that quote to demonstrate that the bait and switch is still
going down. There is no question that it has been going down for the
past 9 years. The quote that Nyikos is putting up just indicates that
the ID perps are still lying about having the ID science to teach,
and that anyone stupid enough to believe them will have the bait and
switch run on them. It has happened 100% of the time. Nyikos cannot
point to a single example where the ID perps delivered the ID science
to teach to any rube teacher, school board or legislator that claimed
to want to teach the science of intelligent design in the public
schools.
>
> "Anyone can just read the quote and understand
> that they are telling a teacher that it is legal to teach the science
> of intelligent design because intelligent design is a "legitimate"
> scientific theory. "http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8aa75c789ebedeb3
>
> Note, "intelligent design" in general, not the methodology of the DI;
> and note especially, "legal to teach," not "recommended to teach." I
> keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
> especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
> a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
> anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
> Issue:
The ID perps at the Discovery Institute used to claim that ID was
their business. They are the main perpetrators of the ID scam. The
vast majority that any rube would have heard about intelligent design
has come from the Discovery Instittue ID perps for over 15 years. The
statement was written by the ID perps. Whose ID science would the ID
perps be talking about. Whose ID science did the Dover rubes want to
teach? Who got called in as ID experts even if all but two ran away
and didn't testify? Nyikos is just lying about this because that is
all he can do.
>
> > Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> > No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> > Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> > constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> > and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> > science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> > she should have the academic freedom to do so.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=...
>
> The reason Ron O cannot add anything to this quote from this LONG
> website is that the DI's actual recommendations there as to what ought
> to be taught have to do only with teaching about the weaknesses of neo-
> Darwinism.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Nyikos' link sometimes doesn't work in Google and people should see
just what the ID perps say about the pamphlet.
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
This is the official download site. It is unambiguous who is
responsible for the pamphlet in question and the reason that the
pamphlet was written. Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps
have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
beginning of the scam. He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
quote never existed, and then lied about it when he had to finally
confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
they never had the ID science to teach. He has to lie about the
Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not deny
that they made such a claim. They only claim that they never wanted
the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
taught.
This is the type of bending over backwards type of rationalization
that IDiots have to go through to keep pretending that there is
anything worth supporting in the ID scam. The only IDiots left that
still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest and Nyikos is all three rolled into one.
I'll just put back what Nyikos snipped out without attribution so that
people will have easy links if they want to see how Nyikos has to
debase himself to remain an IDiot.
QUOTE:
"Premature." Who said that? Why would anyone start a thread like
this after making such an admission and constantly lying about what
that means in terms of what the ID perps have been doing for the last
9 years.
Another thread that Nyikos started to continue his bogousity:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d83215dd624?hl=en#
A thread he started to pull the trigger on the misdirrection ploy
again:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45
The thread that started the series:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80db368cbdf6?hl=en#
Is there a new thread in Nyikos' future. It is about time to start
another one.
END QUOTE:
Johnson quiote that I am talking about.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
Johnson made this comment after the ID perp's defeat in Dover and he
hasn't supported teaching ID since. He isn't taking any
responsibility for running the bogus scam for over a decade, but he is
just pointing the finger at the "science" ID perps for never coming up
with the ID science that would have made the ID scam legit. What is
Johnson giving up on teaching in the public schools?
Why didn't these guys come clean when the bait and switch started to
go down back in 2002? By the time Johnson gave up on the ID scam the
ID perps had been running the bait and switch for over half a decade.
They even tried to run in the switch scam on the Dover rubes, but they
had already gotten their own sympathetic lawyers and were determined
to test ID in the courts.
What do you think that Nyikos is going to lie about next?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> In message
> <3079219f-58df-457b-99ff-b8a0578dc...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
>
>
> >In this latter half of April, I am �following the policy in all my
> >replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue".
This policy was adhered to all April all through the thread,
Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
scam"
> >�This
> >is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
> >"the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
> >that
>
> > � The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
> >for public school teachers to teach".
>
> >Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
> >seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
.
> >On Apr 26, 7:46�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Premature." �Who said that? �Why would anyone start a thread like
> >> this after making such an admission
>
> >Okimoto isn't expaining what that single word refers to, so I'll
> >explain it instead.
The next paragraph was a paraphrasal of something Phillip Johnson said
in a quote which Ron O posted, followed by my agreement with Johnson's
conclusions.
Now we come to alias Ernest Major's addition:
> You appear to be making Ron's case for him.
The only "case" Ron O. is really interested in, where the Discovery
Institute is concerned, is his allegation that they are running "the"
bait and switch scam. I'm merely making a case for the only thing
directly relevant to that allegation that seems to hold water.
> As far as I can tell you don't accept
> that the statement that "ID is a legitimate scientific theory"
> is an implicit claim that they have the ID science to teach.
Not in a way that makes it competitive with the neo-Darwinian
synthesis on the public school level, no.
.
I said as much above, you know.
> Do you think that the Discovery Institute's position was
>
> 1) irreducible complexity is not (evidence of) ID
> 2) irreducible complexity is not science
> 3) irreducible complexity is not teachable
None of the above.
Are you familiar with the expression, "false dichotomy"?
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
He means trying to lie about the central issue in anyway that he can.
Do you know that it is near the end of June and your running and
pretending is getting pretty pathetic.
What is the Scottish verdict on how you tried to lie about the quote
in that thread? Heck you have been lying about the bait and switch
since December. I guess you are trying to forget that you started a
whole thread to run a bogus misdirection ploy. How well did that go?
In the By their Fruits thread your last response was never followed up
by the next response that you were claiming to have made.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c93f685aa0577cd?hl=en&
There are also links in the first post in that thread to the Scottish
verdict threads and the others.
Who accused someone of running from a post for three whole days, but
it was your fault because you had posted the post to another poster?
Is this what you are trying to get away with here? If you want to
counter any of my posts shouldn't you respond to the post in question?
Three days so you can't even measure up to your own bogus standards.
How many months have you been running from some posts? Starting
threads like the Scottish verdict thread isn't answering much of
anything. How did you have to debase yourself in that thread?
>
> > >> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> > >> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> > >> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> > >> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> > >> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> > >> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> > >> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> > >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=dow
> > >nload&id=1453
Has ID been banned from the public schools? Gee I wonder what this
quote means when they claim that the answer is "No?"
Who is claiming to be able to teach intelligent design in the public
schools? Who wrote the pamphlet about what could be taught in the
public schools? The pamphlet was written in response to the IDiot
loss in Dover. What did the IDiots claim that they could teach in
Dover?
Anyone can just go to the thread to find out how Nyikos has to lie
about the issues. Beats me why he even tries.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d83215dd624?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3da12f4886717c1f?hl=en#
Responding to other posters is only responding to me in your pathetic
and feeble mind. Stop running and pretending. Counter if you can,
but don't keep doing stupid and dishonest things unless you want to
keep getting called on doing them, and you like running from your
stupidity and dishonesty.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
pnyikos
> On Apr 29, 3:09�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > In this latter half of April, I am �following the policy in all my
> > replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue". �
This policy was adhered to all through April in my replies to Ron O.
on the thread,
Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
scam"
because I didn't want to get sidetracked from the Central Issue, and
also because Ron O's posts are so full of blather, that I am forced
either to split my replies into several pieces or to post such a long
article that a good part of it is hidden in Google on a normal thread
page where one has direct access to the other posts in the thread.
> >This
> > is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
> > "the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
> > that
>
> > � �The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
> > for public school teachers to teach".
>
> > Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
> > seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
I deliberately used the neutral term "personal comment" because I
didn't want Okimoto to get stuck into a more descriptive expression.
But his appetite for slander had been whetted by all the lies he said
on the Scottish verdict thread without my dealing witih them, and he
responded to the above with the most slander-fillled three lines I
ever recall seeing in all my dozen+ years in Usenet:
> This just means that Nyikos will try to pretend that he never lied
> about all the things that he got caught lying about and that he will
> snip and lie whenever convenient as he has done often in the past.
I use the words "slander" and "lying" in an objective sense, but Ron
O. may be so insane that he actually believes the above pack of lies,
and all the things I label lies by him below.
Anyway, since Ron O gives no hint about what my alleged "lies" were
and where they are to be found, I am perfectly justified in labeling
his three-liner a pack of lies with the above disclaimer, and moving
on to other lies in this post. The things I snip will be the subject
of another reply.
[...]
> Nyikos is at this very moment over in another thread lying about what
> the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach.
Note the lack of any qualifiers like "on the public school level."
Anyway, I did not lie and I challenge Ron O to come out and say what
he claims the lie to be.
[...]
>�All the
> lies and snipping involviing the Johnson quote
I snipped the Johnson quote at first because I wanted to investigate
certain things related to it. But I did get around to the Johnson
quote and never lied about it.
A few days ago I replied to Ernest Major and pointed out that the
thing that he thought was making Ron O's claim for him was a
paraphrasal of what Johnson had said, with which I concur.
> and the quotes about
> Meyer etc. were just stupid lies that Nyikos had to tell himself for
> some reason.
No hint about what those alleged lies were; I didn't lie about Meyer,
and I defy Ron O to try and document otherwise.
> The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> Nyikos is currently lying about that.
What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
verdict thread) has sided with me. Yet, because he is so full of
himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
>�What kind of bogus moron would
> try something as stupid as that. �Why not just face reality?
>
> Nyikos even puts up the quote that no sane person would read in
> context (it was from a pamphlet on the Dover fiasco and about what
> could be taught in the public schools) and not know what the ID perps
> are claiming.
Au contrairae, the context favors me and when I posted what I called
the most relevant part of the long website, Ron O blasted me for not
dealing with the ONLY part of the website that can be construed as
doing what he says it does.
> > But even if I am correct, it is premature [there's that word again, in
> > a totally different context] �to conclude the existence of a "bait and
> > switch scam" until the Central Issue is resolved in Okimoto's favor.
[...]
> the ID perps didn't run the scam on their
> opponents, but they ran the bait and switch on their loyal IDiot
> supporters like Nyikos.
The claim that they ran the bait and switch on me is something Ron O
dug up out of his fevered imagination. I've told the story of how I
came to my own theory of ID several times, but Ron O goes on clinging
to this mad delusion of his.
> > But Okimoto's arguments for "the bait" all boil down to a single quote
> > about which he admitted:
> > "Anyone can just read the quote and understand
> > that they are telling a teacher that it is legal to teach the science
> > of intelligent design because intelligent design is a "legitimate"
> > scientific theory.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8aa75c789ebedeb3
>
> > Note, "intelligent design" in general, not the methodology of the DI;
> > and note especially, "legal to teach," not "recommended to teach." �I
> > keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
> > especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
> > a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
> > anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
> > Issue:
[...]
> > > � Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> > > � �No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> > > � �Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> > > � �constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> > > � �and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> > > � �science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> > > � �she should have the academic freedom to do so.
>
> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> > �The reason Ron O cannot add anything to this quote from this LONG
> > website is that the DI's actual recommendations there as to what ought
> > to be taught have to do only with teaching about the weaknesses of neo-
> > Darwinism.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Nyikos' link sometimes doesn't work in Google
It works in the post to which Ron O is following up.. Google
truncates long links in follow-ups and Ron O may have gotten confused
by that fact.
It was truncated in his reply, but I have restored it above. Unlike
the url Ron O now posts, the website it takes you to contains the
quote itself.
> and people should see
> just what the ID perps say about the pamphlet.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
>
> This is the official download site.
....with a link to the webpage which actually contains the above
quote.
[...]
>Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
> stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. �He admits that the ID perps
> have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> beginning of the scam.
This is a particularly vile slander. I never admitted any such thing.
>�He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
> quote never existed,
See above tor the truth about this.
>and then lied about it when he had to finally
> confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
> they never had the ID science to teach.
Another lie, see above again.
>�He has to lie about the
> Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
> bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not deny
> that they made such a claim.
Maybe because Ron O is the only person who believes that they claimed
to *already* have the ID science in a form suitable tor teaching on
the public school level, and he hasn't confronted them with the
allegation.
Why should they deny something that they never saw anyone claim in the
first place?
>�The only IDiots left that
> still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or
> dishonest and Nyikos is all three rolled into one.
I am none of the above. Ron O is just reposting a sentence that he
has posted several times, and I may never have dignified it with a
response until now.
[...]
Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<14fce0c3-d1f7-4629...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
Are you familiar the expression "red herring"?
Your position now appears to be that you hold that the Discovery
Institute's position is that irreducible complexity is evidence of ID,
that irreducible complexity is science, and that irreducible complexity
is teachable, and yet you still hold that the Discovery Institute does
not at least implicitly claim to have teachable ID science. We have
something which is simultaneously teachable, ID and science, and yet
somehow isn't teachable ID science.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> On Apr 29, 7:02 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 3:09 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > In this latter half of April, I am following the policy in all my
> > > replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue".
>
> This policy was adhered to all through April in my replies to Ron O.
> on the thread,
>
> Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
> scam"
>
> because I didn't want to get sidetracked from the Central Issue, and
> also because Ron O's posts are so full of blather, that I am forced
> either to split my replies into several pieces or to post such a long
> article that a good part of it is hidden in Google on a normal thread
> page where one has direct access to the other posts in the thread.
It would be nice if you were limiting your lies. Using it as lame
excuse for running is bogus.
>
> > >This
> > > is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
> > > "the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
> > > that
>
> > > The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
> > > for public school teachers to teach".
>
> > > Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
> > > seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
>
> I deliberately used the neutral term "personal comment" because I
> didn't want Okimoto to get stuck into a more descriptive expression.
If Nyikos could counter he would, but he would rather snip and lie
about the bogus things that he got caught doing. Really, just look
how he made a big deal about nothing to start this thread when it was
his own misinterpretation of reality that resulted in a
misunderstanding that he ran away from instead of admitting that it
was a misunderstanding. When someone will do that the only reason why
he will not counter the "personal comments" about him lying and
snipping and lying is only because he is guilty.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en
Instead of admitting what a bonehead he was for ever starting this
thread in the first place he snipped out what he was guilty of and
just gave this response.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a492a4c2a42f5484?hl=en
Heck this is a guy so dishonest that he will not even admit to
claiming that I was running from one of his posts for three whole days
when he had posted it to someone else and there was no reason that I
should have known it existed. Three days compared to the months that
Nyikos has run from some posts. It is sad that Nyikos can't even live
up to his own standards of running away. I don't make this stuff up.
Nyikos has done it all or he would counter and not just snip and run.
>
> �But his appetite for slander had been whetted by all the lies he said
> on the Scottish verdict thread without my dealing witih them, and he
> responded to the above with the most slander-fillled three lines I
> ever recall seeing in all my dozen+ years in Usenet:
The truth is not slander. If you could conter you would. Wild horses
couldn't stop you from jumping on any mistake that I would have made.
Instead all you ever put up are lies and misrepresentations. Why is
that? Just demonstrate that I am slandering you about the above two
posts. Who was wrongly accusing me of dirty debating tactics? Who
can't face that simple reality? Just what was I supposed to be
misdirecting from? Why would anyone run from telling the truth? You
made the whole episode up in your pathetic mind. That isn't slander,
that is just fact and anyone can check it out.
>
> > This just means that Nyikos will try to pretend that he never lied
> > about all the things that he got caught lying about and that he will
> > snip and lie whenever convenient as he has done often in the past.
>
> I use the words "slander" and "lying" in an objective sense, but Ron
> O. may be so insane that he actually believes the above pack of lies,
> and all the things I label lies by him below.
My "slanderous" posts are full of examples of you doing the dishonest
deeds. Do you want me to put some more examples up? I like the one
where you snipped out the relevant portions of a quote and then lied
about the material, and when I put the full quote back in another post
you snipped out the same relavent material and lied about it again.
That demonstrates willful dishonesty on your part. Once could have
been chance or a stupid mistake, but doing the same dishonest thing
again means what? You didn't snip out the whole quote, just the part
that you couldn't deal with.
>
> Anyway, since Ron O gives no hint about what my alleged "lies" were
> and where they are to be found, I am perfectly justified in labeling
> his three-liner a pack of lies with the above disclaimer, and moving
> on to other lies in this post. �The things I snip will be the subject
> of another reply.
They are too many to document in any one post. You are pathetic and
dishonest. Really, do you want me to start putting up examples. What
about the one where you claimed that you could snip the undocumented
allegations, but the documentation of your bogus deed was in the very
post that you were snipping and lying about the material? You lied
about why you claimed that you could snip out that slanderous
allegation. You must have come across the documentation later in the
post, but you just snipped it out and left your lie stand. I only had
to point to the documentation in that very post. You were guilty and
you knew it, but you had to try a lame lie about it and pretend that
you didn't do it. We aren't talking about any rational normal
behavior. You are about the most dishonest person that I have ever
encountered on TO. Most just lie and run. You have to wallow in your
dishonesty.
>
> [...]
Anyone interested should check out what Nyikos is snipping out. This
is often hard to do because Nyikos often does not mark his snips. I
have to keep several windows open at one time to figure out what the
heck I wrote.
>
> > Nyikos is at this very moment over in another thread lying about what
> > the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach.
>
> Note the lack of any qualifiers like "on the public school level."
> Anyway, I did not lie and I challenge Ron O to come out and say what
> he claims the lie to be.
What is this public school bit? I have consistently claimed that the
ID perps lied about having the intelligent design science to teach in
the public schools. Nyikos knows this, but for some reason he has to
lie to himself about it. It doesn't even matter because the quote
specifically states that it is about teaching ID in the public
schools. Nyikos keeps denying reality and lying about it anyway that
he can. Why even mention "on the public school level?"
Here is the quote:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
The link is to the ID perp's official download site so that anyone can
see who is responsible for the quote and what the pamphlet is about.
"Has ID been banned from the public schools? No." What is this quote
talking about? What is the bogus deal with public schools? Nyikos
can't deny that he snipped out this quote several times and lied about
not getting the eviidence that the ID perps were still claiming to be
able to teach their bogus junk in the public schools. It was only
after I had put the above quote back in several times and told him to
not snip it out again that he tried to misrepresent the quote in
anyway that he could. "Teach/taught," "discuss," "could" what other
hair splitting nonsense did he try? I recall one instance where
Nyikos snipped out the part of the quote "Has ID been banned from the
public schools? No." and only left the rest of the quote. Who would
do that and think that it was something honest or even normal to do?
> [...]
>
> > All the
> > lies and snipping involviing the Johnson quote
>
> I snipped the Johnson quote at first because I wanted to investigate
> certain things related to it. �But I did get around to the Johnson
> quote and never lied about it.
After I put it back in. You misrepresented what I had quoted and only
addressed part of the quoted material. How bogus is that? I know
that you think that if you can't see something that it doesn't exist,
but anyone can just go up one post in that thread and see how you
doctored the post. How did you address the Johnson quote and not lie
about it? You even snipped the quote out of this post.
>
> A few days ago I replied to Ernest Major and pointed out that the
> thing that he thought was making Ron O's claim for him was a
> paraphrasal of what Johnson had said, with which I concur.
What instance is this?
I will put back the Johnson quote because it was in this post and
Nyikos snipped it out from below. Compare it to the quote about "Has
ID been banned..." The ID perps lied about having the scientific
theory of ID to teach in the public schools a couple years after
Johnson admitted that they never had any such thing. The ID perp
pamphlet was written in 2008 and the Johnson quote comes from 2006. I
just use the Johnson quote to demonstrate that even the top level ID
perps understood that they never had the ID science to teach. Johnson
has not supported teaching intelligent design since making this
statement, and he is credited with getting the ID scam rolling in the
1990s.
Begin QUOTE insertion:
QUOTE:
I also don�t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that�s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the
scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it�s doable, but that�s for them to prove�No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
Johnson made this comment after the ID perp's defeat in Dover and he
hasn't supported teaching ID since. He isn't taking any
responsibility for running the bogus scam for over a decade, but he
is
just pointing the finger at the "science" ID perps for never coming
up
with the ID science that would have made the ID scam legit. What is
Johnson giving up on teaching in the public schools?
END QUOTE insertion:
>
> > and the quotes about
> > Meyer etc. were just stupid lies that Nyikos had to tell himself for
> > some reason.
>
> No hint about what those alleged lies were; I didn't lie about Meyer,
> and I defy Ron O to try and document otherwise.
You claimed that the evidence had not been presented, and then you
snipped out the evidence when I kept pasting it in and claimed that I
had not demonstrated that Meyer was involved. Sure the part of the
quoted material that you left in did not say that Meyer gave the Ohio
rubes the switch scam. That was in the quoted material that you
snipped out. Doctoring quotes has been standard creationist
bogousity, but to do it when anyone can just go up one post to see
what you have done takes a real IDiot to think that they can get away
with it. How many times have I put the quoted material back in that
you have snipped out and you have either snipped it out again or run?
Here is a post where I document several bogus efforts by Nyikos. It
is also the post where Nyikos claimed that I was misdirecting the
argument when there was nothing for me to misdirect from. He ragged on
and on about this post and I didn't get what he was talking about
until he quoted part of the post. It also included some of the
documentation for Nyikos' dishonest about the Meyer quote. He has
since added to that dishonesty.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
I'm going to cut my post in half because of length.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
>
> > The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> > Nyikos is currently lying about that.
>
> What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
> ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
> sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
> verdict thread) has sided with me. �Yet, because he is so full of
> himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
> even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
Snipping out the public school quote and lying about it isn't just a
difference of opinion. Really how many times did you snip out the
quote in question before having your faced rubbed in your dishonesty
forced you to start making claims like your "public school" claim
above. What do your excuses have to do with reality? There is no
doubt that the quote is about teaching ID in the public schools and I
have never said otherwise.
You aren't normal mentally, not because of the difference in opinion
but due to the stupid and dishonest tricks that you try to get away
with. Once you are called on doing something that stupid and
dishonest why would you keep doing it. There is a quote somewhere
that insanity is doing the same stupid thing over and over and
expecting a different result. That is you. How many times have you
gotten the explanation of the bait and switch? If you do not think
that they are adequate, why not state exactly why? Why run or worse,
snip out the explanation and lie about ever getting one?
>
> > What kind of bogus moron would
> > try something as stupid as that. Why not just face reality?
>
> > Nyikos even puts up the quote that no sane person would read in
> > context (it was from a pamphlet on the Dover fiasco and about what
> > could be taught in the public schools) and not know what the ID perps
> > are claiming.
>
> Au contrairae, the context favors me and when I posted what I called
> the most relevant part of the long website, Ron O blasted me for not
> dealing with the ONLY part of the website that can be construed as
> doing what he says it does.
The context is what the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach in
the public schools. No one can read the pamphlet and not understand
that. They spend a lot of time on the switch scam, but what do you
expect? Who created the switch scam when they had no ID science worth
teaching? Who ran the bait and switch several years before ID lost in
court? Why claim that it is still legal to teach the bogus ID science
in a pamphlet about the Dover fiasco? I gave the link to the official
ID perp download site so that anyone can see what the guys that wrote
the pamphlet say about it. You keep giving the pdf link and claim
that it is a direct link. If I dig around I can probably dig up the
post where you tried to claim that the ID perps might not be
responsible for the quote. These are the ID perps. This is a
dishonest propaganda pamphlet where they are still selling the ID scam
while running their other bogus ploys. They are liars and scoundrels
and even you likely hate their guts for the way that they have led you
to debase yourself in order to try to defend the bogus ID scam. How
do you think that the Ohio rubes felt when the bait and switch went
down? How do you think Bachmann is going to feel when she finds out
that there is no intelligent design science to teach in the public
schools? She is supposed to be a presidential candidate and she is an
IDiot rube that fell for the ID scam. She made the mistake in
claiming that she supported teaching ID in the public schools. What
is she going to get to teach from the guys that lied to her about the
intelligent design scam?
> > > But even if I am correct, it is premature [there's that word again, in
> > > a totally different context] to conclude the existence of a "bait and
> > > switch scam" until the Central Issue is resolved in Okimoto's favor.
> [...]
> > the ID perps didn't run the scam on their
> > opponents, but they ran the bait and switch on their loyal IDiot
> > supporters like Nyikos.
>
> The claim that they ran the bait and switch on me is something Ron O
> dug up out of his fevered imagination. �I've told the story of how I
> came to my own theory of ID several times, but Ron O goes on clinging
> to this mad delusion of his.
The ID perps ran the bait and switch on every IDiot rube when the bait
and switch went down on the Ohio rubes. It doesn't matter whether
they are ignorant of that fact or not. Ignorance is the least of any
IDiots worries. 9 years of the bait and switch means that only the
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest are IDiots that still support
the ID scam. There can be no other types left. Nyikos has shown
himself to be all three unless he has lied about his ignorance of the
facts.
Heck the bait and switch has gone down on every IDiot rube that has
wanted to teach the science of intelligent design in the public
schools. Nyikos knows this to be a fact because he knows what the
IDiots get instead of any ID science to teach. All anyone has ever
gotten is a stupid obfuscation scam that can't even mention ID as
being part of any scientific controversy that they want to teach.
Nothing about IC or specified information. Zip. If the ID science
existed we would have seen it by now.
>
> > > But Okimoto's arguments for "the bait" all boil down to a single quote
> > > about which he admitted:
> > > "Anyone can just read the quote and understand
> > > that they are telling a teacher that it is legal to teach the science
> > > of intelligent design because intelligent design is a "legitimate"
> > > scientific theory.
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8aa75c789ebedeb3
>
> > > Note, "intelligent design" in general, not the methodology of the DI;
> > > and note especially, "legal to teach," not "recommended to teach." I
> > > keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
> > > especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
> > > a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
> > > anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
> > > Issue:
> [...]
Gee I wonder what Nyikos snipped out? Why not snip out his bogus lies
instead of leaving them in?
I only use the quote to show that the ID perps are still running the
teach ID scam. There is no doubt that they advocated teaching ID
before the bait and switch started with the Ohio rubes in 2002.
Nyikos lived through the late 1990's teach ID propaganda. Even the ID
perps do not deny advocating teaching the ID scam. They only claim
that they never wanted it mandated to be taught. Just go to their web
site and look up what they claim about teaching ID. Unless they have
changed it all you will see is obfuscation, lies and junk about not
wanting it mandated to be taught. The junk about mandate only showed
up on the Discovery Institute web site a year or so after Ohio. I've
given references to the ID perps selling teaching ID in the public
schools, but Nyikos has just run. Heck, what was Johnson giving up on
teaching in the public schools?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4dea96d935b7522c?hl=en
This post has references to the ID perps teach ID scam and a few other
Nyikos dishonest foul ups.
> > > > Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> > > > No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> > > > Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> > > > constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> > > > and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> > > > science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> > > > she should have the academic freedom to do so.
>
> > >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=...
>
> > > The reason Ron O cannot add anything to this quote from this LONG
> > > website is that the DI's actual recommendations there as to what ought
> > > to be taught have to do only with teaching about the weaknesses of neo-
> > > Darwinism.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > Nyikos' link sometimes doesn't work in Google
>
> It works in the post to which Ron O is following up.. �Google
> truncates long links in follow-ups and Ron O may have gotten confused
> by that fact.
>
> It was truncated in his reply, but I have restored it above. �Unlike
> the url Ron O now posts, the website it takes you to contains the
> quote itself.
Isn't that what I essentially said?
My url is to the official download site at the Discovery Institute's
web page. It also has the ID perp's description of what the pamphlet
is about, and it works in Google.
>
> > and people should see
> > just what the ID perps say about the pamphlet.
>
> >http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
>
> > This is the official download site.
>
> ....with a link to the webpage which actually contains the above
> quote.
>
> [...]
Nyikos is just snipping out what I have explained about the quote
above because he can't deal with reality.
>
> >Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
> > stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps
> > have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> > beginning of the scam.
>
> This is a particularly vile slander. �I never admitted any such thing.
You claimed that the ID science was "premature." Are you going to lie
about that?
>
> > He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
> > quote never existed,
>
> See above tor the truth about this.
Just look at the quote that I put back in.
>
> >and then lied about it when he had to finally
> > confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
> > they never had the ID science to teach.
>
> Another lie, see above again.
What is there to see. I could look up the posts where you did these
things, but I am getting tired of looking up your trash. You have
been a liar and have tried so many dishonest tricks that I've lost
count. I have documented some of them in the links that I put in
because you keep denying reality. You are reduced to lying about
lying.
>
> > He has to lie about the
> > Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
> > bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not deny
> > that they made such a claim.
>
> Maybe because Ron O is the only person who believes that they claimed
> to *already* have the ID science in a form suitable tor teaching on
> the public school level, and he hasn't confronted them with the
> allegation.
>
> Why should they deny something that they never saw anyone claim in the
> first place?
Nyikos has to deny not just the quote about "Has ID been banned...."
but the nearly 7 years that the ID perps sold the rubes intelligent
design before beginning to run the bait and switch on all the rubes
too stupid to know how bogus ID was. Both Meyer and Dembski used to
have articles written around 1997 on teaching intelligent design at
the Discovery Institute web site, but they are MIA. I wonder why?
This is the link from above where I document several Nyikos dishonest
foibles as well as put up evidence that the ID perps sold the teach ID
scam to the rubes. Beats me why anyone would deny it when the ID
perps don't even deny doing it, but we are talking about Nyikos.
There is a reference to an ID perp book about intelligent design in
the public school curriculum written before the bait and switch began
to go down. The authors are associated with the Discovery Institute
and one of them is none other than the director of the ID scam wing of
the Discovery Institute (Meyer), and the guy that ran the first bait
and switch personally on the Ohio rubes. The ID perps have been
running the bait and switch for 9 years and they have cleaned up a lot
of the evidence, but you can still dig some up.;
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4dea96d935b7522c?hl=en
>
> > The only IDiots left that
> > still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or
> > dishonest and Nyikos is all three rolled into one.
>
> I am none of the above. �Ron O is just reposting a sentence that he
> has posted several times, and I may never have dignified it with a
> response until now.
>
> [...]
>
> Peter Nyikos
It is just a fact that the only IDiots left that support the ID scam
are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. There are no other
types left or Nyikos would be able to put up a counter example. It is
just a sad fact about intelligent design. Just look at the type of
supporter Nyikos is. All ID was, was a bogus scam to replace
scientific creationism, but unlike scientific creatoinism that took
its lumps in court. When the time came to put up or shut up the ID
perps ran the bait and switch on their own creationist supporters
instead of putting forward their wonderful ID science to teach. The
only reason why ID had a day in court was because a group of dishonest
creationists believed that ID could be a way to circumvent the law and
get their religious beliefs into the public schools. In an interview
after the court case one of the board members even admittred that the
ID perps tried to run in the teach the controversy switch scam, but
the board already had their own lawyers that agreed with them that
they should test ID in the courts. The rest is history. What will
happen to the next IDiot rube school board or legislator that wants to
teach the science of intelligent design in the public schools. What
is going to happen to Michele Bachmann?
It really is a fact that the only IDiots left that support the ID perp
ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Nyikos can
only deny it, he can't demonstrate that it is not true because he
knows that it is true. I'll even admit that there may be a few honest
competent people working on creationist intelligent design notions,
but they aren't ID perp supporters unless they are ignorant of the ID
scam going down on the IDiot creationist support base. The ID perps
aren't running the bait and switch on the science side of the issue.
They are running the scam on their own creationist supporters.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 4:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <3079219f-58df-457b-99ff-b8a0578dc...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
> >> >In this latter half of April, I am following the policy in all my
> >> >replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue".
>
> >This policy was adhered to all April all through the thread,
> >Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
> >scam"
>
> >> > This
> >> >is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
> >> >"the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being the claim
> >> >that
>
> >> > The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
> >> >for public school teachers to teach".
>
Like Euthydemus truncating "father of the puppies" to "father" in
Plato's comical dialogue *Euthydemus*, Ron O and "alias Ernest Major"
often truncate the description of the Central Issue by leaving off the
part starting with "in a form" and ending in "public school
teachers".
And "alias Ernest Major," whom I will be addressing below, puts his
truncation to a similar use to the use Euthydemus made of his
truncation. See below.
> >> >Accordingly, I am deleting every personal comment and everything that
> >> >seems irrelevant to this Central Issue.
[...]
And that still holds true.
> >> >> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> >> >> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> >> >> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> >> >> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> >> >> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> >> >> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> >> >> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> >> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> >> > The reason Ron O cannot add anything to this quote from this LONG
> >> >website is that the DI's actual recommendations there as to what ought
> >> >to be taught have to do only with teaching about the weaknesses of neo-
> >> >Darwinism.
If "alias Ernest Major ever read the above paragraph, there is no sign
of it in either of the posts of his whose attributions appear at the
beginning of this post.
> >Now we come to alias Ernest Major's addition:
>
> > > You appear to be making Ron's case for him.
>
> >The only "case" Ron O. is really interested in, where the Discovery
> >Institute is concerned, is his allegation that they are running "the"
> >bait and switch scam. I'm merely making a case for the only thing
> >directly relevant to that allegation that seems to hold water.
The truncation already appeared in an earlier reply by alias Ernest
Major:
> >> As far as I can tell you don't accept
> >> that the statement that "ID is a legitimate scientific theory"
> >> is an implicit claim that they have the ID science to teach.
> >Not in a way that makes it competitive with the neo-Darwinian
> >synthesis on the public school level, no.
> >.
> >I said as much above, you know.
<crickets chirping>
> >> Do you think that the Discovery Institute's position was
>
> >> 1) irreducible complexity is not (evidence of) ID
> >> 2) irreducible complexity is not science
> >> 3) irreducible complexity is not teachable
Note the truncation in 3).
> >None of the above.
>
> >Are you familiar with the expression, "false dichotomy"?
>
> Are you familiar the expression "red herring"?
Yes, "Ernest," and you've illustrated it right now with a self-
referential sentence that would do Douglas Hofstadter proud.
> Your position now appears to be that you hold that the Discovery
> Institute's position is that irreducible complexity is evidence of ID,
False dichotomy, just as I anticipated. It never seems to occur to
you that I don't know whether the Discovery Institute has actually
adopted that position or not.
Do YOU have documentation that it has done so? I don't: the
discovery.org website above makes an even stronger claim, but one
Behe does not endorse and neither does one person in a position to
have the wording changed. We've corresponded on the matter but have
not yet been able to decide on what wording should go in its place.
> that irreducible complexity is science,
Again, false dichotomy. They do say ID is science, but IC and ID are
two different issues. Can YOU document them claiming IC to be a
science? Offhand I don't recall reading anything from them to that
effect, but I'd be most surprised if they claimed that IC is not a
scientific theory.
> and that irreducible complexity
> is teachable,
They obviously teach it in the sense of writing articles about it and
endorsing books like _Darwin's Black Box_ which endeavored to teach it
to anyone reading the book.
HOWEVER, given the dismal failure to teach even the definition to the
majority of talk.origins regulars, I don't think they've actually
claimed it is teachable to more than a small minority of high school
students.
> and yet you still hold that the Discovery Institute does
> not at least implicitly claim to have teachable ID science.
No more than Ctessipus implicitly claimed that his father was a dog in
Plato's *Euthydemus*. He owned a dog, hence the dog was his; the dog
was the father of puppies, therefore it was a father, and the father
was his *in that sense*. And so *Euthydemus* was able to "prove" that
Ctessipus beat his own father after Ctesippus admitted that he beat
his dog from time to time.
> We have
> something which is simultaneously teachable, ID and science, and yet
> somehow isn't teachable ID science.
And Ctesippus's dog was simultaneously his, and a father, but not his
father.
Euthydemus's sophistry was the kind of sophistry in which you have
been engaging by your equivocating with the word "teachable."
Is there more than one "alias Ernest Major"? You aren't acting here
like the levelheaded person who pointed out on another thread that by
saying that bats are descended from a glider "like the colugo" I
wasn't actually claiming that bats were descended from colugos.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
Hey Nyikos, quit lying about other people and get back to answering my
posts instead of just pretending that you are. Really, either answer
the posts that you are running from or quit bringing up what a lame
and bogus character you are in posts to other people. Ernest is no
more my alias than you are the guardian angel of truth and justice.
Lying about other people just to deflect from your own pathetic
existence is stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> Continued from previous post:
> > > The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> > > Nyikos is currently lying about that.
>
> > What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
> > ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
He replied later, and I replied to that earlier today. He is not
doing a good job of supporting Ron O's interpretation of the quote
reproduced at the end of this post.
In fact, he hasn't even TRIED to show that the quote shows what Ron
O. claims it does. Instead he seems to go for the principle, "the
best defense is a good offense."
But as I showed today, his offense isn't a good one.
> > sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
> > verdict thread) has sided with me. Yet, because he is so full of
> > himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
> > even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
Completely unable to strengthen his case for his interpretation, Ron O
does exactly what he has been condemning in me for over half a year:
indulging in "the misdirection ploy."
Ron O labeled one demonstration of his dishonesty and hypocrisy after
another as "the misdirection ploy" because I wasn't dealing with the
alleged "bait and switch scam" in a way satisfactory to him.
Now the dealing has become completely stalemated, with the difference
in opinion as above, and Ron O now switches, after having baited me
for thousands if not myriads of lines with the issue of how the
Discovery Institute has behaved, to a scam about my alleged
dishonesty.
> Snipping out the public school quote and lying about it
I never lied about it.
> isn't just a
> difference of opinion. Really how many times did you snip out the
> quote in question before having your faced rubbed in your dishonesty
No such rubbing ever took place, liar, unless you are insane enough to
claim that the mere snipping out of the quote is dishonest -- a quote
which seemed TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AT THE TIME to your claim about what
I call the Central Issue here.
After all, on the face of it, the quote has to do with RIGHTS of
teachers, not the readiness of the Discovery Institute to provide
suitable teaching materials to said teachers.
> forced you to start making claims like your "public school" claim
> above. What do your excuses have to do with reality?
Everything, liar.
> There is no
> doubt that the quote is about teaching ID in the public schools and I
> have never said otherwise.
The difference of opinion is all about WHAT it is claiming about
"teaching ID in the public schools," you shameless equivocator.
> You aren't normal mentally, not because of the difference in opinion
Oh, but you claimed I am, because you kept denying that any sane man
could look at the quote and not see that it says what YOU claim it
does.
Your words appear below, from three posts back, you shameless liar.
Now that I've pointed out that Robert Camp saw things my way, you are
desperately trying to rewrite Usenet history.
> but due to the stupid and dishonest tricks that you try to get away
> with.
Nonexistent, you shameless slanderer.
> Once you are called on doing something that stupid and
> dishonest why would you keep doing it.
Because the "calling on" is a baseless slander.
> How many times have you
> gotten the explanation of the bait and switch?
More shameless equivocation. I've known since I was one-third the age
I am what the expression "bait and switch" means. You kept needlessly
explaining it, and I didn't realize for quite some time that you
thought you were educating
> > > Nyikos even puts up the quote that no sane person would read in
> > > context (it was from a pamphlet on the Dover fiasco and about what
> > > could be taught in the public schools) and not know what the ID perps
> > > are claiming.
Here, plain as anyone can see, is your allegation that you are
desperately trying to rewrite Usenet history about.
> > Au contrairae, the context favors me and when I posted what I called
> > the most relevant part of the long website, Ron O blasted me for not
> > dealing with the ONLY part of the website that can be construed as
> > doing what he says it does.
And that is the quote reproduced below, and I suggest that only an
insane person would call others insane for not agreeing that it says
what Ron O insists it means: claiming to have the ID science in a form
suitable for teaching on the public school level.
> The context is what the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach in
> the public schools.
The context is full of tips about the weaknesses of traditional
Darwinian theory. THAT is what they are claiming they have in a form
to teach. This is NOT the thing which you keep on about, which is
that they claim, in the following quote, to have the ID science in a
form suitable for teaching on the public school level:
>> > > > Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>> > > > No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
>> > > > Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
>> > > > constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
>> > > > and it should not be banned from schools. If a
>> > > > science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
>> > > > she should have the academic freedom to do so.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Jun 23, 11:06 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Continued from previous post:
> > > > The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> > > > Nyikos is currently lying about that.
>
> > > What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
> > > ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
>
> He replied later, and I replied to that earlier today. He is not
> doing a good job of supporting Ron O's interpretation of the quote
> reproduced at the end of this post.
This post has so little resemblance to what I wrote that anyone
interested should go up to the two part post above and see what Nyikos
is lying about this time.
For some reason Nyikos is trying to make a big deal about who agrees
with what. He can't deny what is in front of his face so what is he
stuck doing.
>
> In fact, he hasn't even TRIED to show that the quote shows what Ron
> O. claims it does. Instead he seems to go for the principle, "the
> best defense is a good offense."
>
> But as I showed today, his offense isn't a good one.
>
> > > sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
> > > verdict thread) has sided with me. Yet, because he is so full of
> > > himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
> > > even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
>
> Completely unable to strengthen his case for his interpretation, Ron O
> does exactly what he has been condemning in me for over half a year:
> indulging in "the misdirection ploy."
Robert Camp's half hearted endorsement where he give the reason why
there isn't as much hard evidence. It is because ID was a creationist
scam from the beginning, and the ID perps covered their tracks.
QUOTE:
Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard
evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools. But it's
not because Ron is wrong about their goals, it's because of the
methods this iteration of creationism has chosen to further their
goals.
The CIA is a useful analogue. They have a mandate regarding
international relations, just as does the Foreign Service or the
Diplomatic Corps. But unlike the latter two, the mission of the CIA
does not include leaving clues as to their activities. Their
operations are intended to be covert. After the failures of cases
like
Edwards v. Aguillard it became clear to a set of creation science
advocates that their future efforts would need to be more
"fingerprint-
free" if you will. So they set about designing a movement with the
goal of diminishing the scope of and respect for evolutionary biology
while at the same time creating room for their more, shall we say,
spiritual alternative. These goals are plainly explained in the Wedge
Document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) that you
so blithely dismiss. This is a fingerprint they very desperately wish
had been erased.
If you think the analogy with the CIA, along with my analysis of
their
motives, is overwrought all you need to do is familiarize yourself
with the issue of "cdesign proponetsists" (http://pandasthumb.org/
archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html). And this brings us to the
subject of your thread.
END QUOTE:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?hl=en
It isn't just that they covered their tracks, it is because they have
never denied what they tried to do. They never say that they never
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. Anyone can still go to
their official web site and see that they do not deny selling the
rubes that they had the ID science to teach in the public schools.
After around a year of running the bait and switch their explanation
came out about never wanting ID "mandated" to be taught. They admit
that they targeted school boards and legislators to get ID taught, so
what did they expect the creationist rubes to do? Nyikos has just run
from that evidence. He asked for evidence and I gave it, and what did
he do?
Here is the Discovery Institute's current disclaimer:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
Not only that, but they are still claiming to have the ID science to
teach.
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
Nyikos likes wiggle words like "requiring" and "mandate" when they did
not show up in the ID scam junk until after the bait and switch
started to go down. Lying using as few words as possible and lying by
omission. These guys aren't apologizing for selling the rubes the
lame ID junk. They are just telling them that even though they had to
run the bait and switch and the switch scam can't mention that ID ever
existed. There is still hope that some ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest teacher will teach the junk that they never put up when the
time came to put up or shut up.
What kind of person would debase themselves and lie to defend a bunch
of scam artists?
>
> Ron O labeled one demonstration of his dishonesty and hypocrisy after
> another as "the misdirection ploy" because I wasn't dealing with the
> alleged "bait and switch scam" in a way satisfactory to him.
No you tried a stupid misdirection ploy. Heck you started a whole
thread to run the misdirection ploy once you had been called on it.
As stupid as any misdirection ploy that has ever been tried on TO.
You brought up a post from a thread that you had not even participated
in that was a couple weeks old by the time that you brought it up the
first time, that had nothing to do with the bait and switch scam
claims that you were running from at the time. That is the classic
misdirection ploy. Right out of the most absurd books on how to do it
and get caught doing it.
Nyikos, I will remind you again. When have I ever not been able to
support what I have claimed? You can't put up a single instance. You
have just run from the evidence. Why do you think that I didn't put
up the evidence that you wanted, but instead kept making you look like
a dishonest blowhard every time you tried that lame misdirection
ploy? You read the court transcripts, and can make your own
conclusions. Who wasn't bluffing, and who got caught running a stupid
misdirection ploy? Sort of sad how you ran instead of taking me up on
the offer.
Nyikos' foibles can be found in the threads listed in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2004893a00972e73?hl=en#
Nyikos seems to be running from that thread too.
>
> Now the dealing has become completely stalemated, with the difference
> in opinion as above, and Ron O now switches, after having baited me
> for thousands if not myriads of lines with the issue of how the
> Discovery Institute has behaved, to a scam about my alleged
> dishonesty.
Nyikos definition of stalemate is when he has gotten his butt kicked
and he has decided to lie about the situation. Just look at this
thread. Nyikos basically started the thread due to a misunderstanding
that he inflated because he had no other argument to make. He
pestered me to come and participate in this thread, and what did I
find out? He was accusing me of something that he had made up in his
own mind. When I finally realized what he was going on about and
confronted him with the facts, he snipped out the material and ran.
There is no indication in this thread that he acknowledges that he
blew it and this thread stands as another monument to his own
stupidity, just like the misdirection thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en
>
> > Snipping out the public school quote and lying about it
>
> I never lied about it.
Do I have to look up that thread too? When did you start lying about
this quote? It was before the Scottish verdict thread, so it has to
be from one of the earlier threads that you are currently running
from. So I have to look up the posts before April 12. I have to go
to work so I'll have to get back to it.
Nyikos snips up a post and manipulates it so badly, and is in such
bogus denial that I have to keep several windows open just to try to
figure out what he is lying about.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Do I have to look up that thread too? When did you start lying about
> this quote? It was before the Scottish verdict thread, so it has to
> be from one of the earlier threads that you are currently running
> from. So I have to look up the posts before April 12.
Points:
(1) You don't /have/ to.
Once sufficient deliberate nonsense has already been posted in a
thread, clarification of anything that remains ambiguous becomes
redundant. If this looks like a tangle of wilful confusion to you,
then it will do to any other reader who otherwise might be deceived,
too.
(2) Staying out of this thread mostly seems to be one of my own good
decisions.
I probably won't be back.
Ron O
I really don't expect anyone to read any of these Nyikos posts. I
don't read his other junk. I can't expect anyone else to either. My
only interest is to see what an IDiot has to do mentally to keep
supporting the ID scam. It is tragic in Nyikos' case. Beats me why
anyone would debase themselves the way Nyikos has had to do, but We
are talking about IDiots. The only IDiots left that support the
creationist ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
Anyone can just check out how an IDiot defends the ID scam. All the
other IDiots have just lied and run away in denial. Nyikos has
actually tried to lie his way out of it with consequences that anyone
that wants to take the time can read as self destructive behavior.
All the relevant threads are available through this link.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9cf27bed6264a0fc?hl=en
I am going to keep the link and whenever a newbie IDiot pops up I'm
going to refer him to a couple of Nyikos posts to set them straight.
So this isn't all a waste of time.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
cont.
>
> > Snipping out the public school quote and lying about it
>
> I never lied about it.
Well, I looked it up and found that Nyikos has been lying about this
quote since Feb. Sort of sad. Not only that, but he started the bogus
Scottish verdict thread after he found out that he had mistakenly
started this thread on a false premise. Instead of owning up to his
pathetic behavior he started another thread to dishonestly rag on me.
Just check out the March 29th post and Nyikos snipping and running on
April 11th in this thread, and see how Nyikos responded to it before
starting the Scottish verdict thread. I hadn't put the two together
until Nyikos brought this whole thing to my attention, but it makes
the Scottish verdict thread even more bogus. Nyikos started the
Scottish verdict thread knowing that he was a jerk.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a492a4c2a42f5484?hl=en
You can't make this junk up.
Getting back to Nyikos lying about this quote. This is the post where
I take Nyikos to task for snipping out the relevant material and then
only putting back part of the quoted material. The material that
Nyikos snipped out had been in the post that he was responding to for
several responses before he snipped it out and only put back the part
that didn't fully support what I was claiming.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d928a5f2a8dd1e20?hl=en
QUOTE:
> > > > > >http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
> Quote the RELEVANT things from it, Okimoto. For instance:
> "For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should
> be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly
> opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v.
> Dover case. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
> of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
> that any information you present accurately convey the views
> of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
> not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
> in indoctrination, not education."
Will that help the poor teacher that accepts their lies about having
the science of intelligent design to teach? This disclaimer about
"mandate" is like Nyikos' dishonest ploy about "implicated" or
"involved" and it didn't show up at the Discovery Institute web site
until the bait and switch had been going down for over a year. Why
did "mandate" become such an issue? Nyikos knows how they were
selling ID before the bait and switch went down on the Ohio rubes in
2002, so he knows how bogus pretending that "mandate" means jack.
One dishonest IDiot Nyikos accepts the bogus and dishonest ploy of
the
dishonest ID perps. Why am I not surprised?
> > > > > >Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
> > > > > >Dover in it. They are still claiming to have the science to teach,
> Not as is, not to the public schools. Read the above quote until it
> starts to sink in.
This from the briefing packet:
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
I guess Nyikos tries to lie again because I put up this quote before.
They are telling the teacher that they can voluntarily break the law.
They just don't tell the poor teacher that they would be breaking the
law.
END QUOTE:
Nyikos left in the link to the material that I quoted, but only put
back part of the quoted material and lied about what I had quoted
said. This was bogus manipulation on Nyikos' part. Nyikos ran away
instead of face what he had done.
Unable to acknowledge what he had done, Nyikos snipped out the
relevant quote again in a Feb 25th post in the same thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f8cfa42390e13b80?hl=en
Anyone can just go up to my post Nyikos was responding to and
determine how he doctored it again.
Why was this quote so embarrassing to Nyikos that he would snip it out
twice?
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
Sure looks like Nyikos understood what the ID perps were claiming in
this quote and was running from how he had lied about it.
Remember I only used this quote to claim that the ID perps were still
claiming that they had the ID science to teach to public school kids,
and that the bait and switch was still going down. There is no
question about what they had claimed before they began running the
bait and switch scam. Even the ID perps do not deny that they
advocated teaching ID in the public schools.
So it wasn't until he had snipped the quote out twice that he began to
prevaricate about the quote in any way that he thought that he could
get away with.
>
> > isn't just a
> > difference of opinion. Really how many times did you snip out the
> > quote in question before having your faced rubbed in your dishonesty
At least, twice.
>
> No such rubbing ever took place, liar, unless you are insane enough to
> claim that the mere snipping out of the quote is dishonest -- a quote
> which seemed TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AT THE TIME to your claim about what
> I call the Central Issue here.
I guess that I did not put the quote back in twice and you did not
snip it out twice. What a liar.
>
> After all, on the face of it, the quote has to do with RIGHTS of
> teachers, not the readiness of the Discovery Institute to provide
> suitable teaching materials to said teachers.
After all the quote plainly states that there is the ID science to
teach to public school kids. The Discovery Institute used to claim
that ID was their business before starting to run the bait and switch
on their own creationist supporters. They are the main perpetrators
of the ID scam. If they do not have the ID science who does? You
have even tried to remove just the "Has ID been banned from the public
schools? No." part of the quote in, at least one of your denials.
What good does it do to doctor a quote in order to lie about reality?
Anyone can just go up a post and see how you have changed things.
Your problem is that I take the time to demonstrate what a low life
you are. Do you really get away with this kind of bogus behavior in
your abortion group?
>
> > forced you to start making claims like your "public school" claim
> > above. What do your excuses have to do with reality?
>
> Everything, liar.
Why beef about public schools when it is right there in the quote.
There is no mistaking the meaning. "Has ID been banned from the
public schools? No."
>
> > There is no
> > doubt that the quote is about teaching ID in the public schools and I
> > have never said otherwise.
>
> The difference of opinion is all about WHAT it is claiming about
> "teaching ID in the public schools," you shameless equivocator.
Projection is a sign of insanity. I would put money on it at this
time. Who is the equivocator?
You are just lying. There is no difference of opinion that the quote
is about teaching ID in the public schools. The whole purpose of the
pamphlet was to whine about their loss in Dover and make any dishonest
and lame excuses that they could. These guys are just bogus and
dishonest scam artists.
>
> > You aren't normal mentally, not because of the difference in opinion
>
> Oh, but you claimed I am, because you kept denying that any sane man
> could look at the quote and not see that it says what YOU claim it
> does.
I claim that you are not normal mentally. Something is wrong with
you. Just look at how you have to project your bad behavior onto
someone else when you know that you have been the equivocator. I'm
not the one that can't face up to what a teacher is doing when they
discuss something in class or has to lie about things like could and
should.
>
> Your words appear below, from three posts back, you shameless liar.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> Now that I've pointed out that Robert Camp saw things my way, you are
> desperately trying to rewrite Usenet history.
Read what he actually said. He was claiming that the slime bag ID
perps purposely prevaricated about everything to cover their tracks.
They still left enough evidence around so that even they do not deny
what you are trying to deny. Really, show the evidence that the ID
perps deny selling the rubes that they could teach the science of
intelligent design.
>
> > but due to the stupid and dishonest tricks that you try to get away
> > with.
>
> Nonexistent, you shameless slanderer.
Your calling me a liar is slander as you mean it. Telling the truth
is not slander in anyones book. You are just projecting again. It is
a sign of insanity.
>
> > Once you are called on doing something that stupid and
> > dishonest why would you keep doing it.
>
> Because the "calling on" is a baseless slander.
More projection. Try to counter the baseless "slanderous" evidence
that I have put up. You have just run before. Now will likely be no
different.
>
> > How many times have you
> > gotten the explanation of the bait and switch?
>
> More shameless equivocation. I've known since I was one-third the age
> I am what the expression "bait and switch" means. You kept needlessly
> explaining it, and I didn't realize for quite some time that you
> thought you were educating
Then you admit that you were lying when you claimed that the
description was never given to you? How many times have you denied
getting the description. I'd take the time to look up the post where
I document that you got the description at least half a dozen times
and I hadn't even looked into all the threads at that time, but this
is getting stupid. I will look up that post if you want me to. How
many months ago was that?
>
> > > > Nyikos even puts up the quote that no sane person would read in
> > > > context (it was from a pamphlet on the Dover fiasco and about what
> > > > could be taught in the public schools) and not know what the ID perps
> > > > are claiming.
>
> Here, plain as anyone can see, is your allegation that you are
> desperately trying to rewrite Usenet history about.
It is just the truth, something that you obviously know nothing about.
>
> > > Au contrairae, the context favors me and when I posted what I called
> > > the most relevant part of the long website, Ron O blasted me for not
> > > dealing with the ONLY part of the website that can be construed as
> > > doing what he says it does.
>
> And that is the quote reproduced below, and I suggest that only an
> insane person would call others insane for not agreeing that it says
> what Ron O insists it means: claiming to have the ID science in a form
> suitable for teaching on the public school level.
Lie about the quote anyway that you can, but your own initial reaction
to the quote tells anyone that even you know what it means.
>
> > The context is what the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach in
> > the public schools.
Gee. I wonder how Nyikos doctored what I said without marking his
snips? I will put it all back to show what Nyikos is running from.
QUOTE:
The context is what the ID perps are claiming to be able to teach in
END QUOTE:
>
> The context is full of tips about the weaknesses of traditional
> Darwinian theory. THAT is what they are claiming they have in a form
> to teach. This is NOT the thing which you keep on about, which is
> that they claim, in the following quote, to have the ID science in a
> form suitable for teaching on the public school level:
The pamphlet is just a dishonest propaganda piece. The ID perps lie
like rugs and you know it. You'd have to work to find any honest
intent in the pamphlet. They know that they don't have the ID science
to teach, but they have to lie to keep the rubes interested. The
switch scam has been the primary scam since the bait and switch
started to go down 9 years ago, but a lot of IDiots and potential
IDiots are ignorant of that. What just happened to Michele Bachmann
when she was stupid enough to claim that ID could be taught in the
public schools? The only IDiots that still support the bogus ID scam
are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Nyikos is all three
rolled into one unless he was lying about not knowing some of the
stuff.
>
> >> > > > Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> >> > > > No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> >> > > > Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> >> > > > constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> >> > > > and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> >> > > > science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> >> > > > she should have the academic freedom to do so.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=....
>
> Peter Nyikos
Gee, I wonder what this quote means? Lying like this is stupid. Why
do it just to support a dishonest scam?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
Calumny.
I defy you to try to document even one lie by me about the central
issue.
> Do you know that it is near the end of June
And now we are in the latter half of August, but as I told you already
back in December, a monomaniac like you does not deserve more than one
reply a week. I gave you a lot more than you deserved in March and
April by that standard, and now I've gotten more in tune with what you
actually deserve.
In fact, I've learned a lot more since I wrote what I did in December
and now figure that you deserve no more than one reply a month. But
I'll be generous for a while and reply more frequently than that.
>and your running and
> pretending is getting pretty pathetic.
That's quite a self-referential clause: you've been running from
documentation of what a hypocrite you are since December, and
pretending that the documentation was a "bogus misdirection ploy": see
below.
> What is the Scottish verdict on how you tried to lie about the quote
> in that thread?
Document a single lie, or retract.
> Heck you have been lying about the bait and switch
> since December.
Not only have I not told a single lie, I didn't even get clear on what
the alleged bait was until March or April.
Even on this thread, your ally "alias Ernest Major" kept truncating
the description of the alleged bait, never breathing a word to the
effect of "on the public school level." That was the detail that was
a novelty to me in March, and you were so literal minded about what I
said in response that you thought I was referring to the actual
wording "public school kids."
Do you treat everyone on your long lists as though they were as
literal-minded as you are?
> I guess you are trying to forget that you started a
> whole thread to run a bogus misdirection ploy.
Was that the thread where I documented you having done a bait-and-
switch misdirection ploy in response to Ray Martinez, by way of
showing what a hypocrite you are?
It was your disordered brain that interpreted what I did there as a
misdirection ploy. I went right on in other posts trying to find out
what the alleged bait was, and what the alleged switch was, which no
one running a misdirection ploy would do.
YOU, on the other hand, have STILL not lifted a finger to meet the
challenge Ray issued to YOU way back in November. And so you are
hoist with your own "bait and switch" and "misdirection ploy" petards.
Fess up, Ron O: "misdirection ploy" is a formula you use to evade
responsiblity for your lies and hypocrisies, isn't it? You demand
that I keep responding to issues that I've responded to until I am
blue in the face [don't take that literally, please] just so you can
evade responsibility till your dying day, by treating documentations
of what a monumental hypocrite and pathological liar you are as though
it were all a misdirection ploy--don't you?
I'll say this much for you: you aren't a one-trick pony where this
evasion is concerned. Lately you've also been using one lie after
another to evade responsibility for earlier lies. You have other
tricks of yours which I will point out from time to time.
Remainder delted, to be replied to later, perhaps by a piggyback if
Google Groups's 60-day deadline for follow-ups is past.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
This is just what Nyikos calls the truth when he is the one caught
doing the dishonest and bogus junk and has to lie his way out of it.
>
> I defy you to try to document even one lie by me about the central
> issue.
More bluster and demands that you always run from when the challenge
is met.
Just take this whole thread. What low life scum bag would write this
sort of post when you know that you were a jerk for even starting this
thread? Snipping and running doesn't change reality. Really, I'm
getting tired of documenting your bad behavior just to have you run
and spout off in another post.
Just explain how you messed up in this thread, and then knowing that
you were the jerk and bogus pretender you started the Scottish verdict
thread. I don't make this junk up because you know that you are
guilty.
Really, own up to how tragically wrong you were to even start this
thread. What posts did you demand that I come here and answer? The
second posts to someone else. Instead of answering my posts directly
you whine to other posters behind my back and you can talk about dirty
debating tactics. What did you do when you found out that you were
lying about me and that you had made all the junk up in your own
mind? You snipped out that part of the post and ran. Just like you
have consistently done for months.
This is where I finally realize what Nyikos is going on about in this
thread. It turns out that he was falsely accusing me of running a
misdirection ploy when there was absolutely nothing for me to have
misdirected from. You can't make this junk up:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en
QUOTE from the post:
> But my statement at the beginning is true, for he did indeed indulge
> in an earlier bait and switch which was documented in the same post
> where I wrote that opening paragraph. My documentation consisted of
> the following url:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037
This is crazy. This is where Nyikos is claiming that I am running a
misdirection ploy? I am accusing him of leaving in the material, but
making some stupid statement that doesn’t address the material and
then running. That is one type of misdirection ploy, but anyone can
read the thread and see that it is true. That Nyikos did exactly
that. Did he address the material with his bogus verbage about not
snipping it out? Did I misrepresent what he did? No. He did not
address the material, he only made some inane comments about not
snipping it and ran. Why would anyone be proud enough of doing
something that bogus, link back to it? It didn’t occur to me that
Nyikos was claiming that I was misdirecting the argument. I just
thought that he was denying his own stupidity again.
This is my statement about what Nyikos did when he did it without all
Nyikos’ manipulations and deletions.
QUOTE:
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
> > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
> The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> which I am replying --- AND because RonO's post is short enough so
> that leaving in everything he wrote won't make this post of mine so
> long that people reading it in Google won't have to click "read more"
> in order to be able to see it all.
No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
from it at the same time. You are misdirecting the argument because
you have no counter to the statement. That is also bogus and
dishonest. You would likely have been better off just snipping and
running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the
reason
why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with intelligent
design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
design never advanced past that point.
END QUOTE:
END QUOTE from the post:
You can see how Nyikos responded to the fact that he was such a loser.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a492a4c2a42f5484?hl=en
He demands documentation, but what does he ever do with it? He just
snipped and ran. He is so lame that even knowing what a jerk he was
for starting this thread he can write this post in the same thread
that he knows that he was a jerk for even starting. How pathetic is
that?
Just check out how he is ignoring the documentation about the bogus
behavior that he was denying doing in his last posts in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7168541df802bf4?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0db44f86412173a?hl=en
Before someone asks for more documentation to demonstrate their utter
bogousity they should deal with the documentation that has already
been given.
Really, what kind of person would write this post when they know who
the liar and utter jerk that they are? Who demanded that I come to
this thread and answer your posts?
The only reason you protest is because you are guilty and all you can
do is lie because you are so dishonest and pathetic that you can't
even own up to your stupid mistakes like starting this thread because
you had made something up in your own head, and claiming that other
people are running from your posts when there is no reason that they
should even know that the posts exist.
Why should I go back to your old posts and document your lies again
when all you do is run and start another post to lie about reality?
Deal with the documentation that has already been given. When you are
finished with the posts that I have linked to there are many more over
the last months.
This is all just sad. You are reduced to lying about lying. After
explaining what a jerk you were for starting this thread, you can tell
me if you really want the documentation that you demand in this post.
You know that I will supply the documentation for any claim that I
have made. Give just one example where I did not supply the
documentation to confirm my claims. What have you done with the
documentation?
Peter Nyikos, you are the most dishonest and bogus academic that I
have ever encountered on talk.origins. That is a fact. At least you
have stopped putting up your academic credentials at the ends of your
posts. That was really pathetic. You can deny it until dooms day,
but you know what you can't face and how you have to project your bad
behavior onto others to pretend that you aren't such a scum bag low
life.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
pnyikos
I never started, you vile slanderer. Do you deny that Ernest Major
has not contested anything I wrote about him above?
And speaking of vile slanders, here is something you posted several
months ago as bait, followed by a blatant switch when I called you on
it, also documented below.
> > >Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
> > > stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps
> > > have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> > > beginning of the scam.
>
> > This is a particularly vile slander. I never admitted any such thing.
> You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
perps" were lying, you are insane.
I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism. If you think that
this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
insane.
However, until you either retract what you wrote or admit to being
insane, I will continue to characterize what you wrote as a vile
slander.
And anyone familiar with the content of the threads on the Scottish
verdict will see why it is no ordinary lie, but a slander at the very
heart of the thousands of lines we have exchanged so far.
> Are you going to lie about that?
The truth about you is so damning, that Satan (if such a being exists)
would be a fool to try and tempt me to lie about that. It is YOU who
are being flagrantly dishonest about it--or else are demonstrably
insane.
************************
The words you see above without > in the margin are new; the original
post has expired and I cannot reply to it directly.
I expect you to pretend not to understand the preceding sentence and
to post dozens of lines babbling that you cannot find the post where
most of my words above appear; misdirection ploys like this are part
of your stock in trade.
And now, back to the post to which I am following up today:
>Ernest is no more my alias
> than you are the guardian angel of truth and justice.
I never claimed he was YOUR alias, you blinking idiot. He CALLS
himself "alias Ernest Major". Haven't you seen how he signs his own
posts?
> Lying about other people just to deflect from your own pathetic
> existence is stupid and dishonest.
Look in the mirror when you say that, and maybe you will stop being
quite so sickeningly self-righteous.
Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<b65198ab-d6ec-436a...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On Jul 11, 8:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 12:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > In message
>> > > <14fce0c3-d1f7-4629-a1e2-8d65b5f56...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> > > >On Apr 29, 4:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > >> In message
>> > > >> <3079219f-58df-457b-99ff-b8a0578dc...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> > > >> >In this latter half of April, I am following the policy in all my
>> > > >> >replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue".
>>
>> > > >This policy was adhered to all April all through the thread,
>> > > >Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
>> > > >scam"
>>
>> > > >> > This
>> > > >> >is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has actually provided
>> > > >> >"the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being
>> > > >> >that
>>
>> > > >> > The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
>> > > >> >for public school teachers to teach".
>>
>> > Like Euthydemus truncating "father of the puppies" to "father" in
>> > Plato's comical dialogue *Euthydemus*, Ron O and "alias Ernest Major"
>> > often truncate the description of the Central Issue by leaving off the
>> > part starting with "in a form" and ending in "public school
>> > teachers".
>>
>> > And "alias Ernest Major," whom I will be addressing below, puts his
>> > truncation to a similar use to the use Euthydemus made of his
>> > truncation. See below.
>>
>> SNIP:
>>
>> Hey Nyikos, quit lying about other people
>
>I never started, you vile slanderer. Do you deny that Ernest Major
>has not contested anything I wrote about him above?
It is difficult for me to remember whether or not I bothered to contest
a particular point two months ago. Your habit of dredging up old posts,
when the context has been forgotten, is not one of your more endearing
features.
However, what about all the things that you wrote about me elsewhere,
that I did contest? You can't make an absolute claim from a particular
instance.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
I don't have to deny anything. Ernest is no more my alias than you
are the guardian of truth and justice. Gee, I wonder why you snipped
out that part?
>
> And speaking of vile slanders, here is something you posted several
> months ago as bait, followed by a blatant switch when I called you on
> it, also documented below.
>
> > > >Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
> > > > stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps
> > > > have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> > > > beginning of the scam.
>
> > > This is a particularly vile slander. I never admitted any such thing.
> > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
>
> If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> perps" were lying, you are insane.
So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
premature?
>
> I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism. If you think that
> this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> insane.
You know that they had nothing to teach, so you know that they were
and are still lying about being able to teach the lame premature ID
science. What does "Has ID been banned from the public schools? No."
mean? So you know that they are lying about being able to teach the
junk.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
Who wrote this quote? You have been lying about what this quote means
for months.
>
> However, until you either retract what you wrote or admit to being
> insane, I will continue to characterize what you wrote as a vile
> slander.
Retract what? You have just admitted that you know that the ID perps
are lying about being able to teach the science of intelligent design
to public school kids. There is nothing to detract until you can come
up with the evidence that they did not claim to be able to teach the
junk. You can't find where they deny it. You can even go to their
current web page and they don't deny it and still claim that some poor
rube teacher can teach the junk. Really, put up where they deny that
they sold the rubes the lie that they had the ID science to teach.
You can't find such a denial because even the ID perps don't deny what
they did. They only lie about never wanting the ID junk mandated or
required to be taught. This is not a denial that they advocated
teaching ID. It is just their way of blaming the IDiot rubes for
their own bad behavior.
You are the most pathetic academic that I have ever encountered on
TO. That is a fact. You have lied so often that you have been lying
about lying. You are now making excuses and running instead of owning
up to your pathetic behavior. Just check out what you are running
from. I didn't make up any of it. You did it all and you know it.
You have consistently lied about what you call the central issue. You
have tried really bogus and dishonest tricks to worm your way out of
accepting reality, and for what purpose? Lying about someone else is
your most pathetic ploy. Does it make you feel better about how bogus
you are if you can lie to yourself about other people? Stop running
and lying and address the issues in a legitimate fashion. What you
have done so far is so pathetic that I can't imagine how anyone could
even lie to themselves that it was legitimate.
>
> And anyone familiar with the content of the threads on the Scottish
> verdict will see why it is no ordinary lie, but a slander at the very
> heart of the thousands of lines we have exchanged so far.
Who started the Scottish verdict thread knowing that they were the
jerk in this story? Who snipped and ran instead of admitting that
they started this thread because of something that you had made up in
your own mind? Who was being falsely accused in this thread behind
their back to other posters instead of you addressing the my posts
directly? Who keeps writing junk like this knowing what a bogus
bonehead that they are?
The only reason why you are whining and running is because you are a
pathetic worm and can't deal with the situation in an honest and
upfront manner.
>
> > Are you going to lie about that?
>
> The truth about you is so damning, that Satan (if such a being exists)
> would be a fool to try and tempt me to lie about that. It is YOU who
> are being flagrantly dishonest about it--or else are demonstrably
> insane.
Projection is a sign of insanity in this case. I would bet money on
it at this time.
>
> ************************
>
> The words you see above without > in the margin are new; the original
> post has expired and I cannot reply to it directly.
The words without > at the start of the line were just written by you
in the post that I am responding to. They now have one > in the front
of each line. I don't know what post you took this out of, but you
could have put up the address to the post.
>
> I expect you to pretend not to understand the preceding sentence and
> to post dozens of lines babbling that you cannot find the post where
> most of my words above appear; misdirection ploys like this are part
> of your stock in trade.
>
What post have you taken it out of? What thread? What a bonehead.
My prediction is that when I find out what post that this came from it
will contain something that Nyikos is currently running from and can't
face so he has to take parts of the post and pretend to address the
issues even though he knows that he is running from something that
makes him look bogus and dishonest.
> And now, back to the post to which I am following up today:
>
> >Ernest is no more my alias
> > than you are the guardian angel of truth and justice.
>
> I never claimed he was YOUR alias, you blinking idiot. He CALLS
> himself "alias Ernest Major". Haven't you seen how he signs his own
> posts?
I misinterpreted what you meant. Doesn't that still mean that you are
a pethetic loser? You were doing it to try to belittle his posts with
a childish pathetic ploy. Even when you explain what you are really
doing it ends up to be something slimy and bogus.
>
> > Lying about other people just to deflect from your own pathetic
> > existence is stupid and dishonest.
I retract this. It is now apparent that you are a pathetic loser that
has to try bogus ploys like whether someone is using a nym rather than
address what they write. Did claiming that you were a professor of
mathematics make your posts any less bogus? Does it justify your
snipping and running and starting another bogus thread instead of
owning up to what you had done? Didn't you do that in this very
thread?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en
How Nyikos snipped and ran:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a492a4c2a42f5484?hl=en
My response to his pathetic running.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a9eb8898289a07f?hl=en
Before Nyikos went on hiatus I predicted that he would just run
instead of face up to the last series of posts, and I have been right
so far.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7168541df802bf4?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0db44f86412173a?hl=en
QUOTE:
> Because the "calling on" is a baseless slander.
More projection. Try to counter the baseless "slanderous" evidence
that I have put up. You have just run before. Now will likely be no
different.
END QUOTE:
>
> Look in the mirror when you say that, and maybe you will stop being
> quite so sickeningly self-righteous.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Projection is a sign of insanity, but my guess is that you likely have
already been counseled on that repeatedly. Have you been given any
suggestions on how to stop the behavior?
If you really believe that you can run and this type of lame excuse is
at all valid you are sicker than I had previously thought. Does lying
to yourself like this help at all?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Jul 11, 7:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:06 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
...a false accusation of lying:
> > > > > The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> > > > > Nyikos is currently lying about that.
>
> > > > What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
> > > > ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
That quote appears afresh a few lines below, so that readers can
better see what the main issue here is. Ron O tried to confuse that
issue, beginning with an idiotic comment which I am snipping this
first time around--it's pure filibuster.
[snip]
> For some reason Nyikos is trying to make a big deal about who agrees
> with what.
Because, as the contributions of Ernest Major on the one hand, and
Robert Camp on the other demonstrate, it IS a matter of opinion what
the quote actually implies. Ron O is banking on the highly strained
(IMNSHO) interpretation that it claims the Discovery Institute has its
version of ID science *already* in a form suitable for teaching in the
public schools.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE.
Ernest's support for Ron O's interpretation was all smoke and mirrors;
Robert Camp's words undermining it (see below) were more to the point.
In the post to which I am replying, Ron O posted a new statement which
amounts to the same thing. I left it in at the end.
> He can't deny what is in front of his face so what is he
> stuck doing.
I have no motivation to deny the *overt* content of the quote.
For one thing, something not in front of my face at the moment is
overwhelmingly in my favor: it consists of Ron O's hideous comments
about how it is insane of me not to agree to HIS interpretation of the
quote, and (see the beginning of this post) how my disagreement with
his interpretation is tantamount to lying.
These comments go a long way towards showing that Ron O is mentally
unbalanced.
[about Ernest Major's contribution, I wrote:]
> > In fact, he hasn't even TRIED to show that the quote shows what Ron
> > O. claims it does. Instead he seems to go for the principle, "the
> > best defense is a good offense."
>
> > But as I showed today, his offense isn't a good one.
Ron O. didn't deny this. Ernest Major bowed out of this thread back in
June, and hasn't returned since I showed just how fallacious his
support for Ron O. was.
Ron O., true to form, snipped the demonstration in one of the shortest
replies I've ever seen from him, so he could falsely accuse me of
lying about Ernest.
> > > > sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
> > > > verdict thread) has sided with me. Yet, because he is so full of
> > > > himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
> > > > even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
>
> > Completely unable to strengthen his case for his interpretation, Ron O
> > does exactly what he has been condemning in me for over half a year:
> > indulging in "the misdirection ploy."
>
> Robert Camp's half hearted endorsement where he give the reason why
> there isn't as much hard evidence.
BINGO! The quote is NOT much hard evidence, in the words of Robert
Camp which Ron O obligingly reposts below.
> QUOTE:
> Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard
> evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools.
There you have it. That quote, and a more recent statement
paraphrasing it that Ron are the ONLY piece of documentation of
"bait" that Ron O. has posted in attempting to support his allegation,
repeated *ad nauseam,* that the DI is running a bait and switch scam.
Even he knows that without bait, there is no bait and switch scam.
The rest of the quote from Camp went off on a separate issue, which
Ron O latched onto for dear life, and small wonder: he has never had a
rational argument for his strained interpretation of the quote above,
from the DI website.
[snip separate issue, to get to the new quote, with the same basic
message as the old:]
> QUOTE:
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
> END QUOTE
Remainder of post deleted, to be replied to later.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Aug 23, 4:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 8:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 12:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > In message
> > > > > <14fce0c3-d1f7-4629-a1e2-8d65b5f56...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
> > > > Like Euthydemus truncating "father of the puppies" to "father" in
> > > > Plato's comical dialogue *Euthydemus*, Ron O and "alias Ernest Major"
> > > > often truncate the description of the Central Issue by leaving off the
> > > > part starting with "in a form" and ending in "public school
> > > > teachers".
>
> > > > And "alias Ernest Major," whom I will be addressing below, puts his
> > > > truncation to a similar use to the use Euthydemus made of his
> > > > truncation. See below.
>
> > > SNIP:
What Ron O snipped out was a detailed justification of what I wrote
above.
> > > Hey Nyikos, quit lying about other people
>
> > I never started, you vile slanderer. �Do you deny that �Ernest Major
> > has not contested anything I wrote about him above?
>
> I don't have to deny anything. �Ernest is no more my alias than you
> are the guardian of truth and justice. �Gee, I wonder why you snipped
> out that part?
You are so proud of that idiotic statement, you issued this comment
before checking to see whether I actually DID snip it--and I didn't!!!
Here it is, loser:
[huge snip]
> > And now, back to the post to which I am following up today:
>
> > >Ernest is no more my alias
> > > than you are the guardian angel of truth and justice.
>
> > I never claimed he was YOUR alias, you blinking idiot. �He CALLS
> > himself "alias Ernest Major". �Haven't you seen how he signs his own
> > posts?
And lo! Here you are replying to it:
> I misinterpreted what you meant. �Doesn't that still mean that you are
> a pethetic loser? �
No, but this new performance of yours strongly suggests you are
one.
I've given you more replies this week that you deserve even by my
December standards. In later posts, I'll be pointing out more idiocies
in the huge part I snipped, and also what I snipped below, at times of
my own choosing--not yours.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
That last word seems to have escaped Ernest Major's attention; see
below.
> It is difficult for me to remember whether or not I bothered to contest
> a particular point two months ago.
You never replied to the post where I wrote the "Euthydemus" remarks
above. Here is the url for it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ef8a459ed46110a
Perhaps you never saw it.
>Your habit of dredging up old posts,
> when the context has been forgotten, is not one of your more endearing
> features.
If people were to refrain from subjecting me to trumped-up charges
like Ron O repeatedly does, or stir up tempests in teapots like a lot
of people I could name, I could reply to posts in a far more timely
manner.
> However, what about all the things that you wrote about me elsewhere,
> that I did contest? You can't make an absolute claim from a particular
> instance.
What part of the word "above" didn't you understand?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Ernest Major bowed out of this thread back in
> June, and hasn't returned since I showed just how fallacious his
> support for Ron O. was.
My apologies. I overlooked the new post two days ago by Ernest, to
which I replied a few minutes ago. I hope he actually responds to the
July post to which I am referring above. If for some reason he can't
reply to it as is, I'll be glad to repost it for him.
Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<19723d96-21b3-4d3d...@b14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <b65198ab-d6ec-436a-a15c-4fe025909...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 11, 8:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 23, 12:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In message
>> >> > > <14fce0c3-d1f7-4629-a1e2-8d65b5f56...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> >> > > >On Apr 29, 4:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > > >> In message
>> >> > > >> <3079219f-58df-457b-99ff-b8a0578dc...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> >> > > >> >In this latter half of April, I am following the policy in all my
>> >> > > >> >replies to Ron O of sticking to what I call "the Central Issue".
>>
>> >> > > >This policy was adhered to all April all through the thread,
>> >> > > >Subject: Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch
>> >> > > >scam"
>>
>> >> > > >> > This
>> >> > > >> >is the issue of whether the Discovery Institute has
>> >> > > >> >"the bait" in a bait and switch scam, the alleged bait being
>> >> > > >> >claim
>> >> > > >> >that
>>
>> >> > > >> > The DI has the Intelligent Design (ID) science in a form suitable
>> >> > > >> >for public school teachers to teach".
>>
>> >> > Like Euthydemus truncating "father of the puppies" to "father" in
>> >> > Plato's comical dialogue *Euthydemus*, Ron O and "alias Ernest Major"
>> >> > often truncate the description of the Central Issue by leaving off the
>> >> > part starting with "in a form" and ending in "public school
>> >> > teachers".
>>
>> >> > And "alias Ernest Major," whom I will be addressing below, puts his
>> >> > truncation to a similar use to the use Euthydemus made of his
>> >> > truncation. See below.
>>
>> >> SNIP:
>>
>> >> Hey Nyikos, quit lying about other people
>>
>> >I never started, you vile slanderer. Do you deny that Ernest Major
>> >has not contested anything I wrote about him above?
>
>That last word seems to have escaped Ernest Major's attention; see
>below.
The substance of my reply appears to have escaped Professor Nyikos's
understanding.
>
>> It is difficult for me to remember whether or not I bothered to contest
>> a particular point two months ago.
>
>You never replied to the post where I wrote the "Euthydemus" remarks
>above. Here is the url for it:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ef8a459ed46110a
>
>Perhaps you never saw it.
No. I did see it. I didn't think it worth dignifying it with a response.
>
>>Your habit of dredging up old posts,
>> when the context has been forgotten, is not one of your more endearing
>> features.
>
>If people were to refrain from subjecting me to trumped-up charges
>like Ron O repeatedly does, or stir up tempests in teapots like a lot
>of people I could name, I could reply to posts in a far more timely
>manner.
If a post is worth replying to, it's worth replying to in a timely
fashion.
>
>> However, what about all the things that you wrote about me elsewhere,
>> that I did contest? You can't make an absolute claim from a particular
>> instance.
>
>What part of the word "above" didn't you understand?
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
Why even try to lie? This is just the type of bogus behavior that I
expect out of Nyikos. Lying is just second nature to him. What Camp
was employing is a basic rhetorical device. You set up the negative
and then destroy it. Anyone can look at the full quoted material and
understand that. Nyikos has to doctor the quote and only put up the
negative argument because he is as dishonest as all the other
creationist quote miners that employ the same trick and can be exposed
by just using the complete quote.
Camp was not discussing a separate issue. He was agreeing with me and
claiming that ID was a bogus scam. Nyikos mentions the central issue
in the subject of this side branch of his Dirty Debating thread. Camp
does not disagree with me on the central issue. Even the ID perps do
not claim that they never sold the rubes that they had the science of
intelligent design to teach to school kids. The quote about it at the
bottom of this very post has them continuing to claim that they have
the ID science to teach in the public schools. In other posts that
Nyikos is running from I have put up other evidence of the ID scam and
even the current ID perp web page at the Discovery Institute site with
the official stance on teaching ID and the ID perps are still claiming
to be able to teach the ID claptrap. They just deny that they wanted
the ID scam mandated to be taught. Nyikos knows that this isn't the
same as claiming that they never wanted it taught. It is just their
way of blaming the IDiot rube victims for screwing up the scam while
trying to deny that it was a scam. Nyikos knows this because he as
tried it himself. Just ask him about blaming the IDiot victims and
what good it does. How many months ago did Nyikos produce that choice
bit?
>
> [snip separate issue, to get to the new quote, with the same basic
> message as the old:]
This is what Nyikos snipped out. Just taking this series of posts
(the last few) would tell anyone what a bogus liar and pretender
Nyikos is. Nyikos is the most dishonest academic that I have ever
encountered on TO. That is a fact.
Quoting quoted material:
QUOTE:
Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?hl=en
END quoting quoted material::
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7168541df802bf4?hl=en
Anyone interested can read the post and see what else Nyikos snipped
out and can't deal with.
>
> > QUOTE:
> > Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> > of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> > nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> > theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> > efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> > scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> > appropriate manner.
> > END QUOTE
>
> Remainder of post deleted, to be replied to later.
>
> Peter Nyikos
There is no doubt what this quote means it is the current disclaimer
on the Discovery Institute web site. Nyikos can't deny what it
means. He can only lie about it or run. It isn't that the ID perps
ran the bait and switch on all the IDiot rubes by lying about having
the ID science to teach to school kids. They are still using ID as
the bait and the switch will continue to go down on any IDiot stupid
enough to deny that fact. Nyikos could get his local school board to
voluntarily teach the science of intelligent design,but he knows what
would happen if he did. He knows that all he would get from the ID
perps that lied to him about the science of intelligent design is a
bogus obfuscation scam that can't even mention that ID ever existed.
That is the classic bait and switch. Sell one thing, but only give
the rubes the booby prize. Nyikos has been lying about this fact for
months.
This is the link that Nyikos deleted along with other evidence of his
dishonesty.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
Quote mining is low, but manipulating posts when anyone can just go up
one post and see what has been done is pathologically stupid.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
>
> > On Jul 11, 7:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 11:06 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
For some reason I missed a whole section of Nyikos' post. I must have
passed over it in one jump and didn't notice until my response came up
and I couldn't recognize what I had responded to.
>
> ...a false accusation of lying:
If Nyikos could demonstrate this he would, but he never gets further
than making the false claim.
>
> > > > > > The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the ID science.
> > > > > > Nyikos is currently lying about that.
>
> > > > > What Ron O labels a lie is a difference of opinion about a quote which
> > > > > ONE person (Ernest Major, who has not yet replied to my post) so far
>
> That quote appears afresh a few lines below, so that readers can
> better see what the main issue here is. Ron O tried to confuse that
> issue, beginning with an idiotic comment which I am snipping this
> first time around--it's pure filibuster.
>
> [snip]
This just means that Nyikos can't lie about it any other way.
>
> > For some reason Nyikos is trying to make a big deal about who agrees
> > with what.
>
> Because, as the contributions of Ernest Major on the one hand, and
> Robert Camp on the other demonstrate, it IS a matter of opinion what
> the quote actually implies. Ron O is banking on the highly strained
> (IMNSHO) interpretation that it claims the Discovery Institute has its
> version of ID science *already* in a form suitable for teaching in the
> public schools.
>
> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE.
The ID perps wrote this quote. If they don't have the science who
does? These are the scam artists that have been selling the ID snake
oil for over 15 years as an Institute. Longer than that as
individuals. Nyikos has to keep lying about that fact, and what it
means in relation to the quote above. These are the ID perps. They
are the major sellers of the ID scam. If they do not have the ID
science who does?
>
> Ernest's support for Ron O's interpretation was all smoke and mirrors;
> Robert Camp's words undermining it (see below) were more to the point.
I really don't know what Ernest's support was. Nyikos' main schtick
was to keep on about "Alias Ernest Major." as if it mattered. Not
only that, but the quotes and other evidence that you keep denying
speaks for itself. From my previous response you have been silent on
the most recent quote from the Discovery Institute on the subject.
There isn't any question that they are still claiming to be able to
teach the science of intelligent design to public school children.
>
> In the post to which I am replying, Ron O posted a new statement which
> amounts to the same thing. I left it in at the end.
It does say the same thing. They are claiming that there is the ID
science to teach. No one else is making that claim in the quoted
statements. What a bonehead.
>
> > He can't deny what is in front of his face so what is he
> > stuck doing.
>
> I have no motivation to deny the *overt* content of the quote.
You are a patholigcial liar. For some reason you can't even admit
your stupid mistakes like the one you made to start this thread and
rag me to come and participate in this thread. You blew it and lied
about me, but you can't bring yourself to admit such low and stupid
behavior. Instead you continue with posts like this one in the very
thread where you have been found to be such a jerk. What did you do
when confronted by your mistake? You snipped out the material and
ran. You couldn't even admit to being wrong about claiming that I was
running from a post for three whole days when there was no reason that
I should have known the post existed because you had posted it to
another poster. Three days, when you have run from some posts for
months. You can't even live up to your own standards for running, and
you can deny "motivation" for lying about the obvious?
Nyikos confronted by his bogus behavior:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en
Nyikos snipping and running in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a492a4c2a42f5484?hl=en
>
> For one thing, something not in front of my face at the moment is
> overwhelmingly in my favor: it consists of Ron O's hideous comments
> about how it is insane of me not to agree to HIS interpretation of the
> quote, and (see the beginning of this post) how my disagreement with
> his interpretation is tantamount to lying.
>
> These comments go a long way towards showing that Ron O is mentally
> unbalanced.
>
> [about Ernest Major's contribution, I wrote:]
>
> > > In fact, he hasn't even TRIED to show that the quote shows what Ron
> > > O. claims it does. Instead he seems to go for the principle, "the
> > > best defense is a good offense."
>
> > > But as I showed today, his offense isn't a good one.
>
> Ron O. didn't deny this. Ernest Major bowed out of this thread back in
> June, and hasn't returned since I showed just how fallacious his
> support for Ron O. was.
I don't even know what I am supposed to deny. You might give the link
to the relevant post. So that I can see what Ernest wrote. Not that
I don't believe you but only an IDiot would believe you. So put up
the links to the relevant posts.
>
> Ron O., true to form, snipped the demonstration in one of the shortest
> replies I've ever seen from him, so he could falsely accuse me of
> lying about Ernest
What post are you talking about? Likely there was nothing else for me
to comment on.
You have no supporters Nyikos. What you need is evidence that the ID
perps never sold the rubes that they had the science of ID to teach to
school kids. This is pretty difficult when the ID perps do not deny
doing it and they are still making those claims. There are things
like the Wiki links that I put up that you ran from along with the
Wedge document where the ID perps admitted that they were using
intelligent design as the wedge to get their religous and political
claptrap into the public schools. You know why you ran from the Wiki
links it was because they specifically confirmed that the ID perps
were trying to teach ID in the public schools and there were
references to books like the one writting by the ID perps specifically
on intelligent design in the public schools.
You ran from that post months ago and continued to run when I posted
links back to it.
Anyone just has to Google "Intelligent design wiki" and get this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
QUOTE:
From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by
the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science
and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[17]
[n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school
curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that
intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself
from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the
school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[18]
END QUOTE:
Meyer and intelligent design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
QUOTE:
In 1999, Meyer with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest laid out a legal
strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in
their book Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.[15
END QUOTE:
Doesn't look like they did not sell the IDiot rubes the teach ID
scam. Where did the IDiots get the idea? Who did the Ohio rubes call
in when they wanted to teach the science of Intelligent design? Who
ran the bait and switch on them personally?
QUO'TE:
In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy,
which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within
scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board
of Education.[20]
END QUOTE:
For anyone that was around and taking note of the creationist
activities this was a shocker and real change of direction for the
Discovery Institute. No one knew how big a change until the lesson
plan came out, but when it did and intelligent design was no where to
be found in the lesson plan the IDiots over at ARN were dumbfounded
(ARN is a propaganda discussion board maintained by the ID perps). No
one could explain why the bait and switch had been neccessary, or
justify it. There was just utter denial. It wasn't long after that
the discussion board lost most of its posts. I went back a couple
years later and most of the posts from that time period were gone
while others remained.
Don't run. Face reality and stop lying about everything. You aren't
going to change reality, and the ID perps are likely laughing at your
bogus antics even if they really want to cry. That is likely the type
that you are dealing with. None of them can be better than Nyikos, so
what should that tell Nyikos?
Not a single ID perp resigned in protest to the bait and switch. The
bait and switch has been going down for over 9 years and what ID perp
has even protested? Beckwith quit, but he only started to lie about
never supporting teaching intelligent design. He can't deny that
while a fellow he did write articles supporting teaching intelligent
design, but apparently he didn't really support teaching intelligent
design. If he is as dishonest as Nyikos he likely tells himself some
story about claiming that you can teach intelligent design is not the
same as supporting teaching intelligent design. Check out his wiki
page. He took the Discovery Institute's fellowship money, wrote
articles supporting the legality of teaching intelligent design for
several years while a fellow, but did not support teaching intelligent
design. He just never mention the part about not supporting the ID
scam while he was participating in the scam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._Beckwith
These are the types of boobs that Nyikos is lying to defend. What is
Bechwith denying not doing while at the Discovery Institute? Why does
he have to make such a round about denial about what he was doing when
he was claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the public schools?
Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > > sides with Ron O, and ONE peson so far (Robert Camp, on the Scottish
> > > > > verdict thread) has sided with me. Yet, because he is so full of
> > > > > himself, Ron O not only labels this variance of opinion as lying, he
> > > > > even judges me insane for not agreeing with his interpretation:
>
> > > Completely unable to strengthen his case for his interpretation, Ron O
> > > does exactly what he has been condemning in me for over half a year:
> > > indulging in "the misdirection ploy."
>
> > Robert Camp's half hearted endorsement where he give the reason why
> > there isn't as much hard evidence.
>
> BINGO! The quote is NOT much hard evidence, in the words of Robert
> Camp which Ron O obligingly reposts below.
SNIP the part already responded to.