Question about Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> Ray

Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty, including many of his fellow Atheists, the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Some people think virtually everyone they meet is a liar, others that virtually everyone they meet is an idiot, or an intellectual coward, or a closet atheist. It's usually pretty clear to bystanders where the source of the problem lies.

[Ray Martinez]

Has Peter accused you of lying or dishonesty?

Ray

[J. J. Lodder]

Dutch has the old proverb:
'Zo de waard is zo vertrouwt hij zijn gasten'.
Lit: As is the publican, so he trusts his guests,
Fig: Someone who is himself dishonest
will believe everybody else to be dishonest.

Ray here is of course a typical example,

Jan

[Bill Rogers]

I can't remember. I mostly ignore his posts anyway.

[Ray Martinez]

Jan, Atheist and of course an Evolutionist, accuses me of dishonesty.

Since everyone already knows that Atheist-Evolutionists think Christian anti-Evolutionists are dishonest, what's the point?

Ray (Christian anti-Evolutionist)

[jonathan]

"But I, grown shrewder -- scan the Skies
With a suspicious Air
As Children swindled for the first
All Swindlers be -- infer"

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?

Me for one.

[jonathan]

On 10/17/2015 3:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> Ray
>

I like to be called names~

[jillery]

Honor among thieves.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Robert Camp]

On 10/17/15 12:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> Ray

Starting a thread about personalities is not exactly the kind of thing
you ought to be doing if you wish to distinguish yourself in this case.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/17/15 1:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> Ray
>

Whether or not Peter has made that accusation about other persons, your
own behavior is that of a liar, and a highly dishonest person.

Peter's assessment of you is correct, even if he's in error about others.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/17/15 2:28 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 1:20:49 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or
>>>>> accused them of dishonesty?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty, including many of
>>>> his fellow Atheists, the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered
>>>> meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Some people think virtually everyone they meet is a liar, others that
>>> virtually everyone they meet is an idiot, or an intellectual coward, or a
>>> closet atheist. It's usually pretty clear to bystanders where the source
>>> of the problem lies.
>>
>> Dutch has the old proverb:
>> 'Zo de waard is zo vertrouwt hij zijn gasten'.
>> Lit: As is the publican, so he trusts his guests,
>> Fig: Someone who is himself dishonest
>> will believe everybody else to be dishonest.
>>
>> Ray here is of course a typical example,
>>
>> Jan
>
> Jan, Atheist and of course an Evolutionist, accuses me of dishonesty.

Again, Ray, your own behavior shows you are dishonest. The ad hominem
fallacy doesn't make you honest.

>
> Since everyone already knows that Atheist-Evolutionists think Christian anti-Evolutionists are dishonest, what's the point?

That you, Ray are dishonest. Whether or not other people are called
dishonest is irrelevant. It's your own behavior that gives you that
title.


DJT

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2570380e-3564-4e33...@googlegroups.com...

> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused
> them of dishonesty?
>
> Ray
>

I is amazing how people bother with PN at all. Why not leave him to playing
around all by himself?
I do and have zero interest in PN and his ideas.

I may have replied to him sometime in the past, but I don't think we ever
got to the point where he accused me of lies or dishonesty.

He is a 100% waste of time and energy.

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mvullp$473$1...@dont-email.me...

POTW?

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:02:19 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You're absolutely right, if you assume that your time and energy apply
to only one asshole. But Usenet is not one-on-one conversation, but
is instead a public dialog. Just as rockhead plays to a larger
audience, so too do any replies to his shit-stirring. To respond to
someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a waste of time.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:p6f72bd4h7168gc53...@4ax.com...

How admirable of you, asshole.

[Robert Camp]

It is if there's no fire, and everyone in the theater knows it.

[Ray Martinez]

Does posting in the same thread distinguish yourself in this case?

But obviously it has escaped your attention: Starting this thread assumes no fear of Peter's accusations or labels; or your sloppy thinking and whatever point you attempted to make.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:17:44 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>How admirable of you, asshole.

And another asshole farts fumes.

[jillery]

Yours is a false analogy. Everyone doesn't know there's no fire. And
even otherwise rational people react irrationally in unexpected and
chaotic situations. And their irrationality infects others. It's
what the shit-stirrers count on. In fires in public places, more
personal injuries are from people panicking than from the fire itself.
rockhead practices the Big Lie. When he says something outrageous
enough and loud enough and often enough, people believe it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?

>Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty, including many of his fellow Atheists, the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.

Sounds remarkably like a well-known poster to t.o who
accuses everyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does of
being "atheists", whether they believe in a deity or not.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Ray Martinez]

Who might that be?

Ray

[Bill]

Is this thread any better?

Bill

[Robert Camp]

Everyone one in the theater knows there's no fire. Everyone in the lobby
knows it. Everyone outside the theater and up and down the block knows it.

The only ones who don't know it are the crazy guy yelling fire, and the
compulsive guy looking to excuse his incessant preoccupation with the
crazy guy.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:02:10 -0700, Robert Camp

If everybody knows it, then why do some of them agree with the crazy
guy? Why do some of them deny the crazy guy is crazy? Why do some of
them act like the crazy guy is normal? Why do some of them only
complain about the people pointing out the crazy guy? Why do some of
them say these two people are just as bad, like you just did above?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:55:47 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>>
>> >Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty, including many of his fellow Atheists, the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.
>>
>> Sounds remarkably like a well-known poster to t.o who
>> accuses everyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does of
>> being "atheists", whether they believe in a deity or not.

>Who might that be?

Got a mirror handy?\

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?

A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
or accused of dishonesty?"

And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).

I can't think of anyone who indulges in deceit even half as often
as any of the three of you.

You didn't even wait around for an answer from ANYBODY before
jumping the gun with:

> Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty,

You are lying, or AT BEST making a wild-assed guess with no
basis in reality.

Either way, you are being sickeningly self-righteous: hoping thereby to
discredit my numerous VALID accusations of lying and deceit
and even slander that I have leveled at you, without having
to deal with them directly. [See the repost of the latest examples below.]

That is a really base form of cowardice, lending credence to
the hypothesis that Christian morality is something you have ceased
to care about.

> including many of his fellow Atheists,

A falsehood which you need to retract or be convicted of
an out and out lie in a completely different matter:

_________________excerpt, jillery first, then you_____________________

> > Identify these secular voices who say the Inquisitors were
> > murderers... besides yourself, of course.
> >
>
> Every person in this debate, including yourself.

Either you do not consider me to be a secular voice, in which
case common decency dictates that you withdraw the claim
that I am an Atheist; or else you have just told an out and out lie.

> If not, what were the Inquisitors, Jill?

Your allegation covers me, Ray, and I say, as
I have consistently said, that the Inquisitors delivered
up the guilty heretics to be NOT MURDERED, but legally
executed.

You are free to disagree with me on this, but you MAY NOT,
without violating Jesus's commandment against bearing false
witness, claim that I think the Inquisitors were murderers.

Therefore, I demand a retraction from you.

> You're not making any sense whatsoever, as usual.
>
> Ray

You are lying about this; jillery was making perfect sense
in asking a perfectly legitimate question, in reply
to which you evidently lied.
============================= end of excerpt from:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/9-iVn1GcuhA/AP7PkkRnBQAJ
Message-ID: <21882e5f-94af-41df...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Birds, feathers, and their evolution
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:14:26 -0700 (PDT)

>the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.
>

> Ray

Au contraire, it is your grotesque falsehoods, including this latest
one, that are rendered all too meaningfully relevant to the hypothesis
that you are an apostate Christian, as hateful towards Chrisians and
Christianity as the worst of the heretics condemned by the Inquisition.

Is there anyone in this newsgroup, besides me, whom you hate as
much as the most openly Christian (AFAIK) poster, Dana Tweedy?

Is there anyone who admits to being an atheist whom you hate
even one-tenth as much as you hate the two of us?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:

> I is amazing how people bother with PN at all. Why not leave him to playing
> around all by himself?
> I do and have zero interest in PN and his ideas.
>
> I may have replied to him sometime in the past, but I don't think we ever
> got to the point where he accused me of lies or dishonesty.

I believe you are right about that, Rolf, and I don't consider
the following to be dishonest either:

> He is a 100% waste of time and energy.
>

The above may be a sincere opinion due to your lack of interest
in such things as mammalian and bird evolution, the Cambrian
explosion, and directed panspermia. I do believe you've looked
in at some threads dealing with that last theme, but IIRC
you just popped in with some comments and popped right back out without
trying to discuss the issue with me.

Also, you've been absent from the thread where I've been discussing/debating
theism v. atheism with Harshman, Isaak, and Camp, haven't you?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 10/20/15, 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
>> I is amazing how people bother with PN at all. Why not leave him to playing
>> around all by himself?
>> I do and have zero interest in PN and his ideas.
>>
>> I may have replied to him sometime in the past, but I don't think we ever
>> got to the point where he accused me of lies or dishonesty.
>
> I believe you are right about that, Rolf, and I don't consider
> the following to be dishonest either:
>
>> He is a 100% waste of time and energy.
>>
>
> The above may be a sincere opinion due to your lack of interest
> in such things as mammalian and bird evolution, the Cambrian
> explosion, and directed panspermia.

When's the last time you talked about any of those?

[Peter Nyikos]

In a post to which you replied 20 minutes before you posted this one:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gVTvI5QT-_0/Fven7BZuBQAJ

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I thought you might bring that up. But when before that? I'm not really
talking about single, isolated instances, but of the general pattern of
your posting. It's been a long time since you had much to say about any
of those subjects.

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:05:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
>A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
>or accused of dishonesty?"
>
>And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
>most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
>being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).
>
>I can't think of anyone who indulges in deceit even half as often
>as any of the three of you.

Just look in any mirror. You indulge in deceit out of habit. It's
what you do.

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
>> I is amazing how people bother with PN at all. Why not leave him to playing
>> around all by himself?
>> I do and have zero interest in PN and his ideas.
>>
>> I may have replied to him sometime in the past, but I don't think we ever
>> got to the point where he accused me of lies or dishonesty.
>
>I believe you are right about that, Rolf, and I don't consider
>the following to be dishonest either:
>
>> He is a 100% waste of time and energy.
>>
>
>The above may be a sincere opinion due to your lack of interest
>in such things as mammalian and bird evolution, the Cambrian
>explosion, and directed panspermia. I do believe you've looked
>in at some threads dealing with that last theme, but IIRC
>you just popped in with some comments and popped right back out without
>trying to discuss the issue with me.

You conflate lack of interest in the above subjects with an aversion
to you. But that's the kind of self-serving noise you do. You can't
help yourself.

[jillery]

The topics really don't make much difference. His signal/noise ratio
is about the same regardless.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
> or accused of dishonesty?"
>
> And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
> most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
> being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).

You've accused many other of your fellow Atheist-Evolutionists to be liars or dishonest.

Again, you're the boy who cried wolf.

>
> I can't think of anyone who indulges in deceit even half as often
> as any of the three of you.
>
> You didn't even wait around for an answer from ANYBODY before
> jumping the gun with:
>
> > Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty,
>
> You are lying, or AT BEST making a wild-assed guess with no
> basis in reality.
>
> Either way, you are being sickeningly self-righteous: hoping thereby to
> discredit my numerous VALID accusations of lying and deceit
> and even slander that I have leveled at you, without having
> to deal with them directly. [See the repost of the latest examples below.]
>

An Atheist accusing a Christian of lying and deceit?

What else is new? Atheists have always slandered Christians.

> That is a really base form of cowardice, lending credence to
> the hypothesis that Christian morality is something you have ceased
> to care about.

Imagine that; an Atheist (Peter Nyikos) who believes life on earth was not created by God, but seeded by space aliens, invoking themes of Christian morality against his Christian opponent!

You're morally authoritative as a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.

>
> > including many of his fellow Atheists,
>
> A falsehood which you need to retract or be convicted of
> an out and out lie in a completely different matter:
>

Off the top of my head you've accused the following Atheist-Evolutionists of dishonesty:

John Harshman, Jillery, Ron Okimoto, Richard Forest, John Stockwell, Robert Camp, Nick Roberts, Mark Isaak, Burkhard, and Mitchell Coffey.

And Atheist Richard Clayton told me that he believes you're a double agent working for the D.I.

> _________________excerpt, jillery first, then you_____________________
>
> > > Identify these secular voices who say the Inquisitors were
> > > murderers... besides yourself, of course.
> > >
> >
> > Every person in this debate, including yourself.
>
> Either you do not consider me to be a secular voice, in which
> case common decency dictates that you withdraw the claim
> that I am an Atheist; or else you have just told an out and out lie.
>
> > If not, what were the Inquisitors, Jill?
>
> Your allegation covers me, Ray, and I say, as
> I have consistently said, that the Inquisitors delivered
> up the guilty heretics to be NOT MURDERED, but legally
> executed.
>

Once agreed upon this distinction would immediately be lost. The Inquisitors then revert back to the popular perception: murderers and Christians.

> You are free to disagree with me on this, but you MAY NOT,
> without violating Jesus's commandment against bearing false
> witness, claim that I think the Inquisitors were murderers.

You do believe them murderers. That's why you posted a reference establishing them Christians early on until you saw my refutation arguments.

>
> Therefore, I demand a retraction from you.

Tell the world how the acts of the Inquisitors followed Christ and the morality of New Testament?

And can you or anyone even show the Inquisitors had access to the New Testament?

>
> > You're not making any sense whatsoever, as usual.
> >
> > Ray
>
> You are lying about this; jillery was making perfect sense
> in asking a perfectly legitimate question, in reply
> to which you evidently lied.

If context is acknowledged Jillery is making no sense whatsoever.

> ============================= end of excerpt from:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/9-iVn1GcuhA/AP7PkkRnBQAJ
> Message-ID: <21882e5f-94af-41df...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Birds, feathers, and their evolution
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> >the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Au contraire, it is your grotesque falsehoods, including this latest
> one, that are rendered all too meaningfully relevant to the hypothesis
> that you are an apostate Christian, as hateful towards Chrisians and
> Christianity as the worst of the heretics condemned by the Inquisition.
>
> Is there anyone in this newsgroup, besides me, whom you hate as
> much as the most openly Christian (AFAIK) poster, Dana Tweedy?
>
> Is there anyone who admits to being an atheist whom you hate
> even one-tenth as much as you hate the two of us?
>
> Peter Nyikos

I wouldn't know either of you if we bumped into one another on the street.

Your arguments are shown false. That's all I care about. Your attempt to make this personal is a bad idea.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If context is acknowledged Jillery is making no sense whatsoever.

Any time you want to actually back up your asinine assertions...

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/20/2015 06:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>
> A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
> or accused of dishonesty?"
>
> And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
> most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
> being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).

Didn't you armchair diagnose me as being batshit crazy a tad over a year
ago and continue to insinuate such several times since?

The battle between you and Ray reminds me of Syria. I can't see anyone I
would be willing to call an ally. I just worry the battle will escalate
into a wider ranging conflict and result in much collateral damage to
noncombatants.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/17/2015 03:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?

Has Peter mocked the physicist Hawking for his disability? He has done
plenty of stuff I find obnoxious, objectionable or personally insulting
over the years, but I can't say I've witnessed him mocking someone with
a known disability in a very objectionable way.

He has called me batshit crazy based on armchair conjecture and you
might agree with that assessment. I don't give a shit if you do or
don't. I don't cotton to people like you either (or either of you). You
are both a blemish on the group.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/17/2015 07:32 PM, Robert Camp wrote:

> On 10/17/15 12:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or
>> accused them of dishonesty?
>>

>> Ray
>
> Starting a thread about personalities is not exactly the kind of thing
> you ought to be doing if you wish to distinguish yourself in this case.

Neither relevant actor is distinguishable in this case. Both have made
irredeemable asses of themselves.

In a similar vein I dislike the Pittsburgh Steelers because of their
quarterbacks. A choice between Roethlisberger or Vick is like Satan or
Beelzebub. Or should we compare Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. All
choices such as this suck.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/20/15, 3:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 6:40:39 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/20/15, 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I is amazing how people bother with PN at all. Why not leave him to playing
> >>>> around all by himself?
> >>>> I do and have zero interest in PN and his ideas.
> >>>>
> >>>> I may have replied to him sometime in the past, but I don't think we ever
> >>>> got to the point where he accused me of lies or dishonesty.
> >>>
> >>> I believe you are right about that, Rolf, and I don't consider
> >>> the following to be dishonest either:
> >>>
> >>>> He is a 100% waste of time and energy.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The above may be a sincere opinion due to your lack of interest
> >>> in such things as mammalian and bird evolution, the Cambrian
> >>> explosion, and directed panspermia.
> >>
> >> When's the last time you talked about any of those?
> >
> > In a post to which you replied 20 minutes before you posted this one:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gVTvI5QT-_0/Fven7BZuBQAJ
>
> I thought you might bring that up. But when before that?

You're grasping at straws. You abandoned a discussion on bird evolution
before I did, with Richard Norman picking up the ball from you,
and that discussion is resuming on that thread where you replied
as documented above.

You abandoned a discussion on primate evolution which is still going,
with Casanova having replied to me on Friday and me about to reply to him.

Even before you abandoned it, your contribution seemed to degenerate
into an long drawn out tiff with jillery, with each of you contributing
your usual tight-lipped responses which almost guaranteed that the
tiff would continue until one of you called it quits.

As usual, you had to let jillery have the last word, but not before I backed
you up near the end when jillery really went over the top.

> I'm not really
> talking about single, isolated instances, but of the general pattern of
> your posting. It's been a long time since you had much to say about any
> of those subjects.

You are just making yourself look foolish with this ignorant
"pot...kettle.." personal attack.

By the way, most of the slowness in me continuing those two discussions
is due to my contribution to the thread where Ray Martinez derailed the
one on bird evolution. Ray is slowly and inexorably being squeezed into
the corner on a torrent of dishonest statements to cover earlier
dishonest statements, ad nauseam. It is in desperation over the
Gordian Knot into which he is entangled over there that he started
this thread.

And, as usual, you are playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil" about Ray Martinez. When was the last time you took him
to task on ANYTHING?

Last year?
Two years ago?
...

Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:

Subject: Re: Answering Questions
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>

and, a bit later on the same thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>

Care to see more?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 5:15:49 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>

> Me for one.

And the same holds for the overwhelming majority of talk.origins participants,
including even Hemidactylus, his shenanigans on this thread notwithstanding.

As for you, you even belong on two complimentary lists which I posted
a while back. One was in reply to Vincent Maycock where I put him and
you and eight others on a list of "most honest and sincere", restricting
the list to 10 because that was all he asked for, but putting ellipses
where I could have named others.

Maycock is now off that list since there was some indication many months
ago that he might have behaved dishonestly. However, I'm not going
to go to the trouble to re-evaluate his behavior for a good long
while -- I've got more important things calling for my attention,
with mathematical ones well above anything connected with talk.origins.

I was able to locate the other list easily. I was replying to Glenn,
whom I would now leave off. [But note, I've never accused him of
dishonesty.]

________excerpt__________________________
there are other people here who seem to be level-headed
besides you and me.

I believe they include AlwsaysAskingQuestions, walksalone,
Nick Keighley, Steven L, Inez, Josko DaiMonie, Dana Tweedy,
and Arkalen. Maybe even John Wilkins.

Robert Carnegie, so far, has exercised a lot more prudence
here than most of the people who self-selected for posting on
this thread. So he may be level-headed too.

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

I'd still include every one of the above. Newcomer Peter K. definitely
belongs on both lists, and I hope we haven't seen the last of him.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

So your main response is to attack me for perceived poor behavior.

> You abandoned a discussion on primate evolution which is still going,
> with Casanova having replied to me on Friday and me about to reply to him.

What discussion is this?

>> I'm not really
>> talking about single, isolated instances, but of the general pattern of
>> your posting. It's been a long time since you had much to say about any
>> of those subjects.
>
> You are just making yourself look foolish with this ignorant
> "pot...kettle.." personal attack.
>
> By the way, most of the slowness in me continuing those two discussions
> is due to my contribution to the thread where Ray Martinez derailed the
> one on bird evolution. Ray is slowly and inexorably being squeezed into
> the corner on a torrent of dishonest statements to cover earlier
> dishonest statements, ad nauseam. It is in desperation over the
> Gordian Knot into which he is entangled over there that he started
> this thread.
>
> And, as usual, you are playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
> no evil" about Ray Martinez. When was the last time you took him
> to task on ANYTHING?
>
> Last year?
> Two years ago?

Your discussion with Ray is nothing but crap about who lies, as far as I
can tell. Whenever I take a look at it, I see nothing of interest. Your
"contributions" to that thread are part of the problem.

> Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
>
> Subject: Re: Answering Questions
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
> Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
>
> and, a bit later on the same thread:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
> Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Care to see more?

I actually see both these as fine examples of your pathology, where you
turn disagreement or argument into attack and accusation. And you also
seem obsessed with sides. I'm not attacking Ray enough; I'm not helping
you deal with Ray; I'm distracting you from dealing with Ray. Ray is
hopeless and there's little point in talking to him at all. You don't
want to be like that.

[John Harshman]

On 10/21/15 8:00 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
>
> Subject: Re: Answering Questions
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
> Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
>
> and, a bit later on the same thread:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
> Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Care to see more?

I should also point out that neither of these seems to have anything at
all to do with biology.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
> >
> > A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
> > or accused of dishonesty?"
> >
> > And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
> > most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
> > being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).
>
> You've accused many other of your fellow Atheist-Evolutionists
> to be liars or dishonest.

Leave off the "Atheist-" you craven libeler.

> Again, you're the boy who cried wolf.

I have ample evidence on the small handful that fit the description.
Besides the updated list of the unMagnificent Seven, on whom I
have mountains of evidence, I doubt that I've accused more than
seven more of dishonesty since returning to talk.origins almost
five years ago.

That updated list:

Robert Camp, Mitchell Coffey, Mark Isaak, jillery, Ray Martinez,
Ron Okimoto and Sneaky O. Possum.

And you indulge in dishonest behavior more than any two others
put together, but where Ron O and jillery are concerned, that
is probably more a reflection on how many people attack you
than on actual intrinsic love of deceit.

> > I can't think of anyone who indulges in deceit even half as often
> > as any of the three of you.
> >
> > You didn't even wait around for an answer from ANYBODY before
> > jumping the gun with:
> >
> > > Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty,
> >
> > You are lying, or AT BEST making a wild-assed guess with no
> > basis in reality.
> >
> > Either way, you are being sickeningly self-righteous: hoping thereby to
> > discredit my numerous VALID accusations of lying and deceit
> > and even slander that I have leveled at you, without having
> > to deal with them directly. [See the repost of the latest examples below.]
> >
>
> An Atheist accusing a Christian of lying and deceit?

No, an agnostic accusing a probably long-apostate Christian of
lying and deceit.

> What else is new? Atheists have always slandered Christians.

And apostate and hereticadl Christians have long hated and slandered
Christians.

You are so ignorant of the history of Christianity that
"Athanasius contra mundo" probably means nothing to you. But
you would have fit right in with the persecutors of Athanasius
and other orthodox Christians in the days of the Arians.

You've never heard of the book _Heretics_, by Hillaire Belloc, have you?

> > That is a really base form of cowardice, lending credence to
> > the hypothesis that Christian morality is something you have ceased
> > to care about.
>
> Imagine that; an Atheist (Peter Nyikos) who believes life on earth was not created by God,

I've never discounted the possibility, liar. In fact I'd rate
the probability of it having happened above 2%, in line with
my current assessment of ca. 10% for the probability
of the existence of a designer of our universe.

But I still favor the idea of directed panspermia, which you
ridicule by using the pejorative term "space aliens,"
suggesting an actual visit to earth by them, which I've
NEVER entertained seriously.

>but seeded by space aliens, invoking themes of Christian morality against his Christian opponent!

No, Christian morality as expounded on by C.S. Lewis, whom you
once hypocritically (but correctly) praised as a true Christian,
against his ANTI-Christian [by all available evidence] opponent
Ray Martinez.


<snip things to be dealt with in a later reply to this same post>

> > >the accusation, from his keyboard, is rendered meaningless. He is the boy who cried wolf.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Au contraire, it is your grotesque falsehoods, including this latest
> > one, that are rendered all too meaningfully relevant to the hypothesis
> > that you are an apostate Christian, as hateful towards Chrisians and
> > Christianity as the worst of the heretics condemned by the Inquisition.
> >
> > Is there anyone in this newsgroup, besides me, whom you hate as
> > much as the most openly Christian (AFAIK) poster, Dana Tweedy?
> >
> > Is there anyone who admits to being an atheist whom you hate
> > even one-tenth as much as you hate the two of us?
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> I wouldn't know either of you if we bumped into one another on the street.

But you hate me and Dana nonetheless.

> Your arguments are shown false. That's all I care about.

You are lying, and it appears that the torrent of falsehoods that you spew,
including multiple libels against me, is all YOU care about.

> Your attempt to make this personal is a bad idea.

You made it personal long ago, you hateful jerk. Otherwise you
would not be boycotting Dana Tweedy's posts.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I have ample evidence on the small handful that fit the description.
>Besides the updated list of the unMagnificent Seven, on whom I
>have mountains of evidence, I doubt that I've accused more than
>seven more of dishonesty since returning to talk.origins almost
>five years ago.
>
>That updated list:
>
>Robert Camp, Mitchell Coffey, Mark Isaak, jillery, Ray Martinez,
>Ron Okimoto and Sneaky O. Possum.

Any distinction between you and Ray is simply one of style. There's
no meaningful difference in intellectual integrity or rational
behavior.

The only reason I'm on your list is because I don't accommodate your
sociopathic behavior. In your almost five years, all of your noise
from past posts have been just more stupid lies about your stupid
lies. Not once have you posted anything that proved your stupid lies
about me. You're so desperate, you have resorted to copying noise of
other posters' noise. That's what you do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:11:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>On 10/20/2015 06:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
>>
>> A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
>> or accused of dishonesty?"
>>
>> And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
>> most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
>> being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).
>
>Didn't you armchair diagnose me as being batshit crazy a tad over a year
>ago and continue to insinuate such several times since?
>
>The battle between you and Ray reminds me of Syria. I can't see anyone I
>would be willing to call an ally. I just worry the battle will escalate
>into a wider ranging conflict and result in much collateral damage to
>noncombatants.

This is t.o. If there are any noncombatants here they are
staying "vewwy, vewwy quiet".

[Ray Martinez]

Forgot Atheist Roger Shrubber; and Peter reminded me of S. O.P. So 13 Atheists are known to be accused of dishonesty by Peter Nyikos.

Note that Peter left John Harshman off his most recent list. But we know Peter has accused John of dishonesty many times.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I think it relevant to point out that John Harshman is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist; and that he has been accused by fellow Atheist Peter Nyikos of dishonesty many times.

Ray (Christian-anti-Evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:20:38 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > Is there anyone in this group that Peter has NOT called a liar or accused them of dishonesty?
> > >
> > > A far better question would be: "how many HAS Peter called a liar
> > > or accused of dishonesty?"
> > >
> > > And the answer is: a small minority. But you are one of the three
> > > most wantonly dishonest people in this newsgroup, the other two
> > > being jillery and Ron O (Okimoto).
> >
> > You've accused many other of your fellow Atheist-Evolutionists
> > to be liars or dishonest.
>
> Leave off the "Atheist-" you craven libeler.

You accept space aliens to have initiated life on earth, not God; and you accept the assumptions of Naturalism interpretive philosophy to explain scientific reality; and you reject the concept of design existing in nature. These facts dictate that you are, in fact, an Atheist.

You call yourself an Agnostic because you and very many other Agnostics, if not all Agnostics, believe said term sufficiently conceals Atheism. Yet the very meaning of Agnostic (don't know if God exists) receives contradiction from acceptance of Naturalism and rejection of design. You do indeed have knowledge that God doesn't exist. So you are shown to be a premeditated liar attempting to conceal the bias of Atheism.

Ray (Christian anti-Evolutionist)

[Peter Nyikos]

If what I am writing is perceived by you as an "attack," you
need to look at your behavior that elicited it.

> > You abandoned a discussion on primate evolution which is still going,
> > with Casanova having replied to me on Friday and me about to reply to him.
>
> What discussion is this?

Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?

And here is the reply I did to him a short while ago:

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/q_Dg5O6wBQAJ
Message-ID: <fa243d7c-7ece-4402...@googlegroups.com>

> >> I'm not really
> >> talking about single, isolated instances, but of the general pattern of
> >> your posting. It's been a long time since you had much to say about any
> >> of those subjects.
> >
> > You are just making yourself look foolish with this ignorant
> > "pot...kettle.." personal attack.

And more so now than before. The last two sentences in the following
paragraph went like water off a duck's back, judging from the sequel:

> > By the way, most of the slowness in me continuing those two discussions
> > is due to my contribution to the thread where Ray Martinez derailed the
> > one on bird evolution. Ray is slowly and inexorably being squeezed into
> > the corner on a torrent of dishonest statements to cover earlier
> > dishonest statements, ad nauseam. It is in desperation over the
> > Gordian Knot into which he is entangled over there that he started
> > this thread.

> > And, as usual, you are playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
> > no evil" about Ray Martinez. When was the last time you took him
> > to task on ANYTHING?
> >
> > Last year?
> > Two years ago?

<crickets>

> Your discussion with Ray is nothing but crap about who lies,

Your complete lack of interest in whether anyone here lies
or not -- is that a reflection of a "new morality of atheism,"
as I put it on other threads, or do you think
most atheists care more about honesty than you do?

> as far as I
> can tell. Whenever I take a look at it, I see nothing of interest. Your
> "contributions" to that thread are part of the problem.

You continue to live up to the nickname I gave you where other t.o.
participants are concerned: DontWanna HearAboutIt.

> > Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
> >
> > Subject: Re: Answering Questions
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
> > Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > and, a bit later on the same thread:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
> > Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > Care to see more?
>
> I actually see both these as fine examples of your pathology, where you
> turn disagreement or argument into attack and accusation.

I actually wonder if you realize how wildly you extrapolated
from what I actually wrote just now. [I also wonder whether
you bothered to LOOK AT the posts to which I directed you.]

And why should you, who care so little about whether people are
honest or not, give a hoot about "pathology," real or imagined?

> And you also
> seem obsessed with sides.

Wrong, that's jillery's and Ray's specialty, and your specialty is to read
"paranoia" into anything that YOU think of as having to do with
"sides," including my wondering whether Hemidactylus did what
I consider to be a LAUDABLE thing, namely telling you about
personal attacks on you in a thread from which you were absent.

> I'm not attacking Ray enough;

...nor even showing how ignorant he is about transitional fossils.
I've been the main ball carrier on the horse sequence for a long
time, and he could have been brought to bay by now if more knowledgeable
people were pressing him on it.

Oh, wait...you are hamstrung by a definition of "transitional" that
allows you to say that platypuses are transitional between birds
and mammals, and by a cladophilia that keeps you from even
calling *Merychippus* an "ancestor candidate" of *Equus*.

So maybe it's just as well you absented yourself from this issue.
But you could have contributed plenty on other lineages.

> I'm not helping
> you deal with Ray; I'm distracting you from dealing with Ray. Ray is
> hopeless and there's little point in talking to him at all.

So, are you the sort who wants us to back off Ray to where he can
go on plying his trade here with little determined opposition?

That kind of treatment reminds me of the slogan "War Is Peace," in
George Orwell's _1984_ (_Nineteen_Eighty_Four_ for purists), which
had to dowith the way all parties in the never-ending global conflict
avoided decisively defeating any of the parties they happened to be
at war with at any given time. The reasons were explained in a long
book-within-a-book.

> You don't
> want to be like that.

Of course not, nor should you be like that.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Ah, so you did look after all. Well, there was one place where you were
counterproductive wrt biology, although you may not know enough about
Churchward's writings to realize that. That was when you "attacked" me
[by your standards for "attacked"] for daring to suggest that Ray
might have gotten some ideas from Churchward.

Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.

Since you are so uninterested in Ray's shenanigans, I guess you didn't
know that Ray arrogantly refused to give ANY scientific argument
and ANY Biblical argument for species immutability, on the grounds
that they will appear in the book that he is allegedly writing, and
are much too good to waste on the likes of us.

The clash over Churchward is recounted in the excerpt
below from a reply to you:

______________________excerpt____________________________

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/dr-gene-scott

I now get the impression from the above webpage [Dana Tweedy told
me about it] that Scott was only responsible for a very limited
repertoire of arguments against evolution, which would also
account for the extreme repetitiousness of Ray's own "arguments."
Also, as I asked and you could not answer, it appears
from the same webpage that Ray got most if not all of his
pseudoscientific main interests from Scott too:

Dr. Scott spends weeks and months at a time on marvelously
conspiratorial topics: the Pyramids, Atlantis, Roswell UFO's,
Stonehenge, the Amityville poltergeists - even the
Philadelphia Experiment.

So I may not have been off the mark when I asked Ray about
Churchward's Lost Continent of Mu. You thought I was,
or at least pretended to think I was.
========================= end of excerpts from

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/3M4guCHbKL8/W3uM4r1GrF8J
Message-ID: <3c8705fa-5042-49fb...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Evolutionary questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 08:34:56 -0700 (PDT)

But back to your rather irrelevant remark:
since when do we confine ourselves to biology?

You and I have had quite a discussion on religious themes in the
thread,

Subject: Re: Rampant Pogues & "Theism"

...until you started getting counterproductive. Fortunately, Mark Isaak
picked up the productive ball from you.

I'm glad you decided to deal with my last reply to Mark despite
your initial sour-puss reaction to my request to do so. Now
we may have a productive discussion again for at least a little
while on that thread.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

What you are apparently trying to say is that the attack is justified.

>>> You abandoned a discussion on primate evolution which is still going,
>>> with Casanova having replied to me on Friday and me about to reply to him.
>>
>> What discussion is this?
>
> Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
>
> And here is the reply I did to him a short while ago:
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/q_Dg5O6wBQAJ
> Message-ID: <fa243d7c-7ece-4402...@googlegroups.com>

I find that entire subthread too boring and silly to be worth talking
about, but you are right that it at least has a little bit to do with
evolution.

>>>> I'm not really
>>>> talking about single, isolated instances, but of the general pattern of
>>>> your posting. It's been a long time since you had much to say about any
>>>> of those subjects.
>>>
>>> You are just making yourself look foolish with this ignorant
>>> "pot...kettle.." personal attack.
>
> And more so now than before. The last two sentences in the following
> paragraph went like water off a duck's back, judging from the sequel:
>
>>> By the way, most of the slowness in me continuing those two discussions
>>> is due to my contribution to the thread where Ray Martinez derailed the
>>> one on bird evolution. Ray is slowly and inexorably being squeezed into
>>> the corner on a torrent of dishonest statements to cover earlier
>>> dishonest statements, ad nauseam. It is in desperation over the
>>> Gordian Knot into which he is entangled over there that he started
>>> this thread.
>
>>> And, as usual, you are playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
>>> no evil" about Ray Martinez. When was the last time you took him
>>> to task on ANYTHING?
>>>
>>> Last year?
>>> Two years ago?
>
> <crickets>

I have no interest in your insect sounds, and my lack of interest is not
in any way a moral failing on my part. I reject your implications.

>> Your discussion with Ray is nothing but crap about who lies,
>
> Your complete lack of interest in whether anyone here lies
> or not -- is that a reflection of a "new morality of atheism,"
> as I put it on other threads, or do you think
> most atheists care more about honesty than you do?

It isn't a question of caring about honesty. It's a question of caring
about petulant nonsense. The assumptions underlying your question, which
you will probably deny if I actually state them, are insulting.

>> as far as I
>> can tell. Whenever I take a look at it, I see nothing of interest. Your
>> "contributions" to that thread are part of the problem.
>
> You continue to live up to the nickname I gave you where other t.o.
> participants are concerned: DontWanna HearAboutIt.

Let me complain again: that's a stupid nickname, since it doesn't in any
way resemble a name. I've suggested better ones. But that's an annoying
way to make a point, even if you had one, which you don't. Your
preoccupations are not really the important moral questions of our times.

>>> Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Answering Questions
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
>>> Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> and, a bit later on the same thread:
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
>>> Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Care to see more?
>>
>> I actually see both these as fine examples of your pathology, where you
>> turn disagreement or argument into attack and accusation.
>
> I actually wonder if you realize how wildly you extrapolated
> from what I actually wrote just now. [I also wonder whether
> you bothered to LOOK AT the posts to which I directed you.]
>
> And why should you, who care so little about whether people are
> honest or not, give a hoot about "pathology," real or imagined?

This will certainly be my last response in this thread. I make
occasional attempts to reach whatever shreds of reason survive inside
you. I almost always fail.

>> And you also
>> seem obsessed with sides.
>
> Wrong, that's jillery's and Ray's specialty, and your specialty is to read
> "paranoia" into anything that YOU think of as having to do with
> "sides," including my wondering whether Hemidactylus did what
> I consider to be a LAUDABLE thing, namely telling you about
> personal attacks on you in a thread from which you were absent.
>
>> I'm not attacking Ray enough;
>
> ...nor even showing how ignorant he is about transitional fossils.
> I've been the main ball carrier on the horse sequence for a long
> time, and he could have been brought to bay by now if more knowledgeable
> people were pressing him on it.
>
> Oh, wait...you are hamstrung by a definition of "transitional" that
> allows you to say that platypuses are transitional between birds
> and mammals, and by a cladophilia that keeps you from even
> calling *Merychippus* an "ancestor candidate" of *Equus*.
>
> So maybe it's just as well you absented yourself from this issue.
> But you could have contributed plenty on other lineages.
>
>> I'm not helping
>> you deal with Ray; I'm distracting you from dealing with Ray. Ray is
>> hopeless and there's little point in talking to him at all.
>
> So, are you the sort who wants us to back off Ray to where he can
> go on plying his trade here with little determined opposition?

You can do what you like. I'd say that arguing with Ray (and, even more
so, spending your time on accusations of lying) is a waste of time, when
you could be spending that time taking about evolution to people who can
actually read and understand what they're reading.

Ray doesn't need opposition. He opposes himself.

> That kind of treatment reminds me of the slogan "War Is Peace," in
> George Orwell's _1984_ (_Nineteen_Eighty_Four_ for purists), which
> had to dowith the way all parties in the never-ending global conflict
> avoided decisively defeating any of the parties they happened to be
> at war with at any given time. The reasons were explained in a long
> book-within-a-book.

You are certainly reminded of odd things, for no apparent reason.

>> You don't
>> want to be like that.
>
> Of course not, nor should you be like that.

Well, that's it for me. Maybe I'll see you some other time, if you want
to talk about anything less self-obsessive.

[John Harshman]

On 10/21/15 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:15:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/21/15 8:00 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Answering Questions
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
>>> Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> and, a bit later on the same thread:
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
>>> Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Care to see more?
>>
>> I should also point out that neither of these seems to have anything at
>> all to do with biology.
>
> Ah, so you did look after all.

Yes, I followed the links.

> Well, there was one place where you were
> counterproductive wrt biology, although you may not know enough about
> Churchward's writings to realize that. That was when you "attacked" me
> [by your standards for "attacked"] for daring to suggest that Ray
> might have gotten some ideas from Churchward.

Ah, bringing up another wrong I have done you, out of nowhere. Typical.
But you're wrong. I've read several of Churchward's books, and I know
all about him.

> Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
> argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
> Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.

Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
Gene Scott; that much is known. I doubt Ray even knows who Churchward was.

[snip pointless repost]

> But back to your rather irrelevant remark:
> since when do we confine ourselves to biology?

We don't. You were the one who brought up biology.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:10:52 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> And you also
>> seem obsessed with sides.
>
>Wrong, that's jillery's and Ray's specialty,

This is just part of your Big Lie. You're projecting your compulsions
onto me. I post no lists. I don't update them whenever anybody says
something negative about me. I don't even keep lists. I don't inject
references to ancient posts into almost every thread in which I
participate. That's what you do.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I have ample evidence on the small handful that fit the description.
> >Besides the updated list of the unMagnificent Seven, on whom I
> >have mountains of evidence, I doubt that I've accused more than
> >seven more of dishonesty since returning to talk.origins almost
> >five years ago.
> >
> >That updated list:
> >
> >Robert Camp, Mitchell Coffey, Mark Isaak, jillery, Ray Martinez,
> >Ron Okimoto and Sneaky O. Possum.
>
>
> Any distinction between you and Ray is simply one of style.

To an ethical nihilist like the persona you are portraying,
the difference between honesty and dishonesty is simply one of style.

> There's
> no meaningful difference in intellectual integrity or rational
> behavior.

That preposterous falsehood where I am concerned is more even than
I would say for a mischievous scoundrel like yourself. You frequently behave
like a puerile smart alec in order to get in the last word,
but that has the fringe benefit of fooling people into underestimating
your aptitude for rational behavior.

You are doing quite nicely on the thread where Ray's garbage about the
Inquisition has led him to paint himself into a tight corner. Against
a person so lacking in intellectual integrity or willingness to
indulge in rational discourse, there is NO NEED to indulge in
wholesale misrepresentations as you routinely do against me,
nor to indulge in puerile smart alecky behavior. Ray's despicable
behavior is damning enough in itself.

However, you are so much the quintessential "sides" person that
Harshman falsely accused me of being, that you resent even my
reminding Ray about something you had nailed Ray a while back.

Not to mention your insinuation of homosexual liaisons between
myself and "UC," and myself and "deadrat," just because I had
agreed with them about something about which you took issue.

Harshman's use of "sides" may have been due to his knowledge
of widespread behavior of this sort, so that someone familiar
with your "sides" behavior might think, "Ah, so Peter is another
one of those jillery types, eh? What a pity."

> The only reason I'm on your list is because I [love to indulge in]
> sociopathic behavior.

Fixed it for you. :-)

Bob Casanova, who uses this little bracket "Fixed" trick on occasion,
might not agree publicly with the result, but that would probably
only be because he knows your propensity for getting into long tiffs
(as with Harshman, Maycock, and deadrat) which can only be terminated
by you having the last word.

>In your almost five years, all of your noise
> from past posts have been just more stupid lies about your stupid
> lies. Not once have you posted anything that proved your stupid lies
> about me. You're so desperate, you have resorted to copying noise of
> other posters' noise. That's what you do.

Rant and rave like this all you want: your credibility is a cipher when
you behave like this, since everyone knows (or should know) that you have
no documentation with which to back up these fantasies of yours.

"fantasies" is giving you the benefit of the doubt, by the way.

I on the other hand have ample documentation on you, but you play
snip-n-snark on it, making e.g. puerile, dishonest claims that you are
just following a precedent of mine.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Haven't cited or referenced Dr. Scott for any claim during the past 10 years or so.

Ray

[John Harshman]

What do you know about James Churchward?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:50:36 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/21/15 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:15:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/21/15 8:00 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sometimes, you even distracted me from refuting him. For instance:
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: Answering Questions
> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/KgGRxN1e1q8J
> >>> Message-ID: <800dd7ce-2594-455f...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>
> >>> and, a bit later on the same thread:
> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/fEeF-qjLlu8/ZFmSaMevGv4J
> >>> Message-ID: <7dc6ccff-cf0c-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>
> >>> Care to see more?
> >>
> >> I should also point out that neither of these seems to have anything at
> >> all to do with biology.
> >
> > Ah, so you did look after all.
>
> Yes, I followed the links.
>
> > Well, there was one place where you were
> > counterproductive wrt biology, although you may not know enough about
> > Churchward's writings to realize that. That was when you "attacked" me
> > [by your standards for "attacked"] for daring to suggest that Ray
> > might have gotten some ideas from Churchward.
>
> Ah, bringing up another wrong I have done you, out of nowhere. Typical.

What IS typical is your habit of whining about perfectly factual
descriptions in such pejorative ways, even when you are given
the benefit of the doubt like I gave you. Your habit is so
ingrained, you spurned this benefit of the doubt:

> But you're wrong. I've read several of Churchward's books, and I know
> all about him.

You spurn just about every favor done to you. The only reason I haven't
called you a coward ages ago was because of one admission by you that
I consider to be highly courageous. You perversely, without even an
attempt at explanation, spurned it as being no sign of courage at all.

But I have my own standards, and stick by them, no matter what the
standards of probable-Aspergers types like you are.

> > Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
> > argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
> > Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.
>
> Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
> Gene Scott; that much is known.

How in thunder is anyone besides Ray supposed to KNOW that?

Did Gene Scott give Ray the idea that he (Ray) is a Protestant
Evangelical, by writing about some minimally demanding ceremony Ray could
go through?

Did Gene Scott give Ray his ideas for cunning misdirection
to obscure the fact that he has been refuted?

Did Gene Scott give Ray the idea that one can boycott opponents
like Dana Tweedy by accusing them of slander and then lash out
viciously against people who ask for evidence that what Dana
had said was even FALSE?

I could go on and on, but you will probably ignore this post,
because you are too fond of Ray to want to know what manner
of man he REALLY is.

> I doubt Ray even knows who Churchward was.
>
> [snip pointless repost]

Did you and jillery learn the art of snip-n-snark from the same
source?

[By the way, I'm indebted to Bob Casanova for the term "snip-n-snark."]

> > But back to your rather irrelevant remark:
> > since when do we confine ourselves to biology?
>
> We don't. You were the one who brought up biology.

Wrong. I brought up specific biological matters, and other matters
that you snipped, and which had nothing to do with biology. It is you
who wrote, still preserved above,

neither of these seems to have anything at
all to do with biology.

No wonder you hinted at the end of your PRECEDING post that
THAT was the last one you would do on this thread.
["Well, that's it for me. Maybe I'll see you some other time,"]

You wanted to get out before your borderline sociopathic behavior
was raked over the coals, but you wanted to get in just a wee bit more
by THEN posting the reply to which I am replying here.

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Never heard of him until Peter brought him up a few weeks ago.

Ray

[John Harshman]

That's what I thought.

[John Harshman]

On 10/21/15 3:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>> Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
>>> argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
>>> Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.
>>
>> Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
>> Gene Scott; that much is known.
>
> How in thunder is anyone besides Ray supposed to KNOW that?

You could ask. I asked. He had never heard of Churchward until you
brought him up.

>>> But back to your rather irrelevant remark:
>>> since when do we confine ourselves to biology?
>>
>> We don't. You were the one who brought up biology.
>
> Wrong. I brought up specific biological matters, and other matters
> that you snipped, and which had nothing to do with biology. It is you
> who wrote, still preserved above,
>
> neither of these seems to have anything at
> all to do with biology.

Again you obsess over particular words. The word "biology" was intended
to subsume in a single word the subjects of "mammalian and bird
evolution, the Cambrian explosion, and directed panspermia", which you
brought up.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I have ample evidence on the small handful that fit the description.
>> >Besides the updated list of the unMagnificent Seven, on whom I
>> >have mountains of evidence, I doubt that I've accused more than
>> >seven more of dishonesty since returning to talk.origins almost
>> >five years ago.
>> >
>> >That updated list:
>> >
>> >Robert Camp, Mitchell Coffey, Mark Isaak, jillery, Ray Martinez,
>> >Ron Okimoto and Sneaky O. Possum.
>>
>>
>> Any distinction between you and Ray is simply one of style.
>
>To an ethical nihilist like the persona you are portraying,
>the difference between honesty and dishonesty is simply one of style.

Actually there's no difference between honesty and dishonesty to the
retarded sociopath that you portray.

>>The only reason I'm on your list is because I don't accommodate your

>>sociopathic behavior.
>
>Fixed it for you. :-)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just sayin'.

>Bob Casanova, who uses this little bracket "Fixed" trick on occasion,
>might not agree publicly with the result, but that would probably
>only be because he knows your propensity for getting into long tiffs
>(as with Harshman, Maycock, and deadrat) which can only be terminated
>by you having the last word.
>
>>In your almost five years, all of your noise
>> from past posts have been just more stupid lies about your stupid
>> lies. Not once have you posted anything that proved your stupid lies
>> about me. You're so desperate, you have resorted to copying noise of
>> other posters' noise. That's what you do.
>
>Rant and rave like this all you want: your credibility is a cipher when
>you behave like this, since everyone knows (or should know) that you have
>no documentation with which to back up these fantasies of yours.

Of course, your denial is just another part of your Big Lie.

>"fantasies" is giving you the benefit of the doubt, by the way.
>
>I on the other hand have ample documentation on you, but you play
>snip-n-snark on it, making e.g. puerile, dishonest claims that you are
>just following a precedent of mine.

Any time you want to actually back up your stupid lies about me, just
let me know.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

[...]

>You frequently behave
>like a puerile smart alec in order to get in the last word,

So why do you keep feeding her the oxygen she so desperately craves?

[...]

[Ernest Major]

Even if true, that wouldn't mean that you don't take your ideas from
him. You claim to be taking your ideas of species immutabilism from
early 19th century science, but you haven't offered any reason for us to
believe that what they meant by immutable is the same as what you mean
by immutable. It's unlikely that they would have held a position that
was falsified by simple observation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

Awwww...isn't that sweet? Johnny and Ray-Ray, who elsewhere in the
thread have behaved like spoiled brats, are here exchanging information
as politely as any good little boys could be asked to do.

And in his next post, Johnny went on to play Miss Manners in reply
to the big ogre who has been so mean to Johnny and Ray-Ray elsewhere
on this thread.

I expect Johnny and Ray-Ray to behave towards each other like this
in the future whenever they come together, like the little angels
their mommies and daddies tried to teach them to be.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

A fair question, but I generally let jillery have the last word a
lot earlier in the piece than do/did deadrat, Harshman, and Maycock in
their *long* tiffs with jillery.

Also, I don't think she really craves it from me; her attitude towards
me is utterly different than her attitude towards her fellow atheists
(including the three I named). Against them, it's almost like Tweedledum
and Tweedledee agreeing to have a battle; against me, it's a matter
of avenging *morally based* and *detailed* attacks on her.

Jillery's persona in its present "incarnation" is that of an ethical
nihilist for whom charges of lying and hypocrisy are of no more
significance than charges of eating with knife and fork like an American
instead of the less awkward way Europeans do it.

She will make them at the drop of a hat against me, partly because
false accusations are no big deal to her, BUT ALSO partly
because the person behind the persona knows that lying and hypocrisy
do not play well in Peoria.

[Is there a British or Irish equivalent to this formula?]

And so she is bent on avenging documentation of dishonesty and
hypocrisy, even though the only way open to her is to indulge
in more dishonesty and hypocrisy. All the time, of course, she
is playing on the possibility that the latest round will go
unanswered and temporarily slake her bottomless quest for revenge.

By the way, I believe that all that I have said is also, indirectly,
relevant to the way she so seldom attacks Ray Martinez personally. I'll
explain this further if you are interested.

Also, any time you want documentation, I'll be glad to provide it.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

NeverAnswersQuestions often indulges in self-contradicting accusations
against me. If I truly seek the last word, as she and rockhead so
often accuse me of doing, then replies to me would hardly be the
oxygen I so desperately crave. One can only wonder how somebody
capable of a conscious breath doesn't recognize such an obviously
stupid statement.

Instead, "the last word" is one of many self-contradicting taglines
tossed out by dishonest and self-righteous retards who themselves seek
the last word. Its use shows the posters have no intention of backing
up what they posted. Apparently steeped in their deluded
self-importance, they have convinced themselves that anything they say
should be treated as Truth(c) simply because it spewed from their
puckered sphincters.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 2:30:37 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >You frequently behave
>> >like a puerile smart alec in order to get in the last word,
>>
>> So why do you keep feeding her the oxygen she so desperately craves?
>>
>> [...]
>
>A fair question, but I generally let jillery have the last word a
>lot earlier in the piece than do/did deadrat, Harshman, and Maycock in
>their *long* tiffs with jillery.

To the contrary, your tiffs are the chronological leaders hands down.
Nobody else drags out imagined insults from decades ago.

[jillery]

To quote someone you hold in high regard, even that bit of
"solidarity" was too much for you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:50:35 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 2:30:37 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >You frequently behave
> >> >like a puerile smart alec in order to get in the last word,
> >>
> >> So why do you keep feeding her the oxygen she so desperately craves?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> >A fair question, but I generally let jillery have the last word a
> >lot earlier in the piece than do/did deadrat, Harshman, and Maycock in
> >their *long* tiffs with jillery.
>
>
> To the contrary, your tiffs are the chronological leaders hands down.

The only way this grotesquely misleading comment can be justified is to
broaden the meaning of "tiff" to events spread out among completely
different threads, sometimes with huge intervals of time elapsed.

By "threads" I mean things New Google Groups treats as separate
threads, even counting things in the same thread if the Subject
line has changed but the string of replies can be traced back
to the original Subject line.

What *I* meant by "tiffs" is back-and-forth on what I would
call the same "fiber" and you would call the same "thread":
an unbroken chain of direct replies to direct replies to
direct replies. And with that meaning, your tiffs with those
atheists outstrip mine hands down.

> Nobody else drags out imagined insults from decades ago.
>

Yes, they do; when Paul Gans was a staunch ally of one of the
earlier re-inventings of the "jillery" persona, backed
Mitchell Coffey at the sa when he dredged up imagined behavior by
me from 2000-2001 in order to launch vicious, indefensible attacks on me
with trumped up charges of me "defending a Holocaust Denier".

And John Harshman implicitly referred to my behavior of over
a decade earlier, when he told "el cid":

"Peter resembles a typical creationist in some respects. For one
thing, he is willing to accept the flimsiest evidence for any
hypothesis he likes, but requires absurd heights of proof
for any he doesn't. I suspect you would have to build a
protein-based ribosome to satisfy him."
Subject: Re: The futility of Intelligent Desgin
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:21 -0800
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/k94BiWTRmc0J

Either that, or Harshman's "opinion" of me was made up on the
spur of the moment, without any overt behavior of mine on
which to base it.

Note the bit about "protein-based ribosome": that was the only
thing about which I had shown any real skepticism in the
previous week [the first time I posted to t.o. in almost a
decade]. This was el cid's claim, "Give me five years and
five million dollars and I will produce a protein
ribosome."

However, a good while later, Harshman not only
denied having ever seen that exchange; not only did he
claim that if he had seen it, he would have strongly
debated el cid, telling him of its impossibility, given the
current state of knowledge....

...he also out and out lied that his statement
was based on my "disbelief" about something else, something
about which I had shown NO skepticism AT ALL up to that point.

I've brought this matter up to Harshman quite a few
times since then, and each time he either indulged in
deceit to avoid the issue, or ran away altogether.
The last time was last week, and he at first accused
me of a "fantasy" and then ran away when pressed.

And, as long as he continues to shirk responsibility for
his abominable behavior, I will keep bringing this lie of his,
and the behavior that led up to it, to his attention.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

Does it bother you at all -- indeed, have you even noticed -- that
whatever peccadilloes have been committed by others in this exchange
have just been rendered insignificant in comparison to your own
contribution?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:50:35 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 2:30:37 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:10:37 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> >You frequently behave
>> >> >like a puerile smart alec in order to get in the last word,
>> >>
>> >> So why do you keep feeding her the oxygen she so desperately craves?
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >
>> >A fair question, but I generally let jillery have the last word a
>> >lot earlier in the piece than do/did deadrat, Harshman, and Maycock in
>> >their *long* tiffs with jillery.
>>
>>
>> To the contrary, your tiffs are the chronological leaders hands down.
>
>The only way this grotesquely misleading comment can be justified is to
>broaden the meaning of "tiff" to events spread out among completely
>different threads, sometimes with huge intervals of time elapsed.

Since I specifically identified my meaning, you have no good reason to
accuse me of being misleading, grotesquely or otherwise.

>By "threads" I mean things New Google Groups treats as separate
>threads, even counting things in the same thread if the Subject
>line has changed but the string of replies can be traced back
>to the original Subject line.

Too bad you didn't specify "threads", but "tiffs", which makes your
comment grotesquely misleading.

>What *I* meant by "tiffs" is back-and-forth on what I would
>call the same "fiber" and you would call the same "thread":
>an unbroken chain of direct replies to direct replies to
>direct replies. And with that meaning, your tiffs with those
>atheists outstrip mine hands down.

Your personal and self-serving definition isn't relevant. You
chronically and compulsively inject my nym into threads and topics and
tiffs that don't involve me. Apparently all of your stupid lies about
me have the same motivation, which makes them part of the same long
tiff.

>> Nobody else drags out imagined insults from decades ago.
>>
>
>Yes, they do; when Paul Gans was a staunch ally of one of the
>earlier re-inventings of the "jillery" persona, backed
>Mitchell Coffey at the sa when he dredged up imagined behavior by
>me from 2000-2001 in order to launch vicious, indefensible attacks on me
>with trumped up charges of me "defending a Holocaust Denier".

Now you get to prove that what Paul Gans "dredged up" were insults,
imagined or otherwise.

>And John Harshman implicitly referred to my behavior of over
>a decade earlier, when he told "el cid":
>
> "Peter resembles a typical creationist in some respects. For one
> thing, he is willing to accept the flimsiest evidence for any
> hypothesis he likes, but requires absurd heights of proof
> for any he doesn't. I suspect you would have to build a
> protein-based ribosome to satisfy him."
>Subject: Re: The futility of Intelligent Desgin
>Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:21 -0800
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/k94BiWTRmc0J
>
>Either that, or Harshman's "opinion" of me was made up on the
>spur of the moment, without any overt behavior of mine on
>which to base it.

There's no reference there by John Harshman about insults from decades
ago. Are you on drugs?

>Note the bit about "protein-based ribosome": that was the only
>thing about which I had shown any real skepticism in the
>previous week [the first time I posted to t.o. in almost a
>decade]. This was el cid's claim, "Give me five years and
>five million dollars and I will produce a protein
>ribosome."
>
>However, a good while later, Harshman not only
>denied having ever seen that exchange; not only did he
>claim that if he had seen it, he would have strongly
>debated el cid, telling him of its impossibility, given the
>current state of knowledge....
>
>...he also out and out lied that his statement
>was based on my "disbelief" about something else, something
>about which I had shown NO skepticism AT ALL up to that point.
>
>I've brought this matter up to Harshman quite a few
>times since then, and each time he either indulged in
>deceit to avoid the issue, or ran away altogether.
>The last time was last week, and he at first accused
>me of a "fantasy" and then ran away when pressed.
>
>And, as long as he continues to shirk responsibility for
>his abominable behavior, I will keep bringing this lie of his,
>and the behavior that led up to it, to his attention.

Thanks for proving my point once again, and so spectacularly. I bet
you hate it when you do that.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:50:35 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> >> Nobody else drags out imagined insults from decades ago.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, they do; when Paul Gans was a staunch ally of one of the
> >earlier re-inventings of the "jillery" persona, backed

> >Mitchell Coffey when he dredged up imagined behavior by

> >me from 2000-2001 in order to launch vicious, indefensible attacks on me
> >with trumped up charges of me "defending a Holocaust Denier".
>
>
> Now you get to prove that what Paul Gans "dredged up" were insults,
> imagined or otherwise.

Re-read what I wrote. Paul Gans merely approved of the imagined
insults to the intelligence of all t.o. participants that
Mitchell Coffey dredged up.

> >And John Harshman implicitly referred to my behavior of over
> >a decade earlier, when he told "el cid":
> >
> > "Peter resembles a typical creationist in some respects. For one
> > thing, he is willing to accept the flimsiest evidence for any
> > hypothesis he likes, but requires absurd heights of proof
> > for any he doesn't. I suspect you would have to build a
> > protein-based ribosome to satisfy him."
> >Subject: Re: The futility of Intelligent Desgin
> >Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:21 -0800
> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/k94BiWTRmc0J
> >
> >Either that, or Harshman's "opinion" of me was made up on the
> >spur of the moment, without any overt behavior of mine on
> >which to base it.
>
>
> There's no reference there by John Harshman about insults from decades
> ago.

Again, the only way that what Harshman wrote could be defended
from a moral perspective is if he dredged up insults to the
intelligence of all readers with the behavior he alleged by me.

> Are you on drugs?

No, but it would not surprise me if you thought anyone who
looks at things from a moral perspective is on drugs, or worse.
I could quote to you an ancient Zen saying which spells out
the "or worse," if you are curious.

> >Note the bit about "protein-based ribosome": that was the only
> >thing about which I had shown any real skepticism in the
> >previous week [the first time I posted to t.o. in almost a
> >decade]. This was el cid's claim, "Give me five years and
> >five million dollars and I will produce a protein
> >ribosome."
> >
> >However, a good while later, Harshman not only
> >denied having ever seen that exchange; not only did he
> >claim that if he had seen it, he would have strongly
> >debated el cid, telling him of its impossibility, given the
> >current state of knowledge....
> >
> >...he also out and out lied that his statement
> >was based on my "disbelief" about something else, something
> >about which I had shown NO skepticism AT ALL up to that point.
> >
> >I've brought this matter up to Harshman quite a few
> >times since then, and each time he either indulged in
> >deceit to avoid the issue, or ran away altogether.
> >The last time was last week, and he at first accused
> >me of a "fantasy" and then ran away when pressed.
> >
> >And, as long as he continues to shirk responsibility for
> >his abominable behavior, I will keep bringing this lie of his,
> >and the behavior that led up to it, to his attention.
>
>
> Thanks for proving my point once again, and so spectacularly. I bet
> you hate it when you do that.

I am merely amused when you flatter yourself over such imagined
"proofs" with no real attempt at justifying that claim, let alone
the "spectacularly" bit.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:50:35 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>> >> Nobody else drags out imagined insults from decades ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, they do; when Paul Gans was a staunch ally of one of the
>> >earlier re-inventings of the "jillery" persona, backed
>> >Mitchell Coffey when he dredged up imagined behavior by
>> >me from 2000-2001 in order to launch vicious, indefensible attacks on me
>> >with trumped up charges of me "defending a Holocaust Denier".
>>
>>
>> Now you get to prove that what Paul Gans "dredged up" were insults,
>> imagined or otherwise.
>
>Re-read what I wrote. Paul Gans merely approved of the imagined
>insults to the intelligence of all t.o. participants that
>Mitchell Coffey dredged up.

Do you really think that makes any difference? Oh wait... you're the
guy who insists there's a difference between sonar and echolocation...
never mind.

>> >And John Harshman implicitly referred to my behavior of over
>> >a decade earlier, when he told "el cid":
>> >
>> > "Peter resembles a typical creationist in some respects. For one
>> > thing, he is willing to accept the flimsiest evidence for any
>> > hypothesis he likes, but requires absurd heights of proof
>> > for any he doesn't. I suspect you would have to build a
>> > protein-based ribosome to satisfy him."
>> >Subject: Re: The futility of Intelligent Desgin
>> >Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:21 -0800
>> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/k94BiWTRmc0J
>> >
>> >Either that, or Harshman's "opinion" of me was made up on the
>> >spur of the moment, without any overt behavior of mine on
>> >which to base it.
>>
>>
>> There's no reference there by John Harshman about insults from decades
>> ago.
>
>Again, the only way that what Harshman wrote could be defended
>from a moral perspective is if he dredged up insults to the
>intelligence of all readers with the behavior he alleged by me.

Then it's too bad you didn't specify moral perspectives instead of
insults. Even then, your cite identifies only then recent issues.

>> Are you on drugs?
>
>No, but it would not surprise me if you thought anyone who
>looks at things from a moral perspective is on drugs, or worse.
>I could quote to you an ancient Zen saying which spells out
>the "or worse," if you are curious.

I could quote you all kinds of sayings about people who think they are
the final authority on morality. I don't really care if you're

So, you copy from posts that you claim illustrate other posters
dragging in imagined insults from long ago. Then it turns out they
show nothing of the kind. Instead, your illustrations are themselves
examples of you dragging in imagined insults into this thread. And
somehow you insist that's not proof of what I just said.

Given that, Harshman was wrong. It wouldn't matter if I built a
protein-based ribosome for you. It's almost certain you're in
drug-induced denial.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I would agree, but that might be taken as evidence I'm going even
further off the cliff into psychic oblivion. Peter thumbs through the
pages of the DSM as we speak.

[erik simpson]

Compared to the current rubbish density on TO, psychic oblivion doesn't seem
all that unattractive. I wonder too what's up with Roger Shrubber, but there
are lots of reasons anyone would abandon this group, most of them sensible.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:00:36 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/15 5:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:45:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/21/15 4:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:25:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/15 3:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:50:36 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/21/15 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>>> Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
> >>>>>>> argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
> >>>>>>> Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
> >>>>>> Gene Scott; that much is known. I doubt Ray even knows who Churchward was.

[restoration:]
> >>>>>> [snip pointless repost]
[end of restoration, followed by Ray's reply:]

> >>>>> Haven't cited or referenced Dr. Scott for any claim during the past 10 years or so.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you know about James Churchward?
> >>>
> >>> Never heard of him until Peter brought him up a few weeks ago.
> >>
> >> That's what I thought.
> >
> > Awwww...isn't that sweet? Johnny and Ray-Ray, who elsewhere in the
> > thread have behaved like spoiled brats, are here exchanging information
> > as politely as any good little boys could be asked to do.
> >
> > And in his next post, Johnny went on to play Miss Manners in reply
> > to the big ogre who has been so mean to Johnny and Ray-Ray elsewhere
> > on this thread.
> >
> > I expect Johnny and Ray-Ray to behave towards each other like this
> > in the future whenever they come together, like the little angels
> > their mommies and daddies tried to teach them to be.
>
> Does it bother you at all -- indeed, have you even noticed -- that
> whatever peccadilloes have been committed by others in this exchange
> have just been rendered insignificant in comparison to your own
> contribution?

Like jillery, you've completely missed the point of my sarcasm.
Did her shameless quote-mining prevent you from attentively reading the
actual content of the John-Ray exchange?

Let's take it from the top. First, Harshman makes a ridiculous claim
of something he could not possibly have known, and even embellishes
it with the claim that it IS known:

Ray gets all his ideas from Gene Scott; that much is known.

Instead of challenging Harshman's claim, Ray indulges in a devious
misdirection:

Haven't cited or referenced Dr. Scott for any claim during the
past 10 years or so.

Ernest Major picked up on the obvious fallacy in a direct reply to Ray,
and yet he was completely ignored by everyone, including you and jillery.

As for Harshman, he completely ignored the fallacy that was the ONLY
thing Ray had to say to him in that round. Harshman instead changed
the subject to the hobbyhorse that he is *really* interested in:

What do you know about James Churchward?

That was the only thing Harshman added in his reply.

In short, "Johnny" and "Ray-Ray" were each turning a blind eye towards
the other's misbehavior. THAT is the point of the first and third
paragraphs of my sarcastic comments.

I'll give you a chance to show that you can be on the ball after all:
take a look at the post that I am talking about in my second sarcastic
paragraph, and look at the Harshman post to which it refers.

First, look at the two-line Miss Manners spiel beginning with
"You could ask." Can you see how he missed the point of the word
"KNOWN" that immediately preceded it?

Second, to really test your aptitude:

Compare what Harshman is writing in his "Miss Manners" two-liner with
the following excerpt from my first post quoted up there:

So I may not have been off the mark when I asked Ray about
Churchward's Lost Continent of Mu. You thought I was,
or at least pretended to think I was.

Harshman may have the umbrage he took at that second sentence
to use as his excuse for snarkily snipping the whole paragraph as
"pointless" (see restoration just before Ray's misdirection)

...BUT...

...let's see whether you have the aptitude to figure out how
my first sentence blows his Miss Manners spiel out of
the water.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Yes it does mean that. Your implication of plagiarism simply indicates how desperate you are to poison-the-well.

Recently I told John Harshman that I never even heard Dr. Scott say anything about age of earth except on one occasion, something to the effect that the Fundamentalist position doesn't deserve any consideration at all. Dr. Scott had a 30 year public teaching career. He spent about 9 months of that 30 years teaching on the falsity of evolution in 2001. You can write to the ministry and receive information on how to purchase these messages.

> You claim to be taking your ideas of species immutabilism from
> early 19th century science, but you haven't offered any reason for us to
> believe that what they meant by immutable is the same as what you mean
> by immutable.

Where did you obtain the idea of a difference? Of course you have no answer. You're just a bored and angry Evolutionist who has nothing to do except make ridiculous and nefarious assumptions then feed them to your opponents hoping they will bite.

> It's unlikely that they would have held a position that
> was falsified by simple observation.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0x646kbmbhI/1_OfOzbABQAJ

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

Welcome aboard the bandwagon of people in (psychic?) oblivion to
what Ernest Major wrote, and also to the actual point of my
sarcasm preserved above. Perhaps Hemidactylus is too far gone to
comprehend my long reply to Mark Isaak less than an hour ago,
but *you* might still be able to stir enough brain cells into action.

> I wonder too what's up with Roger Shrubber,

Wait...are you posting to the wrong thread? Roger Shrubber is being
missed on another thread that was begun by Rolf--in the mistaken
belief that Shrubber actually played a big role in refuting Ray's
interminable falsehoods.

> but there
> are lots of reasons anyone would abandon this group, most of them sensible.

Yes, Harshman has nicely stepped into the shoes of Roger Shrubber as
the person doing "Ray-Ray" the biggest favors in talk.origins.

Incidentally, Erik, in case you ARE in the thread that you intended
to be in ...

In re the OP, I've never accused either you or Richard Norman of dishonesty,
and hope never to have to. You both do, however, show an unseemly amount of
favoritism towards Harshman at times. Yet, despite that, you two
(especially Richard) are so level-headed at most other times, that I am
impelled by my sense of fair play to characterize you two
(especially Richard) as being "level-headed on the whole."

I hope you don't take that last comment as "the kiss of death." :-)

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 3:50:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:00:36 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 10/22/15 5:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:45:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 10/21/15 4:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:25:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/21/15 3:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:50:36 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 10/21/15 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
> > >>>>>>> argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
> > >>>>>>> Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
> > >>>>>> Gene Scott; that much is known. I doubt Ray even knows who Churchward was.
>
> [restoration:]
> > >>>>>> [snip pointless repost]
> [end of restoration, followed by Ray's reply:]
>
> > >>>>> Haven't cited or referenced Dr. Scott for any claim during the past 10 years or so.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do you know about James Churchward?
> > >>>
> > >>> Never heard of him until Peter brought him up a few weeks ago.
> > >>
> > >> That's what I thought.
> > >
> > > Awwww...isn't that sweet? Johnny and Ray-Ray, who elsewhere in the
> > > thread have behaved like spoiled brats, are here exchanging information
> > > as politely as any good little boys could be asked to do.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just saw this!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carry on Peter, carry on.....

Ray

[erik simpson]

Your faith in my 'level-headedness' is touching. I posted where I intended to
post. But I do find your current tirades weird. What IS the fascination with
Ray and his strange worldview?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Don't know the original use of the term before it got bastardized by
charlatans? I'm taking it back.

> oblivion to
> what Ernest Major wrote, and also to the actual point of my
> sarcasm preserved above. Perhaps Hemidactylus is too far gone to
> comprehend my long reply to Mark Isaak less than an hour ago,
> but *you* might still be able to stir enough brain cells into action.

My lone remaining brain cell tells me you are as toxic as you were in
the 90s. And that you are incompetent to diagnose others. Physician heal
thyself.

>> I wonder too what's up with Roger Shrubber,
>
> Wait...are you posting to the wrong thread? Roger Shrubber is being
> missed on another thread that was begun by Rolf--in the mistaken
> belief that Shrubber actually played a big role in refuting Ray's
> interminable falsehoods.
>
>> but there
>> are lots of reasons anyone would abandon this group, most of them sensible.
>
> Yes, Harshman has nicely stepped into the shoes of Roger Shrubber as
> the person doing "Ray-Ray" the biggest favors in talk.origins.
>
> Incidentally, Erik, in case you ARE in the thread that you intended
> to be in ...
>
> In re the OP, I've never accused either you or Richard Norman of dishonesty,
> and hope never to have to.

Not yet anyhow.

> You both do, however, show an unseemly amount of
> favoritism towards Harshman at times. Yet, despite that, you two
> (especially Richard) are so level-headed at most other times, that I am
> impelled by my sense of fair play to characterize you two
> (especially Richard) as being "level-headed on the whole."
>
> I hope you don't take that last comment as "the kiss of death." :-)

And yet another post devoted to personalities and not topics. No
surprise there. What do I know. I am batshit crazy.

[jillery]

That's not it. Speaking for myself, I recognized your self-serving
dishonesty masquerading as sarcasm, and replied accordingly. My
impression is Isaak responded similarly.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/22/2015 06:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip]

> In short, "Johnny" and "Ray-Ray" were each turning a blind eye towards
> the other's misbehavior. THAT is the point of the first and third
> paragraphs of my sarcastic comments.

Are "Johnny" and "Ray-Ray" caricatures of t.o. regulars or characters
from classic episodes of Hee-Haw? I'm half expecting some banjo playing
on the bayou here.

[*Hemidactylus*]

He's got me pegged as clinically insane because I respond to him in ways
I feel he deserves out of a sense of retributive justice or other times
I'm mocking the social ineptitude depending on what day it is. Maybe
some naive people tend to take his crap seriously and respond as they
see fit and it burns at his inner core. Others who are on to his
shenanigans know not to take him seriously and mock him and like Sheldon
Cooper he fails to "get it" and that burns too. His blind spots. Our
entertainment.

And that so many people get pissed at him or just cattle prod him out of
spite for so many subjectively relevant reasons is not proof of
conspiracy or collusion, but a common causal nexus at play which
emanates from his general direction (self-generated). It's been that way
as far back as I can recall. He builds lists out of ink blots and cloud
"patterns".

If he gets at the root cause of his problems (one could only hope),
maybe the reconciliation and healing process can start.
Otherwise...nothing but ridicule and mockery as he deserves.

[jillery]

Just noting the true nature of his posts offers plenty of ridicule and
mockery. You can't make up this stuff. And replying to him helps to
keep him from shooting strangers. That makes it a valuable public
service.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And agreement is not collusion or conspiracy. If it is really cold
outside we might both be wearing jackets. That doesn't mean we made a
secret agreement to do so behind closed doors. It's that we share a
common environment and converged upon a similar solution. Our tolerance
for cold might differ, but at some point warmth is important.

> And replying to him helps to
> keep him from shooting strangers. That makes it a valuable public
> service.

Yes.

[Ernest Major]

You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
cunning evader. There is no implication of plagiarism. Plagiarism
requires that you take someone else ideas and claim them as you own.

> Recently I told John Harshman that I never even heard Dr. Scott say anything about age of earth except on one occasion, something to the effect that the Fundamentalist position doesn't deserve any consideration at all. Dr. Scott had a 30 year public teaching career. He spent about 9 months of that 30 years teaching on the falsity of evolution in 2001. You can write to the ministry and receive information on how to purchase these messages.

You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
cunning evader. Claiming that you never heard Gene Scott saying anything
about the age of the earth is a red herring - it has nothing to do with
whether you got your ideas of species immutability from him.

>
>> You claim to be taking your ideas of species immutabilism from
>> early 19th century science, but you haven't offered any reason for us to
>> believe that what they meant by immutable is the same as what you mean
>> by immutable.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea of a difference? Of course you have no answer. You're just a bored and angry Evolutionist who has nothing to do except make ridiculous and nefarious assumptions then feed them to your opponents hoping they will bite.

You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
cunning evader. Any literate person can tell that I gave the answer that
you claim I don't have in the paragraph following the paragraph you
responded to.

A second source for suspecting a difference is you don't quote the
people you claim to have taken the idea from directly, but instead quote
a broad-brush description of their position by Darwin.

>
>> It's unlikely that they would have held a position that
>> was falsified by simple observation.
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0x646kbmbhI/1_OfOzbABQAJ
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

Correction - in the same paragraph. I hadn't noticed that Ray had split
my one paragraph into three so that he could respond to the component
sentences in isolation.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

> You're morally authoritative as

...you cannot be, since you are habitually immoral.

> a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you took scripture the
LEAST BIT seriously, you would realize that this account is the
ONLY passage you could possibly use to advance your benighted
position that Jesus considered capital punishment to be murder.

As it is, everything else in the Bible suggests that he did NOT
consider it to be murder. In the thread where you
invested [1] an enormous amount of mendacity in support of your
allegation that the Inquisitors were murderers, you completely
capitulated [2] in reply to a post where I cited a Biblical
passage that you COULD HAVE, BUT DID NOT, try to blunt [3] by
the case of "the woman taken in adultery [4]:

____________________excerpt____________________________________

legal execution is a well
established part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The innumerable
capital offenses in the Torah (Pentateuch) are well known.

As for the New Testament, Jesus NEVER said anything explicit about
capital punishment one way or the other, but there is one saying recorded
in all three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) that is relevant
to how he may have felt about it. This is where he says that for anyone
who causes "these little ones" to sin, it were better for him if
a millstone were hanged around his neck and he were cast into the sea.
[Luke 17:2; Mark 9:42; Matthew 18:6].

While this falls short of showing Jesus *approved* of capital
punishment if done under the right circumstances, it certainly
makes it implausible that he *condemned* it.
================== end of excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

[1] the past tense is there because you abandoned that thread on
October 20 in the wake of a post by jillery, the last in the thread,
which ended thus:

[you:]
3. The New Testament says they are murderers.

[jillery:]
Again, cite and be specific.

You can't do it, can you?

[2] You replied to the post in which I wrote about the millstone, etc.
completely ignoring what I had said and launching into a completely
different topic:

"The secular world routinely dismisses Christianity. For example,
they observe Christians who have committed murder. Yet in this
topic the secularists and/or Atheists insist the murderers
are Christians."

"in this topic" is how you labeled your benighted contention that
that the Inquisitors were NOT Christians on the SOLE grounds
that (as you ALLEGED) the Inquisitors were murderers, and that
no one can be a murderer and follow Jesus Christ.

[3] You can only blunt it, because if the people had actually
stoned the woman, that would have constituted lynching, and NOT
capital punishment, under the law that prevailed at the time.

Are you sufficiently ignorant of the NT that this comes as news to you?

[4] The people testing Jesus ALLEGED that the woman was taken
in adultery. And there are good reasons for suspecting them of
lying, but you care so little about scriptural scholarship
that you probably haven't a clue as to why this might be so.

Continued in next post to this thread, to be done as soon as I see this
one has posted.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

Repeating one line for context:

> > > Since Peter has accused almost everyone of dishonesty,

<snip things dealt with earlier>

> > > including many of his fellow Atheists,
> >
> > A falsehood which you need to retract or be convicted of
> > an out and out lie in a completely different matter:
> >
>
> Off the top of my head you've accused the following Atheist-Evolutionists of dishonesty:

"fellow Atheists" is the falsehood to which I was referring, and the
context below shows that. Your list is a red herring and only scratches
the surface of your OTHER falsehood that I've accused "almost everyone"
in t.o. of dishonesty.

<snip of red herring, to be dealt with in a separate post>


> > _________________excerpt, jillery first, then you_____________________
> >
> > > > Identify these secular voices who say the Inquisitors were
> > > > murderers... besides yourself, of course.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Every person in this debate, including yourself.
> >
> > Either you do not consider me to be a secular voice, in which
> > case common decency dictates that you withdraw the claim
> > that I am an Atheist; or else you have just told an out and out lie.

You blithely disregarded this warning below.

> > > If not, what were the Inquisitors, Jill?
> >
> > Your allegation covers me, Ray, and I say, as
> > I have consistently said, that the Inquisitors delivered
> > up the guilty heretics to be NOT MURDERED, but legally
> > executed.
> >
>
> Once agreed upon this distinction would immediately be lost.

With that sentence and the one that follows, you show how hollow your
taunt was about my moral authoritativeness. [See the preceding reply
to this same post of yours.] Like the worst of atheists,
you base your moral evaluations on "the popular perception":

> The Inquisitors then revert back to the popular perception:
> murderers and Christians.

Irrelevant, even were it true: you have gone on record as
wholeheartedly and repeatedly alleging that they WERE murderers.

Worse for you, you even claimed the NT held them to be that way.
But you folded when jillery called your bluff on October 20,
as I explained in my preceding reply to this same post of yours.

> > You are free to disagree with me on this, but you MAY NOT,
> > without violating Jesus's commandment against bearing false
> > witness, claim that I think the Inquisitors were murderers.
>
> You do believe them murderers.

And so you disregard the warning I gave about false witness!
And you still claim to be a follower of Jesus?!?

Is there no lie to which you will not stoop?

>That's why you posted a reference establishing them Christians
> early on until you saw my refutation arguments.

With obvious dishonesty, you change the issue completely from
"they were murderers" to "they were Christians".

And you are only painting yourself into a corner on THIS thread
by bragging about "refutation arguments" which depend on the
NT saying they were murderers, as outlined in my preceding reply
to this same post of yours.

> >
> > Therefore, I demand a retraction from you.

You have stood by out and out lie, that I consider the Inquisitors
to be murderers, and now I demand a retraction of THAT.

As for your perennial falsehood that I am an Atheist, I demand
that you tell me whether you consider me to be a "secular voice"
as you implied to jillery. I'll deal with your perennial falsehood
again, separately, later.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/23/15 9:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> You're morally authoritative as
>
> ...you cannot be, since you are habitually immoral.

You're quoting Matthew 7 here?

>> a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the
>> account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.
>
> This would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you took scripture the
> LEAST BIT seriously, you would realize that this account is the
> ONLY passage you could possibly use to advance your benighted
> position that Jesus considered capital punishment to be murder.
>
> As it is, everything else in the Bible suggests that he did NOT
> consider it to be murder.

I guess all that stuff about forgiveness and loving one's enemy came
from a different book. Do you happen to know what book that would be?

[Mark Isaak]

And they deserve praise for doing so.

> I'll give you a chance to show that you can be on the ball after all:
> take a look at the post that I am talking about in my second sarcastic
> paragraph, and look at the Harshman post to which it refers.
>
> First, look at the two-line Miss Manners spiel beginning with
> "You could ask." Can you see how he missed the point of the word
> "KNOWN" that immediately preceded it?
>
> Second, to really test your aptitude:
>
> Compare what Harshman is writing in his "Miss Manners" two-liner with
> the following excerpt from my first post quoted up there:
>
> So I may not have been off the mark when I asked Ray about
> Churchward's Lost Continent of Mu. You thought I was,
> or at least pretended to think I was.
>
> Harshman may have the umbrage he took at that second sentence
> to use as his excuse for snarkily snipping the whole paragraph as
> "pointless" (see restoration just before Ray's misdirection)
>
> ...BUT...
>
> ...let's see whether you have the aptitude to figure out how
> my first sentence blows his Miss Manners spiel out of
> the water.
>
> Peter Nyikos

So your answer to my question is, No, you did not notice that your
contribution rendered their behavior insignificant in comparison. In
fact, you act to make it even more insignificant.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 1:55:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/23/15 9:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> You're morally authoritative as
> >
> > ...you cannot be, since you are habitually immoral.
>
> You're quoting Matthew 7 here?

More like the part of John 8 that follows the "taken in adultery" scene.

> >> a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the
> >> account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.
> >
> > This would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you took scripture the
> > LEAST BIT seriously, you would realize that this account is the
> > ONLY passage you could possibly use to advance your benighted
> > position that Jesus considered capital punishment to be murder.
> >
> > As it is, everything else in the Bible suggests that he did NOT
> > consider it to be murder.

Do YOU think Jesus considered it to be murder, or are you
trying to avoid committing yourself on this issue?

Your snippage of my long justification suggests that the following
sarcastic comment is an attempt to eat your cake and have it too.

> I guess all that stuff about forgiveness and loving one's enemy came
> from a different book. Do you happen to know what book that would be?

Are you confusing loving and forgiving someone with letting him get off
scot-free no matter what he does?

Are you imposing an atheistic world view which considers capital
punishment to mean the end of everything for the person involved?

Read I Corinthians 5 for another dimension to the Christian
concept of love and forgiveness, that takes into account the
Christian belief (which Jesus obviously shared) in a life after death.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/23/15 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 1:55:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/23/15 9:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're morally authoritative as
>>>
>>> ...you cannot be, since you are habitually immoral.
>>
>> You're quoting Matthew 7 here?
>
> More like the part of John 8 that follows the "taken in adultery" scene.

Yes, I can see that now. Particularly the part saying, "I do not judge
any man at all".

>>>> a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the
>>>> account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.
>>>
>>> This would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you took scripture the
>>> LEAST BIT seriously, you would realize that this account is the
>>> ONLY passage you could possibly use to advance your benighted
>>> position that Jesus considered capital punishment to be murder.
>>>
>>> As it is, everything else in the Bible suggests that he did NOT
>>> consider it to be murder.
>
> Do YOU think Jesus considered it to be murder, or are you
> trying to avoid committing yourself on this issue?
>
> Your snippage of my long justification suggests that the following
> sarcastic comment is an attempt to eat your cake and have it too.
>
>> I guess all that stuff about forgiveness and loving one's enemy came
>> from a different book. Do you happen to know what book that would be?
>
> Are you confusing loving and forgiving someone with letting him get off
> scot-free no matter what he does?

I am saying that the death penalty is incompatible with loving and
forgiveness.

> Are you imposing an atheistic world view which considers capital
> punishment to mean the end of everything for the person involved?

I am not imposing anything. But certainly the person involved should
have a right to impose such a world view if it applied to him. You do
not gain the right to commit homicide by dint of believing in life after
death for your victim. That sort of arguing can justify any atrocity
imaginable.

> Read I Corinthians 5 for another dimension to the Christian
> concept of love and forgiveness, that takes into account the
> Christian belief (which Jesus obviously shared) in a life after death.

I didn't see much love and forgiveness there.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:10:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/23/15 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 1:55:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/23/15 9:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 3:10:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You're morally authoritative as
> >>>
> >>> ...you cannot be, since you are habitually immoral.
> >>
> >> You're quoting Matthew 7 here?
> >
> > More like the part of John 8 that follows the "taken in adultery" scene.
>
> Yes, I can see that now. Particularly the part saying, "I do not judge
> any man at all".

But *immediately* he says, "And even if I should judge, my judgment
is valid..."

And later on, it appears that he is judging in any sense a non-Christian
critic of Christianity, such as you, would call "judgmental":

43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot
bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your
will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is
no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature,
for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8: 43-44.

I do my best to find a reasonable blend of following Jesus's example
and following his sermons, and with Ray Martinez having so little
truth in him (or, rather, in what his posts to talk.origins) and
few people willing to charge him with deliberate lies [yourself
not among them, right?], I will continue as I have done.

The only way to stop me is either for someone to explain
how otherwise to account for the torrent of falsehoods that Ray
pours out in thread after thread, or for more people to acknowledge
that Ray is a shameless liar.

> >>>> a Victorian madam who kept a Bible on premises bookmarked to the
> >>>> account of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus.
> >>>
> >>> This would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you took scripture the
> >>> LEAST BIT seriously, you would realize that this account is the
> >>> ONLY passage you could possibly use to advance your benighted
> >>> position that Jesus considered capital punishment to be murder.
> >>>
> >>> As it is, everything else in the Bible suggests that he did NOT
> >>> consider it to be murder.
> >
> > Do YOU think Jesus considered it to be murder, or are you
> > trying to avoid committing yourself on this issue?
> >
> > Your snippage of my long justification suggests that the following
> > sarcastic comment is an attempt to eat your cake and have it too.
> >
> >> I guess all that stuff about forgiveness and loving one's enemy came
> >> from a different book. Do you happen to know what book that would be?
> >
> > Are you confusing loving and forgiving someone with letting him get off
> > scot-free no matter what he does?
>
> I am saying that the death penalty is incompatible with loving and
> forgiveness.

Why?

> > Are you imposing an atheistic world view which considers capital
> > punishment to mean the end of everything for the person involved?
>
> I am not imposing anything.

In that case, my "Why?" speaks to an impenetrable mystery that
only a candid answer from your can dispel.

> But certainly the person involved should >
> have a right to impose such a world view if it applied to him. You do
> not gain the right to commit homicide by dint of believing in life after
> death for your victim.

You are belaboring the obvious here to such an extent that
it seems you know next to nothing about the Christian world view.

>That sort of arguing can justify any atrocity
> imaginable.

I probably know that better than you do.

> > Read I Corinthians 5 for another dimension to the Christian
> > concept of love and forgiveness, that takes into account the
> > Christian belief (which Jesus obviously shared) in a life after death.
>
> I didn't see much love and forgiveness there.

From an atheistic POV, that goes without saying. But we aren't
talking about atheistic concepts of love and forgiveness, but
Christian concepts. Note especially verse 5:

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of
the Lord Jesus.

"Satan" here is used metaphorically to mean the secular world,
where the peculiar form of adultery and incest (a man having
sexual relations with his stepmother) may have been a capital
crime; and "saved" refers to the way the resulting sentence might cause
the person to repent and gain eternal happiness. This is how
at least one Catholic biblical commentary interprets this verse,
and I've seen no Christian commentary that would contradict it.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:10:32 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 23/10/2015 00:30, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 3:10:37 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> On 21/10/2015 23:16, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:50:36 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/15 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>> Fact is, Churchward once actually gave an amateurish "biological"
> >>>>> argument for species immutabilism. And, who knows, that may also be
> >>>>> Ray's "scientific" argument that he is keeping under lock and key.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unwarranted speculation based on nothing. Ray gets all his ideas from
> >>>> Gene Scott; that much is known. I doubt Ray even knows who Churchward was.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Haven't cited or referenced Dr. Scott for any claim during the past 10 years or so.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >>
> >> Even if true, that wouldn't mean that you don't take your ideas from
> >> him.
> >
> > Yes it does mean that. Your implication of plagiarism simply indicates how desperate you are to poison-the-well.
> >
>
> You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
> cunning evader. There is no implication of plagiarism. Plagiarism
> requires that you take someone else ideas and claim them as you own.

I guess I'd better explain "diabolically"; I did not mean any great
degree of cleverness, but rather great twistedness and perversity.

In oral arguments against some people, a lot of what Ray does would be
quite cleverly cunning. A lot of what he writes is so outrageous, it
could leave someone spluttering with confusion, or shouting angrily.
This would give Ray the upper hand, since he seems to take delight
in his twisteness, and so could easily remain calm and smiling as
he informs the other person that he is getting too emotional to be
worth reasoning with.

But even here, note that he diverted you by his outrageous accusation,
and you were so busy refuting this red herring that you didn't press
him on the illogic of what he had written.

And it almost goes without saying that John Harshman isn't going to
do it for you. You salvaged what could be salvaged from his ridiculous
claim about what we supposedly all know, and gratitude and Harshman
have seldom been seen keeping each other company, so to speak.

> > Recently I told John Harshman that I never even heard Dr. Scott say anything about age of earth except on one occasion, something to the effect that the Fundamentalist position doesn't deserve any consideration at all. Dr. Scott had a 30 year public teaching career. He spent about 9 months of that 30 years teaching on the falsity of evolution in 2001. You can write to the ministry and receive information on how to purchase these messages.
>
> You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
> cunning evader. Claiming that you never heard Gene Scott saying anything
> about the age of the earth is a red herring - it has nothing to do with
> whether you got your ideas of species immutability from him.

You go on doing Harshman favors, by ignoring his "all" as in "all his
ideas," but I don't expect an ounce of gratitude from him for this.

> >> You claim to be taking your ideas of species immutabilism from
> >> early 19th century science,

...or, rather, from what Darwin said about early 19th century scienTISTS.
I never saw any other foundation for Ray's "ideas" [actually just a
naked two-word idea, no?] on species immutabilism except the Bible, and
he adamantly refused to explain how he interprets the Bible to say that.

> >> but you haven't offered any reason for us to
> >> believe that what they meant by immutable is the same as what you mean
> >> by immutable.
> >
> > Where did you obtain the idea of a difference? Of course you have no answer. You're just a bored and angry Evolutionist who has nothing to do except make ridiculous and nefarious assumptions then feed them to your opponents hoping they will bite.
>
> You shouldn't believe Peter when he describes you as a diabolically
> cunning evader. Any literate person can tell that I gave the answer that
> you claim I don't have in the paragraph following the paragraph you
> responded to.

You mean the last words you had written below? That's just your
opinion, and you offered no description of what you thought to
be a different viewpoint.

> A second source for suspecting a difference is you don't quote the
> people you claim to have taken the idea from directly, but instead quote
> a broad-brush description of their position by Darwin.
> >
> >> It's unlikely that they would have held a position that
> >> was falsified by simple observation.
> >>
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0x646kbmbhI/1_OfOzbABQAJ

Yup, the linked quote is all I've seen from him by way of "Victorian science,"
as corrected above.

And the theme of what Ray did or did not learn from Gene Scott has been
evaded by him, without any direct denial of having gotten the idea of
species immutabilism from Scott, by him telling you to "go pay
for your own research," in effect.

By the way, don't be surprised if Ray doesn't return to this thread.
He can always claim later on that he didn't see anything in this
reply of yours that was worth addressing, or even that he never
saw your last reply to him at all.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

No evasion at all. You never asked. And I have answered by way of a separate topic titled "Source of Immutabilism" which can be found here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0x646kbmbhI/1_OfOzbABQAJ

So Dr. Scott was not a source. Have anymore questions? Go ahead, I will be happy to answer.

>
> By the way, don't be surprised if Ray doesn't return to this thread.
> He can always claim later on that he didn't see anything in this
> reply of yours that was worth addressing, or even that he never
> saw your last reply to him at all.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Ray