Eric Simpson Shows His True Colors

[Peter Nyikos]

Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend in talk.origins,
invariably showing favoritism towards Harshman here over the last
three years at least, no matter what the issue or personal clash.

His behavior in sci.bio.paleontology, on the other hand, is
even more in contrast to his behavior here than Dr. Jekyll's was
in contrast to that of Mr. Hyde. He has even once mollified
a person who was so miffed at Harshman's behavior that he
contemplated leaving s.b.p. Erik assured him that his input
was worthwhile and that he should not take "the harsh man"
too much to heart.

The contrast with s.b.p. does not extend to sins of omission,
however. Erik has posted a grotesque, demeaning falsehood about me
on a thread I began, with the same Subject: line except with
"John Harshman" in place of "Erik Simpson."

The falsehood was the allegation that I had been guilty of a gross
misreading in s.b.p. of a paper that
he inaccurately called an article on artiodactyl evolution.

I had already countered this malicious falsehood in the thread where it
was originally made:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/eXDyc8EPCAAJ
Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <dbe81791-565b-4cef...@googlegroups.com>


Not one to be deterred, Erik re-posted his false charge in the "John
Harshman..." thread, after having cravenly fled from the linked post.
I gave him the above link in direct reply to him:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/bTc_3ziRCwAJ
Subject: Re: John Harshman Shows His True Colors
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34b5d023-d8e8-4c66...@googlegroups.com>

True to form, he ignored it again, while trying to stir up a tempest
in a teapot over a side issue.


Unfortunately, my most telling rebuttal of all, which I had promised in
both posts linked above, seems to be under a jinx. I have lost track
of how many tries (including piggybacks) I made to post it.
So I have begun this new thread in hopes of being able to post it here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]

Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
relax...
--

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

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 19, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<vfki3dd0lsumes7uu...@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>
> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
> relax...

He’ll never include me on that list. [sniff] he doesn’t love me anymore
[deeper sniff] can you see how deeply I care?

and, oh...

You're a mean one Peter Nyikos
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
And as charming as an eel,
Peter Nyikos!

You're a bad banana,
With a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Peter Nyikos!
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders.
You've got garlic in your soul,
Peter Nyikos!

I wouldn't touch you
With a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a vile one, Peter Nyikos!
You have termites in your smile.
You have all the tender sweetness
Of a seasick crocodile,
Peter Nyikos!

Given the choice between the two of you,
I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a foul one, Peter Nyikos!
You're a nasty, wasty skunk!
Your heart is full of unwashed socks.
Your soul is full of gunk,
Peter Nyikos!

The three words that best describe you
Are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk!"

You're a rotter, Peter Nyikos!
You're the king of sinful sots!
Your heart's a dead tomato,
Splotched with moldy, purple spots,
Peter Nyikos!

Your soul is an appalling dump-heap,
Overflowing with the most disgraceful
Assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable,
Mangled-up in tangled-up knots!

You nauseate me, Peter Nyikos!
With a nauseous super naus!
You're a crooked jerky jockey,
And you drive a crooked hoss,
Peter Nyikos!

You're a three-decker sauerkraut
And toadstool sandwich,
With arsenic sauce!

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>
> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
> relax...

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>
> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
> relax...

You are one silly twit, Casanova, ignoring the fact that
Harshman is a far more important person in this newsgroup than
you are, and that Simpson adds a lot to that importance.

Erik is vastly more knowledgeable about evolution than you
are, and any of the people whom you may think I want to
start a thread about.

The topic of what you snipped is Erik's bare faced lie
about the following post in sci.bio.paleontology:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Z8xn6B2tqE8/vQnwgRifAwAJ
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 18:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4f80e5eb-e329-429b...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Entelodonts and Cetaceans

I'd explain why what he says is a lie, but I don't think you know enough
about paleontology to understand it. If you think you DO, just let
me know.

The lie was demolished in the first post I linked in my OP; and of course,
you deleted the link.

His lie was embellished with phony claims of amazement, too;

I was amazed by that, and it called into question (for me at least)
just what you do know and understand of modern systematics.


I expect Erik to emulate his mentor Harshman in staying away from this thread,
and to let ignorant fans like yourself do his dirty work for them.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>> Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>
> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
> relax...

I can’t be the only one who thinks of Cyndi Lauper's song on these threads.

[Burkhard]

you aren't - I already located it on youtube and was just about to post..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYD7CzdPPN0

[Peter Nyikos]

Does that have anything to do with ignoring the contents of
something (in this case, a post) everyone is supposedly talking about?

Everyone but me on this thread is doing just that,
but Burkhard is the only one who has an excuse: he
has me killfiled, and Casanova protected him from having
to see what the OP is all about.

Why is it that the same people fasten themselves like
leeches to every new thread I start while completely
ignoring what the thread is all about?

You did it on the Harshman true colors thread too, with Casanova
also ignoring what my reply to Robert Camp was
all about while posting, in reply to it a Pee Wee Hermanism-by-proxy,
of the sort:

I know you are, but what is Robert Camp?

And in a separate post, the message was:

I know you are, but what is John Harshman?

In both cases, he remained faithful to the original by
posting absolutely no evidence for the "I know you are" part,
but he could only do it halfway convincingly by massively deleting
information that showed just how wrong he was.

Of course, he thereby gave Burkhard a perfect excuse for thinking
the posts to which he was replying was totally different from
what it was. Just as here.

And you parasitized Casanova's deletion -- you didn't even
have to delete anything from the OP.


Is this to be typical of y'all's behavior in 2018 also?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

What is your fascination with Burkhard Who Has Me Killfiled? You seem to work
a reference to him into a fair fraction of your posts, despite an obvious lack
of interest on his part.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Actually, I think Burkhard Who Has You Killfiled is missing some pretty good
stuff. Your current spluttering rage with Ray is hilarious.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip Who’s Who in Talk.Origins 2017]

>
> And you parasitized Casanova's deletion -- you didn't even
> have to delete anything from the OP.
>

Sociopathic impulse.

>
> Is this to be typical of y'all's behavior in 2018 also?
>

We shall see.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Burkhard Who Has Him Killfiled must be a very important person on the newsgroup to warrant all of this attention.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Who decides who is and who isn't important on this group, and what criteria are used?

[*Hemidactylus*]

I am amazed at his ability to work a reference in his posts to numerous
people whether they still post here, ignore his posts as does ‘Burkhard Who
Has Him Killfiled’, no longer post here, or never posted here (from the
abortion newsgroup).

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 19, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article<iM2dnUbBAIPNWKTH...@giganews.com>):

I not amazed at anything the disgraced duke of dimness does. Amused, yes.
Amazed, no.

Hey, Petey! Generic insult #125!

[Peter Nyikos]

It's a combination of being well versed in evolutionary theory and
the evidence for evolution -- these are two completely different
issues, by the way -- and getting along well with others who are
similarly well versed, AND having people who like them attacking
their opponents, by fair means or foul. Harshman excels in all three
categories, and you've seen what I've written about Erik being a
faithful ally of his.

I'm about to go on a posting break that I have been talking about
for a week now. I'll be back some time in January, and perhaps
I can tell you more on my return.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

In the tradition of coining nearly needless neologisms for behaviors, I
think there should be a term for making gratuitous or extraneous
references to other people. I propose "Pee-Wee-Hermanism", due to that
character's penchant for surrounding himself with fantastic inventions
(according to Wikipedia; I confess to never having watched him myself).
Plus, it's not like the term is in common use elsewise.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[jonathan]

On 12/19/2017 10:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

God I feel sorry for your students/family, you
do justice to the concept of being petty.


Synonyms of petty

illiberal, insular, Lilliputian, little, narrow-minded,
parochial, narrow, picayune, provincial, sectarian, small,
small-minded inflexible, ironbound, obdurate, obstinate,
rigid, set, stubborn, unyielding, wrongheaded, bigoted,
intolerant, biased, discriminating, discriminatory,
jaundiced, one-sided, partial, partisan, prejudiced
brass bound, hidebound, old-fashioned, reactionary,
stodgy, straitlaced (or straightlaced), stuffy
dogmatic (also dogmatical), opinionated, opinionative
limited hick, unsophisticated


btw Merry Christmas

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Robert Camp]

On 12/19/17 3:57 PM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:55:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip>

>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Who decides who is and who isn't important on this group,

Poorly socialized people who've suffered traumatic potty-training.

> and what criteria are used?

The degree to which their psychoses have flared up.

[*Hemidactylus*]

If memory serves Phil Hartman cut his teeth working on Pee Wee Herman.
Hartman was a comic genius and I thought that before his tragic death. His
“anal retentive” characters were priceless:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/anal-retentive-guy/n9800?snl=1

When I heard he was killed I was devastated.

Phil as Slick Willy:

https://youtu.be/eYt0khR_ej0

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:48:55 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> > <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>> >
>> >> Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
>> > Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
>> > relax...
>>
>> I can’t be the only one who thinks of Cyndi Lauper's song on these threads.
>
>Does that have anything to do with ignoring the contents of
>something (in this case, a post) everyone is supposedly talking about?
>
>Everyone but me on this thread is doing just that,
>but Burkhard is the only one who has an excuse: he
>has me killfiled, and Casanova protected him from having
>to see what the OP is all about.

What does that even mean? How do you single out one individual who
"protects" Burkhard? How do you think Casanova is uniquely obliged to
repost your repetitive irrelevant spew?

>Why is it that the same people fasten themselves like
>leeches to every new thread I start while completely
>ignoring what the thread is all about?

Since you asked, my impression is it's because the topic of your OP is
not only more of your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter, but it's also boring and stupid. You're welcome.

>You did it on the Harshman true colors thread too, with Casanova
>also ignoring what my reply to Robert Camp was
>all about while posting, in reply to it a Pee Wee Hermanism-by-proxy,
>of the sort:
>
> I know you are, but what is Robert Camp?
>
>And in a separate post, the message was:
>
> I know you are, but what is John Harshman?
>
>In both cases, he remained faithful to the original by
>posting absolutely no evidence for the "I know you are" part,
>but he could only do it halfway convincingly by massively deleting
>information that showed just how wrong he was.
>
>Of course, he thereby gave Burkhard a perfect excuse for thinking
>the posts to which he was replying was totally different from
>what it was. Just as here.
>
>And you parasitized Casanova's deletion -- you didn't even
>have to delete anything from the OP.

Not sure how one "parasitzes" a deletion. That sounds like a problem
with homeopathy.

>Is this to be typical of y'all's behavior in 2018 also?

Since you asked, it depends on whether you continue to post your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter in 2018 also.
You're welcome.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

Your suggestion is a good one, of having a snappy label to refer to
cases of gratuitous or extraneous references to other people, as it
happens a lot among T.O. trolls.

But your candidate neologism would conflict with rockhead's meaning of
the phrase. Of course, if your intent is to override rockhead, I
think it's a great idea.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I'm afraid that you have not addressed the question. You have not shown who decides who is and isn't important. Further, your criteria for deciding includes an item which does not seem to be relevant. It does not, or at least does not matter to me, who someone's "allies" "attack". Either the data support the position or the data does NOT support the position. The number of "allies" is irrelevant. The "importance" of the opposition is irrelevant, being merely an example of argument from authority. If the data supports the argument, it does not matter who made it.

You have asserted that Mr. Simpson is an "ally" of Mr. Harshman's; you have not demonstrated that either Mr. Simpson or Mr. Harshman is "important". You have not demonstrated that Mr. Simpson is "allied", in any way, to Mr. Harshman. You have not demonstrated that Mr. Simpson has "attacked" you, though it seems clear that he disagrees with you on several points. Is it sufficient to disagree with you on some points and to agree with Mr. Harshman on some points, which might or might not include the points with which there is disagreement with you, to make one an "ally" of Mr. Harshman and to constitute an "attack" on you? I ask because it seems to me that you are a minority of one on several points, so that would mean that everyone else in the newsgroup "attacks" you when they disagree. You can't mean this. If you seriously proposed this, you would be a paranoid sociopath. Please clarify your position at your earliest opportunity.

>
> I'm about to go on a posting break that I have been talking about
> for a week now. I'll be back some time in January, and perhaps
> I can tell you more on my return.

I shall await your return.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Referencing Peter’s point:
Nope. That’s a rationalization. Importance is based on a long standing
tendency to stick in Peter’s craw. This evolutionary theory versing is a
pretense to make Peter appear to be Hercules cleaning the stables of
talk.origins and actually contributing to informational content here. On
the occasions he happens to contribute content, it is so peppered with
references to Harshman, Erik, and Burkhard Who Killfiles Him, it is more a
reality show free for all script (oh no he didn’t) than documentary. He may
behave better on the paleontology group. And his snipped focus on actual
evolutionary and paleontological factuality seems toward nonstandard ideas.
He clashes with Harshman over the latter’s emphasis on cladism. And he is
very protective of ID proponent Michael Behe, so he comes with some
evo-skeptic baggage. He diverts attention from that with scifi speculation
about far flung alien civilizations seeding Earth. That washes the smell of
god out of his dirty laundry.

Oh...you just jumped many positions on the importance meter. Keep doing
that and you shall be part of Who’s Who in Talk.Origins 2018.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:53:49 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>>
>> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
>> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
>> relax...
>
>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >Erik Simpson has been Harshman's truest friend [yadda, yadda, yadda...]
>>
>> Perhaps you should start a list: "XXX Shows His/Her/Its True
>> Colors". By the time everyone on Earth is on it you can
>> relax...
>
>You are one silly twit, Casanova, ignoring the fact that
>Harshman is a far more important person in this newsgroup than
>you are, and that Simpson adds a lot to that importance.

I ignore nothing, and I recognize the professional knowledge
of many who post here. I *do* deny that you have any
importance here whatsoever, though; perhaps that's the
source of your infantile pique?

<snip more Peterisms>

Any reason for the multiple quotes and attributions above,
or just a "senior moment"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:57:34 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com>:

Why, that would be Peter, of course.

Criteria? He don' *need* no steenkin' criteria!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:41:18 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Hell, I didn't even *think* of that...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 01:41:35 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:48:55 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>And you parasitized Casanova's deletion -- you didn't even
>>have to delete anything from the OP.

>Not sure how one "parasitzes" a deletion. That sounds like a problem
>with homeopathy.

Yeah, that one caused a bit of head-scratching here, too.

>>Is this to be typical of y'all's behavior in 2018 also?

>Since you asked, it depends on whether you continue to post your
>repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter in 2018 also.
>You're welcome.

Is there any real question about that?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Your post would certainly be an improvement over his answer, which makes him appear to be a paranoid sociopath.

I suspect that I will be added to the list of "attackers" as soon as he returns from whereever it is that he went to to escape the heat.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:

Oh dear god s/he knows not what s/he does. Have mercy on her/his soul.

>
> I suspect that I will be added to the list of "attackers" as soon as he
> returns from whereever it is that he went to to escape the heat.
>

Be careful what you wish for. Once you cross that threshold there’s no
turning back. He will still be talking about you in 2025.

[Earle Jones]

On 2017-12-20 16:17:30 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 01:41:35 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:48:55 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> And you parasitized Casanova's deletion -- you didn't even
>>> have to delete anything from the OP.
>
>> Not sure how one "parasitzes" a deletion. That sounds like a problem
>> with homeopathy.
>
> Yeah, that one caused a bit of head-scratching here, too.
>
>>> Is this to be typical of y'all's behavior in 2018 also?

*
"y'all's"?

Peter, I think you've been in South Carolina too long!

earle
*

[Peter Nyikos]

After giving himself away with a scumbag reference to my
family that even Wolffan and Hemidactylus couldn't stomach,
it appears that jonathan is trying to buy himself back
on the cheap with his very first clause below.

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:05:02 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 10:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> God I feel sorry for your students/family,

This "sympathy" lacks credibility. I don't think you are
capable of feeling sorry for any talk.origins participant
except yourself.

Nevertheless, if you haven't already expressed "sympathy" for
everyone else for being unable to appreciate you
obsession with popularizations of complexity theory,
you might generate a minuscule bit of sympathy for yourself
by doing so.

It would be a change from the condescending
dismissals of us that I've seen from you so far.
[Only a slight change, admittedly.]

> you do justice to the concept of being petty.

It is you who do justice to the concept of "scumbag" and
"superman wannabe" [see repost below]; and now also to
the concept of "coward." You've fled ignominiously
from a post of which the following excerpts
are the most relevant parts. Deletia denoted by [...]

+++++++++++++++++ excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 12/13/2017 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 6:45:02 PM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2017 5:43 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/7/2017 7:54 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> >>>>>>
> >>>>> After attacking Nyikos's family you have the reputation of a tapeworm.
> >>>>> Apologize to him before you slither back to your cesspool.
> >
> >>>> He has a family?
> >>>>
> >>> Most people do.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was a spoof you fool, does anyone really think it's
> >>>> even conceivable he's posting pics of his family
> >>>> to alt.binaries.erotica.pornstar-trading?
> >
> >
> > No, but that is totally beside the point. Do you need
> > to have THAT spelled out for you?

[...]

> >>>> I'm accusing you of blowing the Pope while
> >>>> he was giving Mass at the Vatican.
> >>>>
> >>> Nyikos would never "joke" about that.
> >
> > Hemidactylus is telling the truth about me here,
> > for a change.
> >
> >>>> Now, are you going to sue me? Or explode
> >>>> in rage? Or realize no one with half a mind
> >>>> would take it seriously?
> >>>>
> >>> I am left wondering why you would couple me with the Pope and if you
> >>> watched too much Police Academy. But that doesn't get you off the hook for
> >>> bringing Peter's family into your beef with him.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Peter hasn't raised any objections,
> >
> > Like hell I haven't. The ONLY way I could give you the benefit of the
> > doubt on this falsehood is that you were behind on the thread when you
> > lit into me AFTER I had posted the following, and then abandoned
> > the thread before you could see the following post:
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2017 10:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a precedent for my
> >>> view of the situation.
> >>>
> >>> Way back in Octob or November of 2010, a fictition writer
> >>> posted to sci.bio.paleontology what he first claimed to be a report
> >>> of a number of extant dinosaurs deep in the South American
> >>> rain forest.
> >>>
> >>> It only came out after one or two exchanges that this
> >>> author, whose (pen?) name I've forgotten, revealed that
> >>> he'd been promotg a work of science fiction, aimed
> >>> at young people, which he was going to publish.
> >>>
> >>> This didn't sit well with you nor with the other
> >>> regulars (Norman? Simpson?). Y'all reprimanded him for his
> >>> unprofessional, or whatever, attitude towards s.b.p.
> >>>
> >>> I only re-joined s.b.p. a month later, by which time
> >>> he was gone and took no notice of my own reply to one
> >>> of his posts.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And many others told me what you did for rebuilding
> >> alt.binaries.pictures. erotica.pornstar-trading, and
> >> how much that was greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Was that your wife or daughter?
> >
> > You are quite a sleazy troll, jonathan. And here
> > I thought you were just a sincere crank.
> >
> >
> >> I would provide the pictures, but then
> >> you don't feel the need to back up
> >> your accusations, so...
> >
> > You claimed to have identified an accusation by me, which
> > differs radically from my recollection of the incident in question.
> >
> > You even set up a new Subject line with a title alleging
> > that this alleged accusation was a false one.
> >
> > You got ridiculed to the high heavens (or should I say
> > the low hells?) for your pomposity by your fellow trolls.
> >
> >
> > I'll say this for them, though:
> > none of whom has ever stooped s low as to bring my
> > wife and daughter [*sic*] into such sleaze as you have done.
> >
> >
> > I hereby challenge you to post an EXACT QUOTE by me saying
> > the false thing that you alleged I said, along with either
> > an url or a thread title and date so that others can see
> > whether you were accurately quoting me.
_____________________________________________________________
> > archived at
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/c8JODXmZBAAJ
> > Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
> > Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID: <cd590113-f531-4fbe...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > Note the date: TEN days before you posted your (ignorant?)
> > falsehood, embellished below.
> > The smart money says you are too much of a coward to
> > meet my challenge that I did back on Nov. 30, to QUOTE
> > the alleged claim which you labeled as false.
> >
> > And yet, that alleged claim of mine is the ONLY excuse
> > you can give for dragging my wife and daughter [*sic* I have
> > more than one daughter] into your sleazy fiction.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
>
>
> I'd rather beat nails into my head then bicker
> with you over who-said-what-to-who

Not so fast, [Bub]. You did a whole new Subject: line alleging
a false statement by you that you demanded I retract. Now
you are fulfilling my prediction that you will NEVER produce
documentation that I said the false thing to which your
Subject: line alluded.

Much as you would love it, this is NOT an instance of "he-said-she-said".
This is an example of "your own words coming back to haunt you".


> like a
> bunch of bitchy little jr high school girls.

Correction: this is a case of "Your own words will dog your footsteps
no matter what fallacious jeers you use to run away from them."

The reason for the correction: you seem to think that you are
the kind of "superman" of whom Nietsche wrote, above good and evil,
and above such "ordinary human" words as "truth" and "justice".

>
> Those were just trolls trying to get you
> to argue science and math, which you can't
> and won't.

I can, but I found out from your "superman" exercise of raw will
that you aren't wanting to discus math. This was clear when, by sheer
force of will, you put me into your private world as knowing what
you meant by "the integral". You then told me that I knew that you
had meant....

...drum roll...

...a paragraph in Wikipedia that does not even PRETEND to be
a mathematical definition, but talks around the concept so as
to say something meaningful to those jr. high school girls you seem
so keen on.

Afrer all, we don't want them to JUST know that an integral is
one of those tall anorexic capital S symbols that have a lot
of gnat-like symbols floating around them.


After the sleazy way you wrote about my wife, etc. and especially
the way Hemidactylus threw you under the bus after allying
himself with you back in September against me, I would be
perfectly within my rights to boycott you until you apologize
for that scumbag trolling.

But I will take the high road instead, and will make a much more
thorough reply to this travesty of a post of yours in January,
or February at the latest. And you will hear a lot more about
your sleazy trolling than Hemidactylus or Wolffan or Harshman
could tell you. Their morality is almost subhuman, and so
it has had no effect on you.

I don't expect an expert ethical analysis to be acknowledged
by a self-styled demigod like you either, but I will do it
as a matter of public record for everyone who does not share
your exalted view of yourself.

++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpts +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/_Fh1QpaVCwAJ
Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <11ac8e85-1371-4672...@googlegroups.com>

I take back my benefit-of-the-doubt statement quoted above: I am
formally charging you with having knowingly lied when you wrote,
"Peter hasn't raised any objections,..."

How do you plead to the charge?

Or will you emulate your fellow superman-wannabe, Ray Martinez? He
dared not enter a plea, but ran away from the post where I
charged him with malicious and deceitful favoritism towards
Harshman, to whom I had compared him <GASP> FAVORABLY
in some respects.

After all, you have no problem with emulating Wolffan,
who had done a ripoff of Dr. Seuss's poem about the
Grinch in order to hit me with a huge number of generic,
unsupported insults.

Case in point:

>
> Synonyms of petty
>
> illiberal, insular, Lilliputian, little, narrow-minded,
> parochial, narrow, picayune, provincial, sectarian, small,
> small-minded inflexible, ironbound, obdurate, obstinate,
> rigid, set, stubborn, unyielding, wrongheaded, bigoted,
> intolerant, biased, discriminating, discriminatory,
> jaundiced, one-sided, partial, partisan, prejudiced
> brass bound, hidebound, old-fashioned, reactionary,
> stodgy, straitlaced (or straightlaced), stuffy
> dogmatic (also dogmatical), opinionated, opinionative
> limited hick, unsophisticated
>
>
> btw Merry Christmas

Since when does the birth of someone to whom you probably
feel superior [see quote below] mean anything to you?

In the post from which I took those excerpts above,
I pointedly refused to wish you a Merry Christmas
on those grounds:

You probably think that Jesus was just another avatar, and
that you are superior to Jesus because your "God" has had
two thousand extra years to improve.

However, despite the fact that you think yourself beyond
such merely human concepts as "atheism" and "theism",
I do wish you a merry Winter Solstice.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> After giving himself away with a scumbag reference to my
> family that even Wolffan and Hemidactylus couldn't stomach,
>

Ummm, thanks I think?

[snip]

>
> It is you who do justice to the concept of "scumbag" and
> "superman wannabe" [see repost below]; and now also to
> the concept of "coward." You've fled ignominiously
> from a post of which the following excerpts
> are the most relevant parts. Deletia denoted by [...]
>

[snip]

>
> The reason for the correction: you seem to think that you are
> the kind of "superman" of whom Nietsche wrote, above good and evil,
> and above such "ordinary human" words as "truth" and "justice".
>

I seem to have heard this all before. A Nietzschean recurrence?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/TRiCiQ8QNF4/dICeEDx4BQAJ

“Hey Zarathustra, when you're back from your mountain and done with your
thus spake rant to the common folk, maybe you could apply your expertise to

explaining currencies. “


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/i4yY3blNGXo/nGdvbNQhBwAJ

“Then go back to your mountain oh Zarathustra. We are not ready for the
copypaste of your wisdom.”

For someone who holds me with such contempt you sure help yourself to my
wit and wisdom. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Merry
Christmas Peter.

[Mark Isaak]

I have seen Peter say what he means by the phrase a few times now, but
for the life of me, I can't remember what he said. All I remember is
that whatever his intended meaning was, it could be translated into "I
don't like you" without losing anything significant. And since that
meaning is a given already whenever Peter uses the phrase, it has no
real meaning. I would like to give it one.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 20, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article<cM-dnX4kovM0JqfH...@giganews.com>):

> > After giving himself away with a scumbag reference to my
> > family that even Wolffan and Hemidactylus couldn't stomach,
> Ummm, thanks I think?

This is what happens when you defend the demented disgraced duke of dimness.
Never again.

[Peter Nyikos]

You are disingenuously returning the huge favor Bob Casanova did
for you, described below. Even if, by some miracle, my identification
of the Pee Wee Hermanisms-by-proxy above somehow escaped the higher
centers of your brain, I simply cannot believe you are as clueless
as you pretend to be about the term.

And I don't think anyone who read it believes it either.

> (according to Wikipedia; I confess to never having watched him myself).

I did, once, while waiting for the main event: a reissue of Walt Disney's
"The Living Desert". Unbearable tedium, seeing the characters behave
like six-to-eight year old kids. When I was that age, I heard their multiply
repeated repartee "I know you are, but what am I?" more times than
I could count. The exchanges always went the way they were used in
the movie:

A. You are ______________ [demeaning description]

B. I know you are, but what am I?

Note the variation "Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy" that I identified above.

You followed that format (though not in exactly the same words) on one
occasion, and when I retorted, "Pee Wee Hermanism noted,"
Bob deleted what you had written and insincerely claimed that
when that term is used, it is like the gratuitous intrusion of
accusations using "Nazi" or derivatives thereof: it is a sign
that rational discourse is over.

By deleting what you had written, Casanova perversely insinuated that those
who call attention to Pee Wee Hermanisms are the ones to blame for the
end to rational discourse, and not those guilty of Pee Wee Hemanisms.
He thus served notice that anyone whom he likes (including himself, of
course) will be protected by him in the same deletion-aided way
if anyone he dislikes (especially myself) dares to identify the action
as a Pee Wee Hermanism.

> Plus, it's not like the term is in common use elsewise.

I picked it up in talk.abortion, where it was in common use,
and everyone knew what it meant.

And I do believe you've known what it meant all along, even
when it is in disguised form, such as one of jillery's favorite
bits of repartee:

Your _______________ disqualifies you from complaining about
my alleged _____________.

Note how well "Your _______________" matches "I know you are"
while "alleged" matches "but what am I?" And it is almost always
impossible to guess what support there is for "Your _______________"
because there is almost never that kind of behavior exhibited
in the text that appears elsewhere in the post.

Some naive people might assume that it has appeared in earlier
clashes between jillery and the victim of the Pee Wee Hermanism,
but such people are patsies who will never amount to anything
in talk.origins unless they get into the good graces of someone
as important as jillery.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Rest assured, I am very careful not to pick up the wrong ways of
life. One example: I have never aspired to own lakefront property.
Not far from us there is a huge reservoir called "Lake Murray."
It has two tiny public beaches. All the rest, AFAIK, is taken up
by private properties, and you can only swim in the lake when
you are guests of the owners or people with houses close by.

It is one of those rare cases where I find myself in agreement
with the generally odious saying of Marx and Engels:
"Private property is theft."


I must admit that when I first heard "y'all's", after having
heard "y'all" countless times over many years, I found it hilariously funny.
[btw that was in Ft. McLellan, Alabama, before I ever set foot
in South Carolina]. But I've come to appreciate the remarkable
conciseness with which it removes all ambiguities.

Sure, New Yorkers have "youse" and in Appalachia they have
you'uns, but both are awkward to turn into plural possessive pronouns,
while "y'all's" rolls almost effortlessly off the tongue.

Peter Nyikos

PS You are a welcome relief from the bozos on this thread. I hope
Panthera Tigris Altaica is another, but it's too early to tell
for sure: this is the first time we've engaged in back-and-forth
anywhere.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 2:40:05 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > After giving himself away with a scumbag reference to my
> > family that even Wolffan and Hemidactylus couldn't stomach,
> >
> Ummm, thanks I think?
>
> [snip]
> >
> > It is you who do justice to the concept of "scumbag" and
> > "superman wannabe" [see repost below]; and now also to
> > the concept of "coward." You've fled ignominiously
> > from a post of which the following excerpts
> > are the most relevant parts. Deletia denoted by [...]
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > The reason for the correction: you seem to think that you are
> > the kind of "superman" of whom Nietsche wrote, above good and evil,
> > and above such "ordinary human" words as "truth" and "justice".
> >
> I seem to have heard this all before.

Nah, you are too amoral to be talking like I did above, and are
simply BELOW those "ordinary human terms," judging from everything
I've seen from you.

> A Nietzschean recurrence?
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/TRiCiQ8QNF4/dICeEDx4BQAJ
>
> "Hey Zarathustra, when you're back from your mountain and done with your
> thus spake rant to the common folk, maybe you could apply your expertise to
>
> explaining currencies."
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/i4yY3blNGXo/nGdvbNQhBwAJ
>
> "Then go back to your mountain oh Zarathustra. We are not ready for the
> copypaste of your wisdom."
>
> For someone who holds me with such contempt you sure help yourself to my
> wit and wisdom. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Merry
> Christmas Peter.

Don't flatter yourself. I never saw either thread. One look at
the Subject: line for the first in the NGG table of contents convinced me
that jonathan was off in la-la land.

As for the second, I may have been hasty in concluding that JLL
was posting with tongue in cheek, like he was in sci.bio.paleontology
a good bit of the time back then. So I didn't bother to look
past the Subject line either.

And I don't have the time to check it out before my posting break,
which begins today if I can possibly help it. The past two hours
have been an unexpected break from family reunion festivities.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:09:01 -0800 (PST), the following

Mark? I was apparently correct in my assessment elsethread,
and Peter *does* think the reference is "common knowledge".
Oy...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:40:54 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

If you're referring to Pee Wee Herman (as in Peter's
perpetual references to "Pee Wee Hermanisms"), I finally got
tired of wondering and looked it up. It turns out (like you,
I never watched him) he was a character played by Paul
Reubens (another name unknown to me) sometime in the '70s
and/or '80s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee_Herman

I suspect Peter's reference is to the character's trademark
"I know you are, but what am I?" "snappy comeback" (cf Tommy
Smothers' "Well, well, OH, YEAH?!?"). That Peter apparently
thought everyone would immediately recognize the somewhat
obscure reference indicates to me the strength of his grasp
on reality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:08:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Seems so...

><snip more Peterisms>
>
>Any reason for the multiple quotes and attributions above,
>or just a "senior moment"?

We'll go with that reason, then. No problem; we all
experience them occasionally.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:09:01 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

<cut to the chase>

>> Plus, it's not like the term is in common use elsewise.
>
>I picked it up in talk.abortion, where it was in common use,
>and everyone knew what it meant.

Only you would claim talk.abortion as an etymological reference. One
could as easily use Urban Dictionary, where several variants refer to
Paul Reuben's arrest for public masturbation, which is a good metaphor
for what you do in T.O.

>And I do believe you've known what it meant all along, even
>when it is in disguised form, such as one of jillery's favorite
>bits of repartee:
>
> Your _______________ disqualifies you from complaining about
> my alleged _____________.

Of course, only you claim they mean the same thing. Of course, the
two phrases are very different. The phrase to which you express
repetitive umbrage identifies a tu quoque. A tu quoque is where the
critic alleges behavior in others of which he himself is guilty. It's
an expression of self-righteous hypocrisy. That's what you do.

>Note how well "Your _______________" matches "I know you are"
>while "alleged" matches "but what am I?"

Of course, any "match" exists only in your self-serving imagination.

>And it is almost always
>impossible to guess what support there is for "Your _______________"
>because there is almost never that kind of behavior exhibited
>in the text that appears elsewhere in the post.

And here you exercise another Big Lie. The behavior of the tu quoque
critic is either immediately apparent in the tu quoque itself, or has
been repeatedly well-documented elsewhere.

An irony here is the tu quoque critic's allegations are almost never
even specified, nevermind explicated. They are almost always bald
assertions. And almost always, the tu quoque critic either explicitly
refuses to back up his bald assertions or retract, or simply ignores
the obligation to do so.

On a related note, you habitually use tu quoques to accuse others of
what you know others accuse you, to lay the groundwork for your
illogical, juvenile, and self-serving Pee Wee Hermanism retort. I
identify this tactic of yours by he added phrase "tu quoque back
atcha".

You're welcome.

Didn't you say you had something to do, or someplace to go? Why
aren't you doing that instead of posting more of your repetitive
irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter?

<snip remaining repetitive spew>

[Peter Nyikos]

I believe all the people posting to this thread, except Wolffan and myself,
are important by the criteria I named. Although I can hold my own
with Erik Simpson and John Harshman where the first (dual) criterion
is concerned, I fail the other two miserably.

In fact, with Erik, I am WAY beyond holding my own where evolutionary
systematics is concerned. He is posting fluff, while I have given
people here enough clues to see how very wrong he was in claiming
that I had misread a peer-reviewed article on Cetacean evolution.

> Further, your criteria for deciding includes an item which
> does not seem to be relevant. It does not, or at least does
> not matter to me, who someone's "allies" "attack".

I'm glad YOU seem to feel that way about it. The others here are in a very
comfortable position wrt that third criterion, although it's painfully
obvious that everyone here besides myself (and you?) are very much
inadvertent witnesses to just how important they make Erik, for
instance, seem.

Actions speak louder than words, you know. Are you experienced
enough here to be able to read between the lines of what people
write?

> Either the data support the position or the data does NOT support the position.

I don't know what sort of "position" you are talking about here,
but it has nothing to do with the kinds of difficulties I am
faced with year after year. Foremost among them is exemplified by the
saying,

"If you can persuade people not to listen to your opponent's arguments,
it makes no difference how good his arguments are."

Case in point: the others seem spectacularly successful in getting
everyone but me to ignore the content of the OP, and to ignore the
link to sci.bio.paleontology that I gave Bob Casanova. None of the other
people there-- not Harshman, not Oxyaena, not Simpson -- have ever replied to the linked post there or anywhere.


And you have yet to even mention the main issue on this thread.


I've left in what you wrote below, so that people may see what
I am talking about just now. And I'm afraid "the earliest possible
opportunity" which you request is about a month from now. I'm fortunate
enough to have had some unexpected free time to post today, but that time is
rapidly coming to an end. I still have one reply and one special Christmas
message to post, and I hope to have the time for them later today.

So, thanks for agreeing to await my return

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> <...>

> In fact, with Erik, I am WAY beyond holding my own where evolutionary
> systematics is concerned. He is posting fluff, while I have given
> people here enough clues to see how very wrong he was in claiming
> that I had misread a peer-reviewed article on Cetacean evolution.
>

I wasn't going to respond to any of your BS in this thread, but that paragraph
is so absurdly untrue, I will.

The Cetecean evolution paper is:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2740860/

Peter's reaction:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Z8xn6B2tqE8/R8oU6KkfAwAJ

My response (and others') immediately follow Peter's.

Peter's reaction to the above was a brief rant about the awfulness of
cladophilia, the unfairness of "birds are dinosaurs", his high regard for some
generally discredited sources about the latter, plus the usual "you all hate
me" (particualarly Oxyaena). He then abandoned the field to return to TO to
work out on Ray, jillery, etc., etc.

If anybody cares (I doubt it, actually), they can peruse what I and and others
actually said, rather than the version Peter has constructed in his head.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You _still_ have not answered the question: Who decides who is "important" and who isn't?

> Although I can hold my own
> with Erik Simpson and John Harshman where the first (dual) criterion
> is concerned, I fail the other two miserably.
>
> In fact, with Erik, I am WAY beyond holding my own where evolutionary
> systematics is concerned. He is posting fluff, while I have given
> people here enough clues to see how very wrong he was in claiming
> that I had misread a peer-reviewed article on Cetacean evolution.

Unfortunately, you have failed to provide enough "clues" to do anything of the sort. You have shown that you feel animus toward Mr. Simpson. This is not the same as showing that he is "important" to the newsgroup, or that he is "allied" to Mr. Harshman (or anyone else) or even that he is incorrect.

>
> > Further, your criteria for deciding includes an item which
> > does not seem to be relevant. It does not, or at least does
> > not matter to me, who someone's "allies" "attack".
>
> I'm glad YOU seem to feel that way about it. The others here are in a very
> comfortable position wrt that third criterion, although it's painfully
> obvious that everyone here besides myself (and you?) are very much
> inadvertent witnesses to just how important they make Erik, for
> instance, seem.

Which "others" would that be? Can you provide supporting data for your position?

>
> Actions speak louder than words, you know. Are you experienced
> enough here to be able to read between the lines of what people
> write?

Can you provide data to support your position?

>
>
> > Either the data support the position or the data does NOT support the position.
>
> I don't know what sort of "position" you are talking about here,
> but it has nothing to do with the kinds of difficulties I am
> faced with year after year. Foremost among them is exemplified by the
> saying,
>
> "If you can persuade people not to listen to your opponent's arguments,
> it makes no difference how good his arguments are."
>
> Case in point: the others seem spectacularly successful in getting
> everyone but me to ignore the content of the OP, and to ignore the
> link to sci.bio.paleontology that I gave Bob Casanova. None of the other
> people there-- not Harshman, not Oxyaena, not Simpson -- have ever replied to the linked post there or anywhere.

Why _should_ they? If, as you say, they are "important" and you are not, why should they?

>
>
> And you have yet to even mention the main issue on this thread.

Which is?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Thank you for this.

[Peter Nyikos]

Fine, be that way, and ignore the innumerable hours I've put
in against Ray by writing all I have about the evolution of
the horse family and other strictly on-topic demonstrations
of his ignorance about the evidence for common descent.

Does that mean that Dana Tweedy's unrelenting pursuit of Ray
Martnez counts for nothing in your eyes too, where his
importance to talk.origins is concerned?

Or does your primitive, almost subhuman code of ethics
impel you to ascribe importance to him because he never
attacked you for irresponsible actions?

Prominent among them was your claim that JTEM and Joe LyonLayden
are "known" to be in sock puppet relationship, and then pointedly
refusing to lift a finger in support of this monumental allegation.

> > perhaps that's the
> >source of your infantile pique?
>
> Seems so...

This <crickets>++ style claim suggests that you have missed the
numerous times I've posted about my imminent posting break.


ON THE OTHER HAND, you may have seen the following words I did in reply
to Hemidactylus, ca. 2 hours BEFORE you posted this, and taken
craven advantage of them:

And I don't have the time to check it out before my posting break,
which begins today if I can possibly help it. The past two hours
have been an unexpected break from family reunion festivities

Or you may have seen the following, posted ca. 3 (three) hours
before you posted this, and [continue as above]

> ><snip more Peterisms>
> >
> >Any reason for the multiple quotes and attributions above,
> >or just a "senior moment"?
>
> We'll go with that reason, then. No problem; we all
> experience them occasionally.

This time, you are right. As you often are when you don't
have an ax to grind about me. Remember how well we agreed
on my assessment of last year's election of Trump on the
day after it?


I have some good news and some bad news.

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


By the way, I have had another unexpected two hours free time --
-- in the line of duty, no less -- but I've no assurance that there
will be any more between now and Christmas, and good reason
to think there might not be any tomorrow.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> This <crickets>++ style claim suggests that you have missed the
> numerous times I've posted about my imminent posting break.
>
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND, you may have seen the following words I did in reply
> to Hemidactylus, ca. 2 hours BEFORE you posted this, and taken
> craven advantage of them:
>
> And I don't have the time to check it out before my posting break,
> which begins today if I can possibly help it. The past two hours
> have been an unexpected break from family reunion festivities
>
> Or you may have seen the following, posted ca. 3 (three) hours
> before you posted this, and [continue as above]
>

Peter. What posting break?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:31:11 -0800 (PST), the following

I've also put in "innumerable hours" trying to educate Ray
regarding science, logic and the actual meanings of English
words and phrases. If you think that makes me *important"
sobeit; I disagree.

>Does that mean that Dana Tweedy's unrelenting pursuit of Ray
>Martnez counts for nothing in your eyes too, where his
>importance to talk.origins is concerned?
>
>Or does your primitive, almost subhuman code of ethics
>impel you to ascribe importance to him because he never
>attacked you for irresponsible actions?
>
>Prominent among them was your claim that JTEM and Joe LyonLayden
>are "known" to be in sock puppet relationship, and then pointedly
>refusing to lift a finger in support of this monumental allegation.

IIRC no one asked for such supporting evidence. Since it
became obvious it was incorrect, even though neither denied
it, I dropped it (unlike TIBAMJTEM's constant allegations
about anyone who has the temerity to disagree with his
pontifications); if it makes you happy I'm glad to formally
retract that allegation now.

>> > perhaps that's the
>> >source of your infantile pique?
>>
>> Seems so...
>
>This <crickets>++ style claim suggests that you have missed the
>numerous times I've posted about my imminent posting break.

....which *still* has yet to occur, a week after being
announced, during which you had many opportunities to
respond. But let it drop; I'm not really interested in
whatever you might have to say about your perceived
"importance".

>ON THE OTHER HAND, you may have seen the following words I did in reply
>to Hemidactylus, ca. 2 hours BEFORE you posted this, and taken
>craven advantage of them:
>
> And I don't have the time to check it out before my posting break,
> which begins today if I can possibly help it. The past two hours
> have been an unexpected break from family reunion festivities
>
>Or you may have seen the following, posted ca. 3 (three) hours
>before you posted this, and [continue as above]
>
>> ><snip more Peterisms>
>> >
>> >Any reason for the multiple quotes and attributions above,
>> >or just a "senior moment"?
>>
>> We'll go with that reason, then. No problem; we all
>> experience them occasionally.
>
>This time, you are right. As you often are when you don't
>have an ax to grind about me. Remember how well we agreed
>on my assessment of last year's election of Trump on the
>day after it?
>
>
> I have some good news and some bad news.
>
> The good news is that Clinton lost. The bad news is that Trump won.
>
>
>By the way, I have had another unexpected two hours free time --
>-- in the line of duty, no less -- but I've no assurance that there
>will be any more between now and Christmas, and good reason
>to think there might not be any tomorrow.
>
>Peter Nyikos