Paul Gans as Merovingian King of talk.origins

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.

His once formidable mind has greatly weakened with age, his once-powerful
instinct for going back to the original sources has failed him:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.medieval/uGSXQlr7VIM/rDLBHzxBlNgJ

and he has even had to change his story over why he failed to go back
to the source documents:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/WOXo37j1_CkJ

Even his new story does not stand up to scrutiny, but his original story
was so false as to be bizarre, even pathological:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/u2RRHjnEYOkJ

[Details in later posts.]

Still, he is not as powerless as Childeric III, last of the Merovingian
kings. He still has faithful minions to serve him, some even at the cost
of their own reputation and/or integrity, such as the erratic jillery--
see the post linked just now, or the following:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/UV6zXgMh6KEJ

and the poor schlemiel Mitchell Coffey:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!original/talk.origins/SlPybG8mPUI/_BQA60cimbYJ

But the real power in talk.origins passed years ago to John Harshman, the t.o.
analogue of the Mayor of the Palace. He has even been known to reprimand
Gans, who endured without murmur the last time I witnessed it happening.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/5/14, 10:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Judging by the quantity of posts, you seem to prefer this bullshit to
actual discussions of evolution, creationism, and other on-topic stuff. Why?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:01:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/5/14, 10:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Judging by the quantity of posts, you seem to prefer this bullshit to

Your word "bullshit" suggests that you doubt the truth of what I wrote.
Is that indeed the case?

> actual discussions of evolution, creationism, and other on-topic stuff. Why?

It's a temporary thing, John. I'll be getting more heavily back to on-topic stuff before long.

Anyway, even today, while writing heavily about the dynamics of talk.origins
and soc.history.medieval, I HAVE replied to Shrubber on the subject of
directed panspermia, clarifying something about which a number of people,
including yourself, got the wrong idea [my mention of tardigrades]:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/SlPybG8mPUI/yAzvsaRi1g8J

Ironically, that was right on the other thread which started out
in a similar way to this one.

Rather than replying to that post here, how about replying on the thread
where I made it? Nobody has done so yet, and I've looked less than
ten minutes ago to see whether anyone had.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

If you really believe that Paul Gans is suffering from senility, then this
silly ragging on him is despicable. If you don't believe he's so suffering,
then I leave it to you to supply an adjective for this nonsense.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, May 5, 2014 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:39:41 AM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
> > the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.

> > His once formidable mind has greatly weakened with age, his once-powerful
> > instinct for going back to the original sources has failed him:
> >
>
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.medieval/uGSXQlr7VIM/rDLBHzxBlNgJ

> > and he has even had to change his story over why he failed to go back
> > to the source documents:

> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/WOXo37j1_CkJ

> > Even his new story does not stand up to scrutiny, but his original story
> > was so false as to be bizarre, even pathological:

> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/u2RRHjnEYOkJ

<snip for focus>

> If you really believe that Paul Gans is suffering from senility, then this
> silly ragging on him is despicable.

It is a hypothesis I am considering, along with the old fashioned
hypothesis that he is pathologically dishonest and insincere,
[yes, my"pathological" can be interpreted both ways]
which has been a very viable hypothesis ever since we first
encountered each other in 1995.

I'd be a sucker if I let go of the latter hypothesis without a lot
of evidence for the former.

> If you don't believe he's so suffering,
> then I leave it to you to supply an adjective for this nonsense.

Instead of going along with that last suggestion, I leave you to
ponder a saying applicable to Gans and many
others who post copious misrepresentations about me:

"If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it is
bound to stick."

And the only way to discourage shit-throwers like Gans and his
minions [two of whom I named in my post but whose names I've
snipped this time] is to let others clearly see just what it is
they are throwing.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:43:04 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>"If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it is
>bound to stick."
>
>And the only way to discourage shit-throwers like Gans and his
>minions [two of whom I named in my post but whose names I've
>snipped this time] is to let others clearly see just what it is
>they are throwing.

<PING!>

Dang it.

[John Harshman]

On 5/5/14, 12:14 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:01:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/5/14, 10:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Judging by the quantity of posts, you seem to prefer this bullshit to
>
> Your word "bullshit" suggests that you doubt the truth of what I wrote.
> Is that indeed the case?

I do not care to engage with what you wrote.

>> actual discussions of evolution, creationism, and other on-topic stuff. Why?
>
> It's a temporary thing, John. I'll be getting more heavily back to on-topic stuff before long.

So you say. It's been going this way for a long time now.

> Rather than replying to that post here, how about replying on the thread
> where I made it?

If you wish me to reply to something, your best bet is to reply to a
post I made. If you wish to address anything in one of my posts, your
best bet is to reply to that post.

[Louann Miller]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote in news:be091535-5b9d-4e1f-b6a5-717c633eb4e8
@googlegroups.com:

> In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
> the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.

Do we know if he belongs to the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists?

Louann "that's one of the two things I know about the Merovingians, and I
suspect the other is false" Miller

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:22:23 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/5/14, 12:14 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:01:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 5/5/14, 10:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >> Judging by the quantity of posts, you seem to prefer this bullshit to

> > Your word "bullshit" suggests that you doubt the truth of what I wrote.
> > Is that indeed the case?

> I do not care to engage with what you wrote.

And with self-serving reasons. You've been a thorn in my side ever since
I returned to talk.origins in December 2010, posting "bullshit" [by YOUR
implied standards] about that has run to MANY reams by now, starting
with your very first post about me on my return, and setting the
standard for really outrageous bullshit [by MY standards as well
as yours] very shortly thereafter with the following crap
which I reposted last month:

> "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 Design
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:21 -0800
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/k94BiWTRmc0J

You thumbed your nose at that, brazenly alleging that you still had
the same opinion of me, but you have NEVER given a concrete example
to show why ANYONE in this right mind would have that opinion
in the first place.

> >> actual discussions of evolution, creationism, and other on-topic stuff.
> >>Why?

> > It's a temporary thing, John. I'll be getting more heavily back to
> > on-topic stuff before long.

> So you say. It's been going this way for a long time now.

Yes, and you are one of the main reasons for that. Right about the
same time you thumbed your nose as described above,
you posted two pieces of flamebait against me
on the new thread that I started on birds, and then when I
said "Hogwash" to one and asked you to desist in response to
the other, you posted yet another bit of flamebait in reply.

And those are very mild examples compared to what you wrote
around the time I brought up that incident of December 9, 2010 about
two years later. Every time I bring THAT up, you run away.

> > Rather than replying to that post here, how about replying on the thread
> > where I made it?

> If you wish me to reply to something, your best bet is to reply to a
> post I made. If you wish to address anything in one of my posts, your
> best bet is to reply to that post.

I don't care whether you reply or not. If you don't, you will merely
be creating the impression that you care less about on-topic
discussion than about trying to force me to give you special treatment,
just like Gans.

I've had this impression of you both for a long, long
time, but you do it more subtly than Gans, in line with
your status as the talk.origins analogue of Mayor of the Palace,
and him as one of the less powerful (but still wielding
considerable power) Merovingian kings.

By the way, my last post to the thread on birds was also
in reply to Shrubber, whom I told some on-topic things about
how you seem to be wavering in your confident opinion that
Feduccia's necessary and sufficient condition for something
being a bird is the presence of feathers.

Message-ID: <65a0b2a4-f35a-4305...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/pEWJEUTOxEs/8uNzlARu3JcJ

Shrubber is no incompetent minion of yours, the way jillery and
Coffey are of Gans. [He is, however, incompetent when it comes
to being a minion of Gans.] He took the prudent course and did not reply,
but you may want to reply, and set the record straight if I got
it wrong.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/6/14, 6:50 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> I don't care whether you reply or not.

That seems odd. If you don't care, then it certainly doesn't matter
whether you reply to me or just mention something elsewhere. But I don't
read everything you post, since so much of it is pointless. If you have
something on-topic to say, especially if it's a reply to something I
said, and you care at all whether I see it, you should post it in a
reply to me, since I'm certain to read such a reply.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

In this post I will give excerpts from two of the posts for which I gave
links in my original post to this thread:

On Monday, May 5, 2014 4:18:07 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:43:04 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

I was recalling an old adage for erik simpson, with "wall" as a metaphor
for targets of defamation:

> >"If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it is
> >bound to stick."

> >And the only way to discourage shit-throwers like Gans and his
> >minions [two of whom I named in my post but whose names I've
> >snipped this time] is to let others clearly see just what it is
> >they are throwing.

Now one of those two minions, you, jillery, weighed in with an "emoticon":

> <PING!>

And now you make a comment which could either refer to the
emoticon, or to how I have evidence on the description
I made of you and Coffey, the other of the two minions:

> Dang it.

Well you might say that about the latter alternative, jillery.
You have greatly weakened what has heretofore been the "Nuclear Option"
of Internet Hellions against people who point out various alliances:
the charge that they are "conspiracy theorists" and "paranoid."

You did it by suddenly dropping your relentlesss deletia of things
you called "SPAM" and of my reasons for things you falsely called
TbBA, and by doing a sequence of posts of a completely different
style which showed your devotion to Gans. You repeated his lie about
why he had piggybacked on your post:

__________excerpt ______________________

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 4:25:27 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2014 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Gans explained why he piggybacked on my post, because you deleted your
> own comments to me in your reply to him.

Prepare yourself for a possible shock.

There WERE no comments to you in the post of his (call it Post G)
to which I had replied.

There were no comments to you in the post (call it Post N) to which
Post G was a reply. Post N was a reply to Mark Isaak, not you.
==================== end of excerpt from
Message-ID: <cd84f952-c1fb-4bd8...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/u2RRHjnEYOkJ

Later in the post to which the above is part of a reply, you lied
as follows:

" You blamed me, and continue to blame me, for misleading Gans."

The truth, of course, is that I had already exonerated you of blame
in the precding post, but I did it in such a way that two allies
of Gans and/or you were able to rip something I said out of that
exoneration to make it look like I was doing something utterly
different.

Anyway, once you saw that Gans's lie was no longer supportable,
you continued to try and exonerate him by amending it, hoping
he had just misspoken:

__________-excerpt______________________________________
> But that's ok. I acknowledge a mistake I made.

Your only mistake was in believing Paul's false description.

> Please substitute "to me"
> with "about me".
============================ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/UV6zXgMh6KEJ
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3e363469-e572-4faa...@googlegroups.com>

As I told you later in the reply, it doesn't help. Nothing about you
had been deleted in ANY of the posts that had been made since I made that
original comment about you being "the exception that proves the rule,"
which was Paul's topic in the post where he was piggybacking on you.

When you realized how much you had hurt Paul Gans in the process
of trying to help him, you went back to your usual technique of posting
stereotypic bilge that couldn't pass the Turing test.

And Gans returned your loyalty by posting a demonstrably false whitewash
of your behavior in:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/WOXo37j1_CkJ

More about that in a later post.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 11:46:00 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/6/14, 6:50 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > I don't care whether you reply or not.

> That seems odd.

It shouldn't, because the posts I referred to were replies to
Shrubber, and I told you how you can find them, but you
are too high and mighty to do so, apparently.

> If you don't care, then it certainly doesn't matter
> whether you reply to me or just mention something elsewhere.

> But I don't read everything you post, since so much of it is pointless.

Actions speak louder than words, especially hypocritical put-downs
like the one you've just uttered.

Your behavior suggests that you aren't sufficiently interested in on-topic
discussion to reply to posts which further it in ways you are too
lazy to further it. All through these last three and a half years you have
been hanging back in your replies to the replies I make to you,
making me rephrase things over and over again
with allegations that you don't see my point, or I'm not making things
sufficiently clear for you, etc., etc.

> If you have
> something on-topic to say, especially if it's a reply to something I
> said, and you care at all whether I see it, you should post it in a
> reply to me, since I'm certain to read such a reply.

Your suggested course of action results in a lot of needless duplication.

And so, I won't cater to your Mayor of the Palace whims on this latest pair.
I told you where to find the posts, and that should be good enough for you.

And to make it even easier for you, I'll post a "tweet" length reply
to the main post you did on tardigrades, but with a changed subject line
so that the new line coincides with the one to the reply to Shrubber.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 May 2014 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>In this post I will give excerpts from two of the posts for which I gave
>links in my original post to this thread:

On Fri, 2 May 2014 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>> Of course only you know which posts you're actually referring to.
>
>You should be able to figure it out if you take the trouble
>to review this thread, especially if you have a threaded newsreader.
>But I can save you the trouble by posting urls if you need them.

Don't forget about this.

>More about that in a later post.

Knock yerself out.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:32:43 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Fri, 2 May 2014 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> Of course only you know which posts you're actually referring to.
> >
> >You should be able to figure it out if you take the trouble
> >to review this thread, especially if you have a threaded newsreader.
> >But I can save you the trouble by posting urls if you need them.
>
> Don't forget about this.

I haven't.

>
> >More about that in a later post.

> Knock yerself out.

First admit that you really need those urls to be able to figure out
which post was which, even with your threaded Eternal September
newsreader.

Remember, I said "need them," not "are too lazy to try and figure it out".

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 9:50:22 AM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Shrubber is no incompetent minion of yours, the way jillery and
> Coffey are of Gans. [He is, however, incompetent when it comes
> to being a minion of Gans.] He took the prudent course and did not reply,
> but you may want to reply, and set the record straight if I got
> it wrong.

Correction: he did make a curt reply, but one that made no connection
with what you [Harshman] had been writing. His reply was incompetent,
though, where his own aims are concerned: he showed a singular ignorance of the
fact that characters are the very soul of deducing ancestry.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

It's your point, your game, and your urls. You can back up your loose
talk, or you can run away and claim victory like you usually do. It
makes no difference to me what you do.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2014-05-05 17:39:41 +0000, nyi...@bellsouth.net said:

> In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
> the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.
>
> His once formidable mind has greatly weakened with age, his once-powerful

> instinct for going back to the original sources has failed him...

*
Peter: There you go again. Instigating a pissing contest instead of
discussing the topic at hand.

earle
*

[eridanus]

El lunes, 5 de mayo de 2014 20:14:30 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

> On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:01:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/14, 10:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Judging by the quantity of posts, you seem to prefer this bullshit to
> Your word "bullshit" suggests that you doubt the truth of what I wrote.
> Is that indeed the case?

According to the Merriam-wbster dictionary...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bullshit
usually vulgar : to talk foolishly, boastfully, or idly.
2. usually vulgar : to engage in a discursive discussion.
transitive verb.
usually vulgar : to talk nonsense to ...

It is not so much as bullshit are lies, among the kids and young people.
Bullshit can be called also the sort of idle chat and talking nonsense.

You are starting a thread usually with former, sometimes months
old, or years old about some shit anyone wrote in a post.
Are you incapable of talking about any present thread? Why are
you constantly whining about what someone said to you sometime
in the past? This can be clearly defined as bullshit, or idle talk, or
to engage in discursive discussions.

Eri

[David Iain Greig]

nyi...@bellsouth.net <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
> the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.

This is possibly the greatest single thing typed in the history of
talk.origins.

--D.

[erik simpson]

There is a sort of profundity here that is pretty rare. It reminds me of a
remark made by my grad school advisor while lecturing on the plasma physics
of the solar corona:

"Basically, the sun is a spherical capacitor."

[J. J. Lodder]

Gans is no doubt a descendant of Charlemagne,

Jan

(like all nobility of Western Europe)

[erik simpson]

The Merovingian dynasty has famous (or perhaps infamous) grand conspiracy
links as well. Considering the conspiracy obsession of the OP, I suspect
that's the inspiration here.

[Burkhard]

The tragedy of course is that the OP undoubtedly sees himself as Zachary in that
drama, when in reality, he is at best Ragnachar.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 May 2014 19:15:15 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

....and a good percentage of the non-nobility.
--

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

[jillery]

Everybody from western europe is related to Charlegmagne:

<http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-descedant-of-charlemagne.html>


Of course, that's not quite the same thing as being a direct
descendant, but they're often confused.

[Mitchell Coffey]

According to Dan Brown, it would make him a direct descendant of Jesus.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

Post of the Month?

Mitchell Coffey

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 9, 2014 3:23:28 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> Everybody from western europe is related to Charlegmagne:
> <http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-descedant-of-charlemagne.html>

> Of course, that's not quite the same thing as being a direct
> descendant, but they're often confused.

Indeed. We are all related to whales, but none of us is a direct
descendant of whales.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:34:35 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> You are starting a thread usually with former, sometimes months
> old, or years old about some shit anyone wrote in a post.

Then kindly post this irrelevancy where it applies. If you had
bothered to investigate ANY of the linked posts, except the first,
[which was made April 30, of events less than a week old]
you would have seen that it was in reply to a post made
THIS VERY MONTH, i.e. less than a WEEK before you wrote the irrelevant
comments you are making all through this post of yours.

> Are you incapable of talking about any present thread?

The thread of which I was writing IS present, idiot.

Let me guess: you have been conned by Gans and his minions into thinking
that I regularly post about events of long ago, not knowing that Gans did
that for a year and a half (in 2011-2012) in every post he made about me,
and has done it numerous times since then. His henchman, the poor
schlemiel Mitchell Coffey, did it in an attempt to paint me as a
defender of bigots, and so dragged in a completely irrelevant series
of events of over a dozen years earlier, while trying to argue
that they were relevant.

Gans, as is his custom, lent his support for a little while and then
left the poor schlemiel to fend for himself and cause me to think him
totally malicious, whereas I now see that he did it out of misguided
zeal against what are commonly (but inaccurately) referred to as "Holocaust
deniers."

Now that I've told you this, I expect you to play "shoot the messenger"
and to go on playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about
Gans for as long as you go on posting to talk.origins.

> Why are
> you constantly whining about what someone said to you sometime
> in the past?

Why do you make such ridiculously exaggerated allegations? You are
hypocritically illustrating the behavior you are projecting onto me:

> This can be clearly defined as bullshit, or idle talk, or
> to engage in discursive discussions.

Peter Nyikos

"If you ask an impartial observer what caused the
WWII, they would tell you, `the crash of Wall Street in 1929.' "
--eridanus, demonstrating his unparalleled grasp of history in:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/vhRgq268CJY/o-0GApJgpqwJ

[Paul J Gans]

That's not the way to bet. Of course there might be
a "black sheep" in the family.

By the way, Charlemagne was not a Merovingian.



--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

Your post is neatly coincidental. I am presently in Kalamazoo,
Michigan attending the 49th Annual International Conference on
Medieval Studies. No Merovingians in evidence.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Middling middlers aplenty no doubt.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 9, 2014 10:17:29 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> >nyi...@bellsouth.net <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
>
> >> the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.

> >This is possibly the greatest single thing typed in the history of
> >talk.origins.

Some day, I might find out what DIG's intent was in typing the above.
Or maybe not.

> Your post is neatly coincidental. I am presently in Kalamazoo,
> Michigan attending the 49th Annual International Conference on
> Medieval Studies. No Merovingians in evidence.

But you are an honorary Merovingian. You even called yourself
"Childeric" in a thread you started in soc.history.medieval
to tell the folks about this meeting.

Were you influenced by the following words, appearing below
the words DIG quoted?

____________ bottom half of first post to this thread__________

Still, he is not as powerless as Childeric III, last of the Merovingian
kings. He still has faithful minions to serve him, some even at the cost
of their own reputation and/or integrity, such as the erratic jillery--
see the post linked just now, or the following:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/UV6zXgMh6KEJ

and the poor schlemiel Mitchell Coffey:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!original/talk.origins/SlPybG8mPUI/_BQA60cimbYJ

But the real power in talk.origins passed years ago to John Harshman, the t.o.
analogue of the Mayor of the Palace. He has even been known to reprimand
Gans, who endured without murmur the last time I witnessed it happening.

Peter Nyikos

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

https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!original/talk.origins/NBQ5cWTCRgQ/7dRXqWoUlz4J

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lkk27p$dig$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

The Merovingians were a progressive influence on the emergence of
European Civilization on the whole.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Oh hell no! Not even the post of the day.

[Roger Shrubber]

Not even a river in Egypt?

[*Hemidactylus*]

I deny that too!

[Roger Shrubber]

It would be a syn to deny your services in this matter.
I could not attack you so. So, no synchronous denial
of service attack from me.

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure, longhairs, all of them,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

He was, given the level of accuracy of this thread,

Jan

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lkk2cf$dig$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Isn't almost everyone of European ancestry a descendant of Charlemagne?

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:09:21 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

This thread is chasing its own tail.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 May 2014 18:08:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

It's just a *bit* closer relationship than that; there are
almost certainly many more collateral human descendants of
Charlemagne than of whales.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:32:59 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

....or tale.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 11:04:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:32:59 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:09:21 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <lkk2cf$dig$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>> >David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> nyi...@bellsouth.net <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> >> > In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
>>>> >> > the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This is possibly the greatest single thing typed in the history of
>>>> >> talk.origins.
>>>>
>>>> >Gans is no doubt a descendant of Charlemagne,
>>>>
>>>> >Jan
>>>>
>>>> >(like all nobility of Western Europe)
>>>>
>>>> That's not the way to bet. Of course there might be
>>>> a "black sheep" in the family.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, Charlemagne was not a Merovingian.
>>>
>>>Isn't almost everyone of European ancestry a descendant of Charlemagne?
>>
>>
>>This thread is chasing its own tail.
>
>....or tale.

...an ancestor's tale.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 15:07:27 -0400, the following appeared

Good title for a book!

[David Iain Greig]

Yo momma so pale an' fat she gettin' chased by Ahab wavin' a harpoon.

etc.

--D.

[Paul J Gans]

Yup. Plenty of well-known scholars (well-known among medievalists
anyway) roaming around.

[Paul J Gans]

You'll note that I did not endorse that view... ;-)

[Paul J Gans]

The word "almost" is important. Jews are one major exception and
folks of Finnish or Latvian descent are possible exceptions as
well.

Europeans are well mixed, but not perfectly mixed.

Then of course there is the mathematical problem. Given the
number of generations since Charlemagne, the odds of a particular
gene making it are small.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 10 May 2014 05:04:45 UTC+3, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Let me guess: you have been conned by Gans and his minions into thinking
> that I regularly post about events of long ago, not knowing that Gans did
> that for a year and a half (in 2011-2012) in every post he made about me,
> and has done it numerous times since then.

So you deny of describing posting events of years ago and describe
those in the very same sentence? How is proper to call that in vulgar
terms if "bullshit" is wrong?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 9, 2014 4:20:32 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/9/2014 11:23 AM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>
> > nyi...@bellsouth.net <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> In some ways, Gans's adult life has been a microcosm of a part of
>
> >> the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks.
>
> >
>
> > This is possibly the greatest single thing typed in the history of
>
> > talk.origins.

> Post of the Month?

> Mitchell Coffey

No, but it might make a good joke to make a post you did today POTM for
illustrating what a poor schmuck you are. While making denunciations
of me, you provided three urls which cast me in a very favorable light!!
Especially this one, where you let me know what a fool/knave you had
been when the post was made, around 13 (not 14 as I carelessly typed
several times) years ago:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/TrREAQIW8AIJ

Here is an excerpt that begins with documentation of an excerpt from
another post:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


> ======================== begin excerpt from Coffey post, > added in margin
> >> Giwer is just as prone to inflammatory adjectives as the
> >> aforementioned people, it seems. Pat James, for example,
> >> has twice called me a "fag" on Usenet; falsely, since I am straight.
>
> >So Giwer calling Jews "greedy bastard extortionists" is morally
> >equivalent to Pat calling you, who posts anti-gay material, a "fag"?
>
> ============================= end of excerpt
>
> Since I never posted anti-gay material, it seems safe
> to conclude that Coffey considers Pat James to be
> such a valuable ally that he is willing to compromise his integrity
> in support of Pat James.
>
> By the way, Giwer did not confirm that "greedy..." referred to Jews;
> one of Giwer's harshest critics told me in e-mail that
> he took it to refer to Swiss bankers.
>
> Also by the way, I missed out on at least four other times
> that Pat James called me a "fag". Pat James was the one
> who corrected me on that, evidently proud of his handiwork,
> thanks in part to Coffey's use of Giwer as a scapegoat.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

This is bullshit, Peter. Giwer was complaining about the demands by
Jewish organizations that Swiss banks return deposits left by Jews
killed in the Holocaust. It would make no sense for him to be calling
Swiss bankers "greedy."

And you've made anti-gay posts. That is obvious. Is your claim that
you do not consider the contents of your posts "material"? OK, I'll
accept your definition. I withdraw my statement that you have posted
"anti-gay material." What I meant was that you have made anti-gay
posts. I hope this is now clear.

Mitchell Coffey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What a laugh! I NEVER made a post that could reasonably be called
"anti-gay" although I've posted from time to time on some excesses
of the Gay Power movement. And "Pat James," who later posted here
as "J. J. O'Shea," was the most relentlessly
persistent hater of myself that ever disgraced this newsgroup,
as well as being thoroughly dishonest and thoroughly self-satisfied.

But the real side-splitter is you thinking "greedy" is a word that
cannot be applied to bankers! Perhaps the bailout that happened
somewhat under 7 years after the above post has helped to change
your opinion, yes?

Anyway, what I said in the excerpted post was the truth from beginning
to end, and I defy you to try and document otherwise. And I suggest you
not even try: your "documentation" could turn out to recoil on you even
worse than the urls you posted after posting one distorted claim after
another about me.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

Amazing! Your don't even see what makes you look truly vile in that post!

It is evidence of your semi-literacy if you think my argument here:

"This is bullshit, Peter. Giwer was complaining about the demands by
Jewish organizations that Swiss banks return deposits left by Jews
killed in the Holocaust. It would make no sense for him to be calling

Swiss bankers 'greedy'" is that I think the word "greedy" can't be
applied to bankers.

There's this thing, Peter, called "context." The sentence "Giwer was

complaining about the demands by Jewish organizations that Swiss banks

return deposits left by Jews killed in the Holocaust" provided context.
(Then there's the source of the context:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.medieval/7eEwZQkDyZY/IHVa95GEld8J.)

Based on the context, Giwer's reference was clearly Jews or Jewish
organizations, not bankers.

And for someone who recently thought it meaningful to post a link to an
article claiming how a lot of gays are fascists, I wouldn't bring back
to life old claims about your homophobia if I were you.

Meanwhile, you claimed I used Giwer - who's antisemitism, Holocaust
denial and Nazi sympathes are provent - "as a scapegoat" when making
those claims; and you thought Giwer calling Jews "greedy bastard
extortionists" was morally equivalent to Pat calling you a "fag." You're
a stupid, bigoted ass.

Mitchell Coffey

[Nick Roberts]

In message <lkr6fm$s1h$3...@reader1.panix.com>

Presumably that means that (homeopathically speaking) we've all been
cured of being Charlemagne?

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[jillery]

In a way. It sounds paradoxical, but just because you're related to
someone, it doesn't mean that you share any distinctive genes with
them.

[Paul J Gans]

Sort of. What I meant is that there is no person alive with DNA
even close to that of Charlemagne for any reasonable definition
of "close".

As for more conventional meanings of "descent", illegitimate
pregnancies occured with some regularity throughout history so
that even those with "documented" lines of descent from, say,
Charlemagne are probably not.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:23:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:


>
>.... What I meant is that there is no person alive with DNA

>even close to that of Charlemagne for any reasonable definition
>of "close".
>

So being 99.9% similar is not even "close"?

[Roger Shrubber]

Firstly, pedantically, via deleted text, people were speculating
about alleles shared with Charlemagne instead of genes.

Next, indeed, 99.9% seems rather similar.

Lastly, if one is a descendent of Charlemagne at all, it is
quite likely that one is a descendent of Charlemagne via
hundreds of thousands of paths. One can pick various average
generation times but given that shorter time wheels spin so much
faster it's fairly clear that there are more than 1 trillion virtual
ancestors for each of us dating back to the time of Charlemagne.
A generous estimate of the population of Europe during Charlemagne's
reign is 50 million. So people of "European" descent having a
trillion ancestors presents a slight dilemma.

Simulations of heredity also tend to show that the proportion
that do leave ancestors decreases so we can look to that 50
million and probably say that only about 10 million or less
have living ancestors. 4 million is a better estimate.

Now, if one asserts there are 1 billion current people of
mostly European ancestry, discounted and augmented by those
of partial European ancestry, sourced from 4 million people,
and the 30,000 odd gene have been distributed more or less
randomly at the allelic level we can calculate.

Let's see. 1 billion descendents from 4 million ancestors.
30,000 genes. The numbers that matter are the 30,000 and
the 4,000,000 so that each of the 1 billion or so that has
4 million distinct ancestors from a given date circa the
year 800 has approximately a 1/100 chance of inheriting a
specific allele from any of those 4 million (3 million in
approximation) ancestors.

At the same time, of the 1 billion people of mostly European
ancestry, 1% have an actual Charlemagne allele which mean
10 million.

Alternative abuses of approximations are welcome.

[RSNorman]

Actually I am well aware of all that. The reality is each and every
human is about 99.9% similar to Charlemagne (and to everyone else).
The question of "closeness" relates to that other 0.1%.

And, yes, discounting the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA which
behave differently, the chance that we have even a single gene (of
those that show variation in the population) with our last common
ancestor is essentially zero.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:17:12 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also alternate abuses of equivalent questions. The original subject
raised the idea of being related by descent to Charlemagne. That's a
separate question from sharing the same alleles, genes, haplotypes,
etc.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"And, yes, discounting the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA which
behave differently, the chance that we have even a single gene (of
those that show variation in the population) with our last common
ancestor is essentially zero."

-------------------------------------------------------

...And the land cried back...

So what?

DSH

"Equus hemionus ad aquam potestis ducere, sed non potestis compellere ei
bibere."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [38 B.C - 14 A.D.]

"The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all
classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the
earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of
them afterwards. -- Speaking about soldiers in the British Army, 4 November
1813

"A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription
calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son -
all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very
scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military
feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got
bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you
can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful
that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." -- Notes for 11
November 1831.

Arthur Wellesley (1 May 1769-14 Sep 1852) 1st Duke of Wellington

"RSNorman" wrote in message
news:kkc5n9tpuk1md4vqb...@4ax.com...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Precisely!

"Equus hemionus ad aquam potestis ducere, sed non potestis compellere ei
bibere."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [38 B.C - 14 A.D.]

"The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all
classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the
earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of
them afterwards. -- Speaking about soldiers in the British Army, 4 November
1813

"A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription
calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son -
all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very
scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military
feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got
bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you
can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful
that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." -- Notes for 11
November 1831.

Arthur Wellesley (1 May 1769-14 Sep 1852) 1st Duke of Wellington

"jillery" wrote in message
news:4re5n9dolomdmp3fn...@4ax.com...

[Paul J Gans]

Would a court recognize that person as a relative? How many
markers would that person and Big Charley share?

[Paul J Gans]

How would Gypsies fare?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Norman wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:23:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> >> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >>> .... What I meant is that there is no person alive with DNA
> >>> even close to that of Charlemagne for any reasonable definition
> >>> of "close".

> >> So being 99.9% similar is not even "close"?

> >Firstly, pedantically, via deleted text, people were speculating
> >about alleles shared with Charlemagne instead of genes.

> >Next, indeed, 99.9% seems rather similar.

Yes, where alleles are concerned. Genes could
well be shared to that extent by randomly chosen pairs of people
of mainly European descent.

> >Lastly, if one is a descendent of Charlemagne at all, it is
> >quite likely that one is a descendent of Charlemagne via
> >hundreds of thousands of paths. One can pick various average
> >generation times but given that shorter time wheels spin so much
> >faster it's fairly clear that there are more than 1 trillion virtual
> >ancestors for each of us dating back to the time of Charlemagne.

"virtual ancestors" includes certain actual ancestors being counted
thousands of times due to paths diverging from them.

> >A generous estimate of the population of Europe during Charlemagne's
> >reign is 50 million. So people of "European" descent having a
> >trillion ancestors presents a slight dilemma.

Obviously, not a trillion actual ancestors, each counted but once.

<estimates of various things snipped here>

> >At the same time, of the 1 billion people of mostly European
> >ancestry, 1% have an actual Charlemagne allele

...of a given gene?

> > which mean 10 million.

> >Alternative abuses of approximations are welcome.

> How would Gypsies fare?

Or Askhenazi Jews? Sepharidic Jews? ... We could go on and on, but at
most one such example would be of interest, and that but briefly.

Peter Nyikos

[D. Spencer Hines]

Pogue Gans is so unimaginative, stupid and torpid that he doesn't even
understand that the fascination of Ancestor & Relative-Hunting has NOTHING
to do with actual biophysical-biochemical content.

So he trots out this Red Herring and drags it across the trail --
repeatedly.

Hilarious!

"Big Charley" would no doubt refer to Pogue Gans as "Fat Paul".

D. Spencer Hines

"Equus hemionus ad aquam potestis ducere, sed non potestis compellere ei
bibere."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [38 B.C - 14 A.D.]

"The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all
classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the
earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of
them afterwards. -- Speaking about soldiers in the British Army, 4 November
1813

"A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription
calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son -
all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very
scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military
feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got
bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you
can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful
that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." -- Notes for 11
November 1831.

Arthur Wellesley (1 May 1769-14 Sep 1852) 1st Duke of Wellington

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:ll04qm$803$1...@reader1.panix.com...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:44:40 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Absolutely. And I see no evidence it was answered before the
question shifted to the issue of common genes (or alleles),
the conclusion to which could only be that prior to a
certain point in the past no one living actually had any
ancestors.

[Roger Shrubber]

As for the ones who were born in the wagon of a traveling
show, they have many genes from the "every night all the men
would come around, and lay their money down" chorus.

But let's see, my paternal grandmother immigrated from
near the Austro-hungarian border with some family lore
suggesting they were part Gypsies (half German, half Gypsy),
it being unclear what was meant but likely they were Romani
immigrants to that region. This is supported by the fact that
they left in 1904 during a period of rising anti-immigrant
sentiment and the history of the region.

But cliche notions of cultures of negotiable affection
aside, it does appear that Romani endogamy has limited
outbreeding but recent genetic analysis still suggests
that the genetic heritage of current Romanis is only
about 40% derived from their ancestral origins in India.
I think that makes them more outbred than Iberian and

So while most Romani probably have Charlemagne as an
ancestor, they will tend to have him as an ancestor
with less paths/redundancy than many other European
populations but not less than Finns and probably
not less than Italians.

[Roger Shrubber]

The bit about everyone being a descendent of Charlemagne is
so frequently discussed it qualifies as a meme. For example,
<http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/>

Your final point is muddled but apparently it is along these
lines: given 30K genes, then 16 generations back with 65K
ancestors most of them did not contribute an allele. And if you
double the generations the odds reduce to less than 1 in 100K.
But it is still absurd to contort the low probability of
inheriting an allele or a genetic marker from a hypothetic
ancestor with your generalization about "any ancestors".

But my point was to consider that even at 16 generations, the
potential of 65K ancestors is grossly overstated in terms of
real ancestors and could easily be as small as 1000, though
I made it via 1 trillion virtual ancestors and max 50 million
real people, many of whom have no living descendents.

But I should correct my estimates from 3 million potential
real ancestors to closer to 15 million.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <ll0co9$aih$1...@dont-email.me>
"D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

<snip everything>

DSH: I've snipped everything, because this post isn't about the content
of your post, but its structure...

Basically, unless and until you start posting replies in the accepted
standard format for talk.origins (which, like most newsgroups possibly
excluding the comp.sys.ms ones, uses interleaved posting with chevrons
to indicate threading, not top-posting) you are highly unlikely to get
a lot of interest in your posts, as its really hard work to work out
what was written by you, what was written by someone else, and who the
hell you were responding to.

So if you're happy to continue demonstrating the wonders of write once,
read never technology, carry on as you are. But if you'd prefer the
alternative write once, read many, you need to get your act together.

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 22:41:17 +0100, Nick Roberts
<tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ll0co9$aih$1...@dont-email.me>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
><snip everything>
>
>DSH: I've snipped everything, because this post isn't about the content
>of your post, but its structure...
>
>Basically, unless and until you start posting replies in the accepted
>standard format for talk.origins (which, like most newsgroups possibly
>excluding the comp.sys.ms ones, uses interleaved posting with chevrons
>to indicate threading, not top-posting) you are highly unlikely to get
>a lot of interest in your posts, as its really hard work to work out
>what was written by you, what was written by someone else, and who the
>hell you were responding to.
>
>So if you're happy to continue demonstrating the wonders of write once,
>read never technology, carry on as you are. But if you'd prefer the
>alternative write once, read many, you need to get your act together.

It is not just the top posting style of his (DSHines) posts but rather
the content that is objectionable.

Start with his use of the term "pogue" to address his targets and read
what Wiki says about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue
Then continue with the lack of any substantive material.

At first I was going to write something in response to him about the
difficulty of distinguishing between a serious post, a sarcastic one,
an attempt to be funny, or simple stupidity recognizing that these
categories in whatever combination are not disjoint. Now I know that
only one of those categories can possibly apply. My impression is that
all of us will readily agree as to which category it is.

[Roger Shrubber]

IDK, there are ready opinions about those who are famous/infamous for
being famous, as in targets of the paparazzi for being targets of the
paparazzi, with copious commando flashes upskirt while exiting limos,
other scheduled wardrobe malfunctions, and copyrighted "leaked" sex
tapes. It is not a _simple_ stupidity. Instead it seems a very
calculated bit of attention whoring. One must give credit to those
who emulate this without the expense of paying a publicist.

Interestingly, if one researches the suggestion that there is no
such thing as bad publicity, one encounters Mae West and Oscar
Wilde but the best source seems to be Brendan Behan who is reported
to have claimed that "There's no bad publicity except an obituary."
As far as I can tell, he did not tie this in explicitly to the
classic words of Samuel Langhorne Clemens regarding exaggerated reports.

[RSNorman]

I stand corrected. Demonstrating simple stupidity for the sake of
being recognized as a producer of simple stupidity most be considered
a case of complex stupidity.

[Roger Shrubber]

> being recognized as a producer of simple stupidity must be considered

> a case of complex stupidity.

The qualification "as a producer ..." is as superfluous in need
as it is ubiquitous in practice (or relevant in example).

[David Iain Greig]

D. Spencer Hines <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> Pogue Gans is so unimaginative, stupid and torpid that he doesn't even
> understand that the fascination of Ancestor & Relative-Hunting has NOTHING
> to do with actual biophysical-biochemical content.

Holy crap, woodworms.

Didn't I ban you?

--D.


--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

[Nick Roberts]

In message <7qr7n95rpvkif5dt3...@4ax.com>

If you'll notice, I prefaced my remarks by saying that my post was
about structure, not content. I made it because, frankly, I wasn't
willing to put in the non-inconsiderable effort to work out what he was
saying, and who he was saying it to.

It's not just the top posting - I've encountered that before, and can
work round it - it's the way his posts are formatted as if he were
using a microsoft email client, so no indentatation. That only works if
everyone else is using a similarly badly structured client, so you can
see where various people's contributions starts and ends. This isn't
the case here, so his posts are an exercise in futility.

That's not to say that I wouldn't condemn the content, should I ever
bother to work out what it is. But as far as I am concerned, DSH hasn't
even managed to achieve the lofty heights of "objectionable" - he's
still stuck in the trough of "random noise generator".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 15:29:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

Try this: Every living person has an unbroken chain of
ancestors all the way back to the first life on Earth. And
the farther back one goes the greater the likelihood that a
particular individual in that chain is your ancestor,
whether direct or collateral. And that has nothing to do
with particular alleles.

>But my point was to consider that even at 16 generations, the
>potential of 65K ancestors is grossly overstated in terms of
>real ancestors and could easily be as small as 1000, though
>I made it via 1 trillion virtual ancestors and max 50 million
>real people, many of whom have no living descendents.

No argument here, but the original question was about a
specific individual, one who absolutely *did* have
descendants. (Well, his sexual partners did; paternity is
almost always an assumption.)

>But I should correct my estimates from 3 million potential
>real ancestors to closer to 15 million.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:38:53 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

I disagree; only one can *not* possible apply.

> My impression is that
>all of us will readily agree as to which category it is.

Absolutely. It's "stupidly and quasi-humorously sarcastic".

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Educate people without religion and you make them but clever devils." --
Arthur Wellesley [1769-1852] Duke of Wellington

"Vote, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
himself and a wreck of his country."

Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce [1842-1913/4] - The Devil's Dictionary

"Equus hemionus ad aquam potestis ducere, sed non potestis compellere ei
bibere."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [38 B.C - 14 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 21:28:29 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

So the unknown individual who styles him/herself as "D.
Spencer Hines" is the Usenet version of Paris Hilton? OK.

> One must give credit to those
>who emulate this without the expense of paying a publicist.

Why? One can simply acknowledge it's the case without giving
credit (which term implies, at the least, some admiration).
Newscasters who consistently refer to "credit" claimed by
terrorist groups for bombings, of course, don't seem aware
of this. At least, I *hope* it's simple lack of awareness
and/or unfamiliarity with the nuances of English.

>Interestingly, if one researches the suggestion that there is no
>such thing as bad publicity, one encounters Mae West and Oscar
>Wilde but the best source seems to be Brendan Behan who is reported
>to have claimed that "There's no bad publicity except an obituary."
>As far as I can tell, he did not tie this in explicitly to the
>classic words of Samuel Langhorne Clemens regarding exaggerated reports.

....whose premature obituary *did* turn out to be good
publicity. ;-)

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

There is much said in the post to which I am replying, and much
to say about it, so I deal first with the less complicated of
the two main issues in it: the undocumented false charge that
I have written anti-gay things.

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/12/2014 11:22 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

I did a repost of part of:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/TrREAQIW8AIJ

Here, I repost only the part having to do with the above false
charge, snipping some things where [...] appears.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> Since I never posted anti-gay material, it seems safe
> >> to conclude that Coffey considers Pat James to be
> >> such a valuable ally that he is willing to compromise his integrity
> >> in support of Pat James.

[...]

> >> Also by the way, I missed out on at least four other times
> >> that Pat James called me a "fag". Pat James was the one
> >> who corrected me on that, evidently proud of his handiwork,
> >> thanks in part to Coffey's use of Giwer as a scapegoat.
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

[...]

> > And you've made anti-gay posts. That is obvious. Is your claim that
> > you do not consider the contents of your posts "material"? OK, I'll
> > accept your definition. I withdraw my statement that you have posted
> > "anti-gay material." What I meant was that you have made anti-gay
> > posts. I hope this is now clear.
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey
+++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The above post was made 13 years ago. What comes below was written
this month:

> > What a laugh! I NEVER made a post that could reasonably be called
> > "anti-gay" although I've posted from time to time on some excesses
> > of the Gay Power movement. And "Pat James," who later posted here
> > as "J. J. O'Shea," was the most relentlessly
> > persistent hater of myself that ever disgraced this newsgroup,
> > as well as being thoroughly dishonest and thoroughly self-satisfied.

<snip of things related to other issue>

> > Anyway, what I said in the excerpted post was the truth from beginning
> > to end, and I defy you to try and document otherwise. And I suggest you
> > not even try: your "documentation" could turn out to recoil on you even
> > worse than the urls you posted after posting one distorted claim after
> > another about me.

<snip like the preceding one>

> And for someone who recently thought it meaningful to post a link to an
> article claiming how a lot of gays are fascists, I wouldn't bring back
> to life old claims about your homophobia if I were you.

I was careless in my word choice, and should have reversed the
order: a lot of fascists are gay, including some of the leading
ones. That was the theme of an article in the Huffington Post,
hardly a hotbed of right-wing revisionism, and it was thoroughly
researched and AFAIK never refuted.

And if you were to tell people of the context of that statement,
they would know that I was surrounded with far more sweeping
statements than mine, accounting for my careless word choice.

In short, the charge of my having posted anything "anti-gay" is
without merit.

> Meanwhile, you claimed I used Giwer - who's antisemitism, Holocaust
> denial and Nazi sympathes are proven
> "as a scapegoat"

What I meant was that you were playing "see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil" about Pat James and his libels against me, and even
repeating one of his vilest libels, and using Giwer to avoid having
to account for your irresponsible behavior.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were
repeating them simply because you trusted "Pat James,"
and not because you stood ready to spin-doctor innocent
comments by me. And I'm also assuming that your latest
comments are only due to the careless word order that I
used in that much more recent post to an utterly unrelated place --
a Catholic blog, NOT a Usenet newsgroup.

Peter Nyikos

[Nick Roberts]

In message <ll2t2a$uc7$1...@dont-email.me>

"D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

Congratulations. By stripping out all context from previous posters,
you've managed to construct a comprehensible post.

There's still the problem with the content, though. Do you have no
thoughts of your own, or are you compelled to converse exclusively in
other people's words for some other reason?

But as you seem to like Ambrose Bierce, I will respond in kind:

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
nature of the Unknowable.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

Short on time today (and probably until the middle of next week or later)
I deal with the following summary of what Coffey was saying and
add a bit to my first reply to this post, made yesterday.

> you thought Giwer calling Jews "greedy bastard
> extortionists" was morally equivalent to Pat calling you a "fag." You're
> a stupid, bigoted ass.

False on at least two counts.

(1) I did not think Giwer called Jews "greedy bastard extortionists"
because I did not see any documentation of him having done that
and have NOT SEEN ANY TO THIS DAY. The symbol string
"greedy bastard extortionists" with or without quotes does not
appear anywhere in what Coffey alleged to be "the source of the context"
of the things quoted from 13 years ago:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.medieval/7eEwZQkDyZY/IHVa95GEld8J.

(2) I made no moral equivalence between anything Giwer wrote
and anything "Pat James" wrote. Coffey probably wrote the
words "moral equivalence" on automatic pilot--it is a reflex
reaction of leftists, whenever an opponent makes some sort of
analogy, however limited, between two things, to claim that
they "equated" them or considered them "morally equivalent."

Back to the other charge leveled against me: I made the following
statement at the end of my first reply:

I'm also assuming that your latest comments are only due
to the careless word order that I used in that much more
recent post to an utterly unrelated place -- a Catholic blog,
NOT a Usenet newsgroup.

It is conceivable that I may have made them in a Usenet newsgroup
as well. What came into my mind when Coffey referred to certain
comments of mine that he erroneously linked with homophobia was
an incident in another blog where a muckraker posted statements
made by me all over the internet, including Usenet newsgroups and
the blog in question. Here is what I wrote in the blog post that
he dug up:

Not only were many Brownshirts leftists, but their leader, Roehm,
glorified male homosexuality and considered it to be more manly than
heterosexuality. One of the dirty little secrets of gays is that
many of them are fascists, and many of the leading European fascists
are gay.
Here is a remarkably detailed article on that in the Huffington Post,
a source generally very favorable to the left and to gays:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html


Like I told Coffey, I should have written "many fascists are gay"
rather than "many of them are fascists" but I was influenced by
the article on which I was commenting, which quoted one source
after another implying Republicans were fascists, or Nazis,
or pro-Nazi, without even such qualifiers. Here is a sweeping
example:

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

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

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

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

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

Might Coffey's reaction be "How dare an Uncle Tom like Elder morally
equate Democrats with Holocaust deniers!" ?

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 5/16/2014 11:38 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> Short on time today (and probably until the middle of next week or later)
> I deal with the following summary of what Coffey was saying and
> add a bit to my first reply to this post, made yesterday.
>
>> you thought Giwer calling Jews "greedy bastard
>> extortionists" was morally equivalent to Pat calling you a "fag." You're
>> a stupid, bigoted ass.
>
> False on at least two counts.
>
> (1) I did not think Giwer called Jews "greedy bastard extortionists"
> because I did not see any documentation of him having done that
> and have NOT SEEN ANY TO THIS DAY. The symbol string
> "greedy bastard extortionists" with or without quotes does not
> appear anywhere in what Coffey alleged to be "the source of the context"
> of the things quoted from 13 years ago:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.medieval/7eEwZQkDyZY/IHVa95GEld8J.

Sorry, Giwer didn't call Jews "greedy bastard extortionists" in that
post, he called them "lying greedy bastards." He called them "greedy
bastard extortionists" in this post, the next day:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.ancient/0DqjHucIoME/sUytogEuWWQJ

> (2) I made no moral equivalence between anything Giwer wrote
> and anything "Pat James" wrote. Coffey probably wrote the
> words "moral equivalence" on automatic pilot--it is a reflex
> reaction of leftists, whenever an opponent makes some sort of
> analogy, however limited, between two things, to claim that
> they "equated" them or considered them "morally equivalent."

You did make moral equivalence, as my cited material shows [1] - in
fact, you thought what James wrote was /worse/ than Giwer, that people
were only concerned about Giwer to use him as a, your word, "scapegoat"
to divert people from our own sins.

[1] e.g.,
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/sci.econ/t3Cahiop9c4/6lPA5aVVMaIJ


Note that you have already quoted this last post yourself within the
last few days, so you can't deny not knowing of it.

> Back to the other charge leveled against me: I made the following
> statement at the end of my first reply:
>
> I'm also assuming that your latest comments are only due
> to the careless word order that I used in that much more
> recent post to an utterly unrelated place -- a Catholic blog,
> NOT a Usenet newsgroup.
>
> It is conceivable that I may have made them in a Usenet newsgroup
> as well. What came into my mind when Coffey referred to certain
> comments of mine that he erroneously linked with homophobia was
> an incident in another blog where a muckraker posted statements
> made by me all over the internet, including Usenet newsgroups and
> the blog in question. Here is what I wrote in the blog post that
> he dug up:
>
> Not only were many Brownshirts leftists, but their leader, Roehm,
> glorified male homosexuality and considered it to be more manly than
> heterosexuality. One of the dirty little secrets of gays is that
> many of them are fascists, and many of the leading European fascists
> are gay.
> Here is a remarkably detailed article on that in the Huffington Post,
> a source generally very favorable to the left and to gays:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

I'm not familiar with this muckraker's post, but found your post in a
Catholic forum.

Despicable comparisons by certain Democrats do not justify your
homophobic post, nor render it non-homophobic. Neither does a
subjunctive accusation of hypocrisy. These are tu quoque fallacies on
your part - which you deny you do!

You post was homophobic and your minor change in wording makes no
difference. You might have recognized its hatefulness - and your
statistical and logical errors - had the shoe been on the other foot:
Would it have been anti-Catholic to post, truthfully but without nuance,
that in the WII era many fascists were Catholic, including the leaders
of the principle fascist parties in Germany, Austria, France, Spain,
Italy, Croatia and Slovakia, as well as other countries in Europe and
Latin America?

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:20:07 -1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com>:

....and assorted additional irrelevancies...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:38:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

>Short on time today...

The perpetual excuse offered for failing to acknowledge
embarrassing and/or difficult questions.

<snip>

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:59:11 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:38:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

> >Short on time today...

> The perpetual excuse offered for failing to acknowledge
> embarrassing and/or difficult questions.

If what I wrote is adequate, what difference does it make?

If it is not, people more clued in than you to the issues will
let me know about it, and I'll keep going until they are either
resolved or people pretend they have been resolved in their favor
and refuse to discuss them any more.

And none of this will happen on YOUR timetable, because you are
too uninterested in truth to realize that it is timeless.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

Even changing the word order, your post in the Catholic forum was
homophobic. Neither is it exculpatory that you were favorably quoting a
homophobic article in The Huffington Post, nor that it was cobbled
together from facts (I give the example of Catholic fascists in reply to
your next post). These are logical fallacies on your part.

Your homophobic posts prior to 2002 were heavily vetted at the time, and
they were indeed homophobic. The fact that you tried to tar the gay
civil rights movement by association with marginal extremists (NAMBLA
and an ephebophilia-defending article called "A Gay Manifesto") are two
examples.[1] Trying to tar gays with pedophilia is one of the worse
manifestations of homophobia.

Since, with your usual lack of self-awareness, you confirmed my point
that you'd claimed I used Giwer "as a scapegoat," I see no reason to
belabor the matter.

[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/oEuWMxe-Dro/3l9JJYHcQUIJ

Mitchell Coffey

[D. Spencer Hines]

Good Post!

Spot on...

Veni, Vidi Calcitravi Asinum...

In Peter Nyikos's favor.

DSH

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.

wrote in message
news:ebd5ecf6-6bb6-4832...@googlegroups.com...

[Don Cates]

On 16/05/2014 8:37 AM, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <ll2t2a$uc7$1...@dont-email.me>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Educate people without religion and you make them but clever devils." --
>> Arthur Wellesley [1769-1852] Duke of Wellington
>>
>> "Vote, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>> himself and a wreck of his country."
>>
>> Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce [1842-1913/4] - The Devil's Dictionary
>>
>> "Equus hemionus ad aquam potestis ducere, sed non potestis compellere ei
>> bibere."
>>
>> Quintus Aurelius Stultus [38 B.C - 14 A.D.]
>>
>> Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.
>>
>> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>>
>> D. Spencer Hines
>>
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Congratulations. By stripping out all context from previous posters,
> you've managed to construct a comprehensible post.
>
> There's still the problem with the content, though. Do you have no
> thoughts of your own, or are you compelled to converse exclusively in
> other people's words for some other reason?
>
> But as you seem to like Ambrose Bierce, I will respond in kind:
>
> RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
> nature of the Unknowable.
>

here is something from long ago by Richard Harter.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/DO9cY5X-sJI/OTncDr4ZWTAJ

From: c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Gansian Arrogance Unleashed
Date: 2000/06/29

On 29 Jun 2000 00:47:11 -0400, "Ashland S Henderson"
<ash...@ccnet.com> wrote:

>
>D. Spencer Hines wrote in message <058590916191c...@msn.com>...
>
>snip random and mindless pokes at Gans
>
>>Gans has this Holy Mission to enlighten the poor ignorant denizens of
>>USENET.
>
>
>Well, that's better than your mission which seems to be to demonstrate
>what a small-minded, ignorant, and annoying person you are.

But it is a mission with a much greater likelihood of success. The
ignorant and unenlightened denizens of USENET obstinately remain
ignorant and unenlightened whereas Mr. Hines has succeeded in
convincing all who read him that he is a small-minded, ignorant, and
annoying person. Did I say all? Perhaps that is an exaggeration.
Surely, amidst the thousands who, at one time or another, have had the
misfortune of reading one of Mr. Hine's missives there must one, some
benighted soul, who does not perceive the malignity that blights Mr.
Hines's soul and poisons his discourse. I appreciate that this is
hard to credit but this is a large world that holds wonders that
astound the rational mind. There is room in this world for the
platypus and the pangolin, the fig wasp and the fig tree, and all
other manner of marvels; in a world of such variety and unexpected
wonders there is room for some one person who appreciates Mr. Hines
for his breadth of vision, his depth of knowledge, and his essential
goodness. It is only to be hoped that unfortunate person, whomever he
or she might be, is already under professional care.

As to Mr. Hines, what can one say? He is there, like the stench from
a modern industrial piggery. He has spent a lifetime crafting the
persona he wears and he is well set in his ways. He will not change;
I daresay he cannot change. It were a perverse crafting to be sure
but the work is done and the object of his labors, such as it is, is
among us to remind us by example that a self made man constructed by
shoddy workmanship is a poor thing indeed.



Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
He thought himself God's gift to truly desperate women;
Then he discovered that even desperate women have standards.

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:23:08 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 11:38 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> Sorry, Giwer didn't call Jews "greedy bastard extortionists" in that
> post, he called them "lying greedy bastards." He called them "greedy
> bastard extortionists" in this post, the next day:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.ancient/0DqjHucIoME/sUytogEuWWQJ

Nice to finally see, after 13 years, what you assumed I had seen. What reason
did you have for that assumption?

I hope you don't think a crime like extortion is morally equivalent to lying,
which you seem to have no trouble liking when a hate-driven "bahstd"
[as many Brits pronounce the word]like "Pat James" indulges in it--
provided, of course, the target is myself.

> > (2) I made no moral equivalence between anything Giwer wrote
> > and anything "Pat James" wrote. Coffey probably wrote the
> > words "moral equivalence" on automatic pilot--it is a reflex
> > reaction of leftists, whenever an opponent makes some sort of
> > analogy, however limited, between two things, to claim that
> > they "equated" them or considered them "morally equivalent."

> You did make moral equivalence, as my cited material shows [1] - in
> fact, you thought what James wrote was /worse/ than Giwer,

...doing what? Here is what I wrote immediately preceding my
"scapegoat" comment:

"Meanwhile, the issue of whether Giwer *denies* that Evil Deeds
on such a magnitude were done by the Nazis remains unaddressed."

> that people
> were only concerned about Giwer

Again the issue is WHAT Giwer had actually been SHOWN to me to have
said and done.

> to use him as a, your word, "scapegoat"
> to divert people from our own sins.

You are seizing on an imprecise word meant to
express the following thought: you are using Giwer to excuse everything
Pat James did, and to justify repeating vile lies of his about me.

Note the present tense: no sign that you think either you or Pat James
did anything wrong.

Using that kind of reasoning, "moderate" Muslims could use the Holocaust
itself as an excuse for not saying anything negative about the murder of
the far smaller number of people who died in 9/11.

> [1] e.g.,
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/sci.econ/t3Cahiop9c4/6lPA5aVVMaIJ

> Note that you have already quoted this last post yourself within the
> last few days, so you can't deny not knowing of it.

Not only do I not deny it, I am happy to be able to clarify what I meant
with what I said in it.

> > Here is what I wrote in the blog post that
> > he dug up:

> > Not only were many Brownshirts leftists, but their leader, Roehm,
> > glorified male homosexuality and considered it to be more manly than
> > heterosexuality. One of the dirty little secrets of gays is that
> > many of them are fascists, and many of the leading European fascists
> > are gay.
> > Here is a remarkably detailed article on that in the Huffington Post,
> > a source generally very favorable to the left and to gays:
>
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

> I'm not familiar with this muckraker's post, but found your post in a
> Catholic forum.

So did he. And thanks for admitting that you are a muckraker too.
How much snooping around have you done in hopes of getting dirt on me?

As for myself, I don't do that sort of thing. You provide me with more
than enough dirt for me not to have to go snooping around for it elsewhere.
And that goes for many other scoundrels, incuding the Gans who leads you by
the nose all to often: when I learned in 2000 about his involvement in
soc.history.medieval, I let it be known by participating there myself.

Concluded in next reply to this post of Coffey's.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:58:41 AM UTC-4, David Iain Greig wrote:
> D. Spencer Hines <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Pogue Gans is so unimaginative, stupid and torpid that he doesn't even
> > understand that the fascination of Ancestor & Relative-Hunting has NOTHING
> > to do with actual biophysical-biochemical content.

> Holy crap, woodworms.

> Didn't I ban you?

If you did, what were the grounds for it? Are they still valid?

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/14/2014 05:41 PM, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <ll0co9$aih$1...@dont-email.me>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snip everything>
>
> DSH: I've snipped everything, because this post isn't about the content
> of your post, but its structure...
>
> Basically, unless and until you start posting replies in the accepted
> standard format for talk.origins (which, like most newsgroups possibly
> excluding the comp.sys.ms ones, uses interleaved posting with chevrons
> to indicate threading, not top-posting) you are highly unlikely to get
> a lot of interest in your posts, as its really hard work to work out
> what was written by you, what was written by someone else, and who the
> hell you were responding to.
>
> So if you're happy to continue demonstrating the wonders of write once,
> read never technology, carry on as you are. But if you'd prefer the
> alternative write once, read many, you need to get your act together.

DSH has perhaps the most obnoxious post-signature string habits in
history. Not that he has ever cared as his sole reason for existing is
to bash Paul Gans.

DSH does make me miss our old school compatriot Wade Hines (or as
someone joked in the past Wide Hanes). No relation to DSH I'm sure. Wade
was hardcore informative.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/16/2014 04:28 PM, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Good Post!
>
> Spot on...
>
> Veni, Vidi Calcitravi Asinum...
>
> In Peter Nyikos's favor.

1. Get a frickin' room to share with your buddy.

2. Learn usenet conventions you frickin assclown. Top-posting makes you
look like more of a fool than your tedious quotes and pro-PN toadyism.
Damn you are obnoxious. That is your *only* claim to fame here.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 5/16/2014 9:13 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:23:08 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 5/16/2014 11:38 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Giwer didn't call Jews "greedy bastard extortionists" in that
>> post, he called them "lying greedy bastards." He called them "greedy
>> bastard extortionists" in this post, the next day:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.ancient/0DqjHucIoME/sUytogEuWWQJ
>
> Nice to finally see, after 13 years, what you assumed I had seen. What reason
> did you have for that assumption?

You can be seen to have participated in that section of the thread.

> I hope you don't think a crime like extortion is morally equivalent to lying,
> which you seem to have no trouble liking when a hate-driven "bahstd"
> [as many Brits pronounce the word]like "Pat James" indulges in it--
> provided, of course, the target is myself.

You know, here you are doing now exactly what you are claiming you
didn't do back then: making morally equivalence between Giwer's
antisemitic smear and Pat James puerile taunt of calling you "fag." And
no, Pat was being a prick but wasn't "lying": like a child he was trying
to make you upset and no one in his right mind would take him seriously.
I criticized him at the time, contrary to what you think, and he stopped
doing it (at least for a while, I don't know). I warned you not to fall
for his nonsense, but you did.

>>> (2) I made no moral equivalence between anything Giwer wrote
>>> and anything "Pat James" wrote. Coffey probably wrote the
>>> words "moral equivalence" on automatic pilot--it is a reflex
>>> reaction of leftists, whenever an opponent makes some sort of
>>> analogy, however limited, between two things, to claim that
>>> they "equated" them or considered them "morally equivalent."
>
>> You did make moral equivalence, as my cited material shows [1] - in
>> fact, you thought what James wrote was /worse/ than Giwer,
>
> ...doing what? Here is what I wrote immediately preceding my
> "scapegoat" comment:
>
> "Meanwhile, the issue of whether Giwer *denies* that Evil Deeds
> on such a magnitude were done by the Nazis remains unaddressed."

Cut the crap: by they time you wrote that [1] not only had I posted thos
3 or 4 links to Giwer's website, Giwer had posted /this/ link to /his/
website, http://giwersworld.org/holo2/holo-faq.phtml.[2]

[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/TrREAQIW8AIJ

[2]
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/soc.history.ancient/0DqjHucIoME/wyhYo0x58PMJ

>> that people
>> were only concerned about Giwer
>
> Again the issue is WHAT Giwer had actually been SHOWN to me to have
> said and done.

Ditto.

>> to use him as a, your word, "scapegoat"
>> to divert people from our own sins.
>
> You are seizing on an imprecise word meant to
> express the following thought: you are using Giwer to excuse everything
> Pat James did, and to justify repeating vile lies of his about me.

Except I didn't excuse Pat and you did make homophobic posts. And you're
again doing now exactly what I criticized you for then.

> Note the present tense: no sign that you think either you or Pat James
> did anything wrong.

Other than me criticizing Pat, calling him an "asshole" for it, getting
him to stop...

And the fact was you made homophobic posts.

> Using that kind of reasoning, "moderate" Muslims could use the Holocaust
> itself as an excuse for not saying anything negative about the murder of
> the far smaller number of people who died in 9/11.

This is certainly in the spirit of of what I had criticized you for.
It's sad you're incapable of recognizing that.

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ll81ck$tqo$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/16/2014 9:13 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:23:08 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2014 11:38 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:46:07 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Giwer didn't call Jews "greedy bastard extortionists" in that
>>> post, he called them "lying greedy bastards." He called them "greedy
>>> bastard extortionists" in this post, the next day:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.history.ancient/0DqjHucIoME/sUytogEuWWQJ
>>
>> Nice to finally see, after 13 years, what you assumed I had seen. What reason
>> did you have for that assumption?
>
> You can be seen to have participated in that section of the thread.
>

I don't know what "that section" means, but there are more than 850 posts under that subject with participants posting from multiple groups.
Some, it is fair to say many, posts have nothing to do with Giwer or Nazis or Jews or Nyikos or you.
Even in a thread with only few posts it is not possible to know whether a participant has read all the posts in that thread unless he
has replied to all of them.
You didn't have a problem providing a url above for one post. You apparently don't have a problem with intimating that Peter
was aware of something specific that was said in a particular thread even though instead of providing a URL for that you intimate that he has.
I've warned you of this before, and as I recall you've never provided specific evidence when asked.
Could this behavior of yours be called guilt by implied association?
I'm betting you'll say that all I have to do is search the thread to find out. Of course the bet is off since I told you about it.
Maybe instead you can attack me, call me Peter's puppet or some such other endearing language.
Or you could make yourself appear to be wise and thoughtful by telling me to search anyway.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:52:35 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

>On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:59:11 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:38:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
>> >Short on time today...
>
>> The perpetual excuse offered for failing to acknowledge
>> embarrassing and/or difficult questions.
>
>If what I wrote is adequate, what difference does it make?

None, for this thread. Now try addressing other issues in
other threads, at least one of which has been waiting for 5
or 6 weeks.

>If it is not, people more clued in than you to the issues will
>let me know about it, and I'll keep going until they are either
>resolved or people pretend they have been resolved in their favor
>and refuse to discuss them any more.

Yes, we've all seen that particular pretense of yours.

>And none of this will happen on YOUR timetable, because you are
>too uninterested in truth to realize that it is timeless.

The second perpetual excuse: "I don't have to answer your
questions because I know you're not really interested, even
though you've been asking the same questions, which are
directly relevant to my assertions, for many months without
meaningful response from me".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:33 -1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com>:

>Spot on...

....your tie.

[Paul J Gans]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>On 05/14/2014 05:41 PM, Nick Roberts wrote:
>> In message <ll0co9$aih$1...@dont-email.me>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip everything>
>>
>> DSH: I've snipped everything, because this post isn't about the content
>> of your post, but its structure...
>>
>> Basically, unless and until you start posting replies in the accepted
>> standard format for talk.origins (which, like most newsgroups possibly
>> excluding the comp.sys.ms ones, uses interleaved posting with chevrons
>> to indicate threading, not top-posting) you are highly unlikely to get
>> a lot of interest in your posts, as its really hard work to work out
>> what was written by you, what was written by someone else, and who the
>> hell you were responding to.
>>
>> So if you're happy to continue demonstrating the wonders of write once,
>> read never technology, carry on as you are. But if you'd prefer the
>> alternative write once, read many, you need to get your act together.

>DSH has perhaps the most obnoxious post-signature string habits in
>history. Not that he has ever cared as his sole reason for existing is
>to bash Paul Gans.

Not really. Back when we met, over in soc.history.medieval, he was
a more general basher. You know the type. one that never made an
original contribution but simply waited until one of his many targets
posted and then he pounced.

The current version is somewhat off. I can't put my finger on it.
Perhaps it is because he's hardly called anyone a "pogue" this time
around.

>DSH does make me miss our old school compatriot Wade Hines (or as
>someone joked in the past Wide Hanes). No relation to DSH I'm sure. Wade
>was hardcore informative.

Wade was special.

--
--- Paul J. Gans