OT: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)

[Peter Nyikos]

This is an award similar to Chez Watt in spirit, but requiring more
background information than is allowed for Chez Watt nominations.

I only use it in months where I come across something that really
exemplifies it, and I believe the post I am nominating qualifies.
Other well-thought-out nominations are very welcome.

The nominated post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/DzvlbkV7CQAJ
Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:58:26 -0400
Message-ID: <pnopvq$3p4$2...@news.albasani.net>

Unfortunately, this 27-line post is not self-contained, so I
am replying to it here with some necessary additional information.


On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:

> >> Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,
> >
> >
> > Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.
>
> Psychological projection noted.

Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misunderstanding
of the following one-line comparison:

> > I am sure you both exist.

The point I was making here was how utterly ridiculous
the nominee's use of the word "comparing" was.


>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> You've just forfeited the argument by calling me a Nazi.

Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misuse of "calling me a ______",
inasmuch as my only mention of anything connected
to Nazis in the whole thread was at the beginning of the OP:

The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis and the "Axis of Evil" which
included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending
That Truth Is Falsehood, And Falsehood Is Truth."

I wonder whether the nominee thinks North Korea and
Iran are run by Nazis.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

He should be banned.


--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Niel Degrasse Tyson

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2018 12:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

This post is complete spam. Go fuck yourself, troll. BTW, the Nazis were
part of the Axis, and therefore Godwin's Law still applies.

The entire purpose of this sham "award" is to piss me off. You're a pig.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Your totalitarian mentality and hostility to freedom of expression
is coming to the fore here, just like it did with jillery when
I unmasked a piece of expert propgaganda by her.

Also, you are projecting: you got banned when you posted under
a different moniker, and you are pretending that I am doing
something like what you did to earn you the banning.

Like I wrote, you belong to the Axis of of Pretending

That Truth Is Falsehood, And Falsehood Is Truth.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

"Freedom of expression" = incitement. There are limits to the freedom of
expression, look them up.

> is coming to the fore here, just like it did with jillery when
> I unmasked a piece of expert propgaganda by her.
>
> Also, you are projecting: you got banned when you posted under
> a different moniker, and you are pretending that I am doing
> something like what you did to earn you the banning.

This entire post was created to simply piss me off. You're a fucking
troll. You're a troll of the worst kind. You've got no sense of common
decency whatsoever. You're one of those fucking douche bags who think
that being on the Internet protects you from societal repercussions,
allowing you to be as much of a prick as you want. Well guess what,
Usenet keeps an archive of every single post you've ever created, and
I've half a mind to send them to your fellow colleagues.

Actions have consequences, Peter, and you're treading dangerously close
to facing those consequences. Don't fuck with me, or else.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:40:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

Yours is, so in that sense you are telling the truth.

>go fuck yourself, troll. BTW, the Nazis were
> part of the Axis,

No, GERMANY was part of the Axis, you historical ignoramus.

The Axis was a MILITARY alliance, not an ideological one.
The Japanese were one of the Untermenschen according to Nazi ideology.

Hitler was so desperate to get Japanese cooperation after
the Red Army inflicted a stunning defeat on the Wehrmacht
on the outskirts of Moscow, that he declared war on the USA
the day after Pearl Harbor in order to get Japan to declare
war on the Soviet Union.

It didn't work. As one wag put it, "The Japanese considered
Germany to be a great ally - a big continent away." Or words
to that effect.

"Nazi Germany" had brilliant military leaders like Rommel,
who was essentially forced to commit suicide because he
was implicated in the most nearly successful plot to assassinate Hitler.

> and therefore Godwin's Law still applies.

Wishful thinking. The Axis leader you most resemble was the Japanese
dictator Tojo. It's a good thing you lack the power to do
the kind of damage that Tojo was responsible for. But with
your change of Subject line to

ATTN DIG: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)

and your one-liner "He should be banned" you are doing the
maximum that is easily available to you.

> The entire purpose of this sham "award" is to piss me off.

You are hopelessly self-centered.

You claim to have a "self-deprecating sense of humor"
but I'll believe it when I see some sign of it. It's
obvious that you have NO sense of humor when the joke is on you.


> You're a pig.

No, you are. Exposing repeatedly what a pathological liar you
are is like wrestling with a pig: one gets oneself very
dirty and the pig enjoys it. The enjoyment you get even from
threads like this one, with you droolingly hoping DIG's
wrath will come down on my head, must surely overwhelm
any "pissing off" that you are temporarily feeling.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Incitement to what, directed at whom? You are doing far
more inciting on this thread than I am even APART from
your heavy-handed incitement of DIG. You are inciting
your fellow trolls who fasten themselves to me like leeches
in various threads, just like you've been fastening yourself
to me big-time in several of them just this past month.

You even brought that silly troll, Wolffan, "out of retirement"
where I am concerned, by your massive denial of the truth
about yourself.

> There are limits to the freedom of
> expression, look them up.

No, YOU look them up. You might be in for a big surprise.

Then again, you probably know damn well that I am well
within those limits, but you can't resist the opportunity
to pretend that falsehood is truth, and truth is falsehood.

> > is coming to the fore here, just like it did with jillery when
> > I unmasked a piece of expert propgaganda by her.
> >
> > Also, you are projecting: you got banned when you posted under
> > a different moniker, and you are pretending that I am doing
> > something like what you did to earn you the banning.
>
> This entire post was created to simply piss me off.

There you go again, with your self-centered (simulated?) delusion.


I've snipped the rest of your orgy of pretending that truth
is falsehood, and falsehood truth. See the OP for why I choose
those words.


I leave you with a final thought: just WHY aren't you trying
to show that you did NOT indulge in a low-IQ simulation?


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

"I know you are but what am I." The essence of this response. Listen
here you fucking troll, this entire post was created to solely piss me
off and serves no constructive purposes. Hence, it's spam.

>
>> go fuck yourself, troll. BTW, the Nazis were
>> part of the Axis,
>
> No, GERMANY was part of the Axis, you historical ignoramus.

Distinction without a difference, asshole.

>
> The Axis was a MILITARY alliance, not an ideological one.

The Nazis had basically subsumed the entire German state by the time of
the formation of the Axis.

> The Japanese were one of the Untermenschen according to Nazi ideology.

"Honorary Aryans"

>
> Hitler was so desperate to get Japanese cooperation after
> the Red Army inflicted a stunning defeat on the Wehrmacht
> on the outskirts of Moscow, that he declared war on the USA
> the day after Pearl Harbor in order to get Japan to declare
> war on the Soviet Union.

You're telling me stuff I already know, dipshit. Go fuck yourself. I
know way more about history than you.

>
> It didn't work. As one wag put it, "The Japanese considered
> Germany to be a great ally - a big continent away." Or words
> to that effect.
>
> "Nazi Germany" had brilliant military leaders like Rommel,
> who was essentially forced to commit suicide because he
> was implicated in the most nearly successful plot to assassinate Hitler.

You realize that I know *all* of this, right?

>
>
>> and therefore Godwin's Law still applies.
>
> Wishful thinking. The Axis leader you most resemble was the Japanese
> dictator Tojo. It's a good thing you lack the power to do

The Axis dictator you most resemble was Mussolini, a spineless,
incompetent fuck-up who licks the boots of the likes of Burkhard. Being
a narcissist you want to "fit-in" with the likes of Burkhard and Ernest
Major, but they don't think much of you. Just see Bill Roger's response
to Isaak in the "gay thread" or his response to your spam on the
"Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis".

> the kind of damage that Tojo was responsible for. But with
> your change of Subject line to
>
> ATTN DIG: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)
>
> and your one-liner "He should be banned" you are doing the
> maximum that is easily available to you.
>
>

You've been engaging in a mass character assassination campaign against
me, relentlessly hounding me in posts you have nothing to do with,
trying to convince people I`m an ignoramus and therefore ruin my
reputation, you've done more damage than I ever could.

>> The entire purpose of this sham "award" is to piss me off.
>
> You are hopelessly self-centered.

Really! Are you fucking serious?! This post was created to riff on me,
READ YOUR DAMN FUCKING POST!

>
> You claim to have a "self-deprecating sense of humor"
> but I'll believe it when I see some sign of it. It's
> obvious that you have NO sense of humor when the joke is on you.

The joke's "not on me", only the culmination of a long campaign of
character assassination directed against me.

>
>
>> You're a pig.
>
> No, you are. Exposing repeatedly what a pathological liar you

You're a libelous pig.

> are is like wrestling with a pig: one gets oneself very
> dirty and the pig enjoys it. The enjoyment you get even from
> threads like this one, with you

Don't pretend to know me. I *hate* these flame wars, and I WANT THEM TO
FUCKING STOP. STOP. STOP. Just fucking STOP. I'd get more enjoyment out
of burning myself alive than I would from you flaming me.

droolingly hoping DIG's
> wrath will come down on my head, must surely overwhelm
> any "pissing off" that you are temporarily feeling.

You're one of the lowest forms of slime to ever crawl out of a mother's
womb. I hope you fucking have a heart attack.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued his campaign of character
assassination:

> Incitement to what, directed at whom? [snip mindless bullshit]
Incitement directed against me.

>
>
>> There are limits to the freedom of
>> expression, look them up.
>
> No, YOU look them up. You might be in for a big surprise.

You look them up. I don't have to do a damn thing. Is it too hard to
fucking Google something?

>
> Then again, you probably know damn well that I am well
> within those limits,

No, you're not. Anyone with half-a-brain can see that.

> but you can't resist the opportunity
> to pretend that falsehood is truth, and truth is falsehood.

Do you find this funny? Is this a game to you? You're a sick fuck.

>
>
>>> is coming to the fore here, just like it did with jillery when
>>> I unmasked a piece of expert propgaganda by her.
>>>
>>> Also, you are projecting: you got banned when you posted under
>>> a different moniker, and you are pretending that I am doing
>>> something like what you did to earn you the banning.
>>
>> This entire post was created to simply piss me off.
>
> There you go again, with your self-centered (simulated?) delusion.

<facepalm> You "nominated" me. You have relentlessly hounded me even in
threads you have nothing to do with, this post was the culmination of a
long campaign of character assassination directed against me. And don't
you dare call me self-centered, your entire reply to me in response to
my response to Carnegie was self-centered, you had nothing to do with
that conversation, you just like to troll me.

>
>
> I've snipped the rest of your orgy of pretending that truth
> is falsehood, and falsehood truth. See the OP for why I choose
> those words.

Oh, god. You've got to be enjoying this. Are you deliberately parodying
yourself. What you wrote above described you, NOT me. Do you get off on
this crap? You need help.

>
>
> I leave you with a final thought: just WHY aren't you trying
> to show that you did NOT indulge in a low-IQ simulation?

Because I have no need to. Anyone with half a brain can see that this
post is complete horseshit.


>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued his campaign of character
> assassination:

< snip bickering>

You'd do best to ignore him. Working pretty well for me (so far).

[Oxyaena]

Thanks, I`m going to adopt that policy.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:37:00 -0400, Oxyaena
<oxy...@the.last.king.of.scotland> wrote:

>He should be banned.


If, after letting your juices settle for a day or so, you still feel
this way, you could email DIG. But I don't recommend it, as what
Nyikos the peter's behavior doesn't meet DIG's qualifications for
being banned.

--
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]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>Your totalitarian mentality and hostility to freedom of expression
>is coming to the fore here, just like it did with jillery when
>I unmasked a piece of expert propgaganda by her.

Only in your wet dreams. Didn't your Momma teach you not to play with
yourself in public?

[jillery]

That's what AGW-deniers say.

I don't recall if you are on Nyikos the peter's list of Internet
Hellions, but if not, your situation isn't comparable.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2018 8:29 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:05:16 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued his campaign of character
>>> assassination:
>> < snip bickering>
>>
>> You'd do best to ignore him. Working pretty well for me (so far).
>
>
> That's what AGW-deniers say.
>
> I don't recall if you are on Nyikos the peter's list of Internet
> Hellions, but if not, your situation isn't comparable.
>

He is. Ignoring Peter won't make him go away, as Erik often finds out to
his own inconvenience whenever he happens to respond to that King of
Trolls.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in

it or not." - Neal Degrasse Tyson

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued

to expose the ineptitude and dishonesty of Oxyaena:

> < snip bickering>
>
> You'd do best to ignore him.

This should give Oxyaena a feeling of deja vu, because
you gave her pretty much the same advice a while back,
and it boomeranged on you:



Oxyaena had been puking all over me in over a hundred lines,
then came this:

___________________excerpt_______________________


> Chill, Oxy. He isn't worth the aggravation you're seeming to feel.

If what Oxyaena wrote were true, my charges would jolly well be
worth the aggravation of typing what 'e typed.

Just look at your own aggravation over my characterizing a post
you did as "counterproductive." You even reopened that old wound
of yours after over a month had passed, because the memory of it was
so aggravating.

Do you have a weird system of morality whereby my characterization
was worse than multiple slanders?

Or do you have a system (all too common, alas) of subjectivistic
morality whereby things are either good or bad on the basis of
whether they are favorable or unfavorable for yourself and those
people (if any) about whom you really care?

================================ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/RNINuDOndSM/65-DxCJ4DwAJ
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 04:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f28e0c13-bad1-458a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pterosaur dietary hypotheses

Neither you nor Oxyaena ever grasped the significance of my
first sentence in reply to you, and I'm sure jillery won't either.

It is that I am a man of high moral principles, where you
and Oxyaena and jillery almost surely follow the system of
morality I describe in my last paragraph of that reposted
excerpt.

That system is beautifully illustrated in a barroom scene
in that blockbuster film of the early 1950's, "From Here
to Eternity." It is acted out by Ernest Borgnine, Frank Sinatra,
and Burt Lancaster.

The "only" people worth explaining it to are those on an ever-growing
list that started out with 20, which jillery responded to quite
amicably at first. It is a list of people from whom I've
seen no significant sign of dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowadice,
or blatant lack of fairness. The three of you, on the other
hand, have shown all these despicable qualities at tremendous length.


You closed with the following line:

> Working pretty well for me (so far).

You keep flinging me into that briar patch, only to weaken
and reply to me, and then you get your just deserts,
as in the following memorable reply from me to you.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/wA3EJfvKogY/ZIBDJ9lkBgAJ
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <42204331-3b15-4f1c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Penguin, kangaroo


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

[snip mindless horseshit]

> and then you get your just deserts,
> as in the following memorable reply from me to you.

"Just deserts"? You're pathetic.


[snip horseshit]

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in

it or not." - Neal Degrasse Tyson

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:41:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@the.last.king.of.scotland>:

>On 9/19/2018 8:29 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:05:16 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued his campaign of character
>>>> assassination:
>>> < snip bickering>
>>>
>>> You'd do best to ignore him. Working pretty well for me (so far).
>>
>>
>> That's what AGW-deniers say.
>>
>> I don't recall if you are on Nyikos the peter's list of Internet
>> Hellions, but if not, your situation isn't comparable.
>>
>
>He is. Ignoring Peter won't make him go away, as Erik often finds out to
> his own inconvenience whenever he happens to respond to that King of
>Trolls.

If he really gets to you, to the point it affects your
health or equanimity, you can simply killfile him; I assume
your newsreader has that capability since you post via
albasani, not GurgleGropes.

I usually just consider the source, as I do with DocDoc, AB
and other such pests (and lately "The Idiot Known As V").
--

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]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>It is that I am a man of high moral principles,

Whenever you post your self-serving spam like the above, I inevitably
recall a scene from "Paper Moon". Since you like movie allusions so
much, I know you will appreciate this one:

****************************
Moses Pray: And stop standing around here checking on me! You don't
have to worry. I ain't about to leave some poor little child stranded
in the middle of nowhere. I've got scruples too, ya know. You know
what that is... scruples?

Addie Loggins: No, I don't know what it is but if you've got 'em, it's
a sure bet they belong to somebody else!
****************************

Of course, I don't mean to suggest you stole your high moral
principles, but rather that your behavior in T.O. doesn't fit what
most people I know think of by that phrase.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:15:09 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@the.last.king.of.scotland>:

>[snip mindless horseshit]
>> and then you get your just deserts,
>> as in the following memorable reply from me to you.
>
>"Just deserts"? You're pathetic.

Maybe "just arid plains" would have been better...

>[snip horseshit]

[satoshi]

That is not the definition of spam.
You lose.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/20/2018 3:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued
> to expose the ineptitude and dishonesty of Oxyaena:
>
>> < snip bickering>
>>
>> You'd do best to ignore him.
>
> This should give Oxyaena a feeling of deja vu, because
> you gave her pretty much the same advice a while back,
> and it boomeranged on you:
>

One, you don't know my gender, "'e" will suffice, and two, he gave me
that advice for good reason, because I was becoming increasingly
aggravated by your games.

>
>
> Oxyaena had been puking all over me in over a hundred lines,
> then came this:

Yeah, bullshit. Don't pretend that you're not at fault. It was a two-way
stream, remember? And I was responding to your libels.

>
> ___________________excerpt_______________________
>
>
>> Chill, Oxy. He isn't worth the aggravation you're seeming to feel.
>
> If what Oxyaena wrote were true, my charges would jolly well be
> worth the aggravation of typing what 'e typed.
>
> Just look at your own aggravation over my characterizing a post
> you did as "counterproductive." You even reopened that old wound
> of yours after over a month had passed, because the memory of it was
> so aggravating.
>
> Do you have a weird system of morality whereby my characterization
> was worse than multiple slanders?
>
> Or do you have a system (all too common, alas) of subjectivistic
> morality whereby things are either good or bad on the basis of
> whether they are favorable or unfavorable for yourself and those
> people (if any) about whom you really care?
>
> ================================ end of excerpt
> from
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/RNINuDOndSM/65-DxCJ4DwAJ
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 04:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <f28e0c13-bad1-458a...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Pterosaur dietary hypotheses
>
> Neither you nor Oxyaena ever grasped the significance of my
> first sentence in reply to you, and I'm sure jillery won't either.
>

You do realize that you're talking out of your ass right now, right?

> It is that I am a man of high moral principles,

Says the guy who repeatedly harasses me across Usenet with little to no
provocation.

> where you
> and Oxyaena and jillery almost surely follow the system of
> morality I describe in my last paragraph of that reposted
> excerpt.

Why is it that every time you accuse us of something the words that come
out of your mouth perfectly describe *you*? Psychological projection,
perhaps?

>
> That system is beautifully illustrated in a barroom scene
> in that blockbuster film of the early 1950's, "From Here
> to Eternity." It is acted out by Ernest Borgnine, Frank Sinatra,
> and Burt Lancaster.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

>
> The "only" people worth explaining it to are those on an ever-growing
> list that started out with 20, which jillery responded to quite
> amicably at first. It is a list of people from whom I've
> seen no significant sign of dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowadice,
> or blatant lack of fairness.

Your list is blatantly self-serving.

> The three of you, on the other
> hand, have shown all these despicable qualities at tremendous length.
>

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

>
> You closed with the following line:
>
>> Working pretty well for me (so far).
>
> You keep flinging me into that briar patch, only to weaken
> and reply to me, and then you get your just deserts,

Arrogant self-righteousness noted.



> Peter "Dunce cap" Nyikos
>

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:20:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is an award similar to Chez Watt in spirit, but requiring more
> background information than is allowed for Chez Watt nominations.
>
> I only use it in months where I come across something that really
> exemplifies it, and I believe the post I am nominating qualifies.
> Other well-thought-out nominations are very welcome.
>
> The nominated post:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/DzvlbkV7CQAJ
> Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:58:26 -0400
> Message-ID: <pnopvq$3p4$2...@news.albasani.net>
>
> Unfortunately, this 27-line post is not self-contained, so I
> am replying to it here with some necessary additional information.

He will be emotional about this, as you have underestimated his actual IQ by 30 to 35 points.

[satoshi]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/20/2018 3:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>> On 9/19/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Nyikos continued
> > to expose the ineptitude and dishonesty of Oxyaena:
> >
> >> < snip bickering>
> >>
> >> You'd do best to ignore him.
> >
> > This should give Oxyaena a feeling of deja vu, because
> > you gave her pretty much the same advice a while back,
> > and it boomeranged on you:
> >
>
> One, you don't know my gender

manic?

[Peter Nyikos]

That's why I wrote "simulator" -- whether intentionally or unintentionally,
Oxyaena is *simulating* someone with a lower IQ than 'e actually has.

And Oxyaena's staunch friend, Jillery, simulated one just a few hours ago.
I pointed that out in the following post:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IuWbwG0En70/3PlqO9OlCwAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Low-IQ Simulation of the Month (Sep. 2018), Nomination Number Two
Lines: 48
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9b91bb3f-81f9-46a4...@googlegroups.com>


By the way, Oxyaena once wrote "I am married to a paleontologist, and he..."
Of course, it is possible that this was a case of a same-sex marriage
(possibly between women of whom one has decided "his" gender is masculine),
but the odds are rather high that Oxyaena is a woman. So, just as for
centuries people used the word "he" for someone whose gender is not known,
I use "she," "her," etc. for Oxyaena, but sometimes I write 'e to emphasize
my lack of definitive knowledge.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

More like 70-75 points.

<plonk>

[jillery]

In the category of "could this line of reasoning be less coherent?"

>So, just as for
>centuries people used the word "he" for someone whose gender is not known,
>I use "she," "her," etc. for Oxyaena, but sometimes I write 'e to emphasize
>my lack of definitive knowledge.

[satoshi]

so your IQ is ten points less than I thought and posited for you

are you like that depressed robot from that bad novel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSM7AKfVJg

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:30:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<biggda...@gmail.com>:

Apparently in satoshiWorld "underestimated by 30 to 35
points" results in a higher number than "underestimated by
70-75 points". Been studying under DocDoc?

[satoshi]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:

> >> More like 70-75 points.
> >>
> >> <plonk>
> >
> >so your IQ is ten points less than I thought and posited for you
>
> Apparently in satoshiWorld "underestimated by 30 to 35
> points" results in

the other person said their iq was 70 to 75 points.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi

<travellin...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> >> More like 70-75 points.
>> >>
>> >> <plonk>
>> >
>> >so your IQ is ten points less than I thought and posited for you
>>
>> Apparently in satoshiWorld "underestimated by 30 to 35

>> points" results in a higher number than "underestimated by
>> 70-75 points". Been studying under DocDoc?

>the other person said their iq was 70 to 75 points.

Oh, let's restore the content you snipped which refutes that
claim (BTW, a rather bad and particularly stupid habit of
yours, Usenet being what it is), shall we, Stan? From the
previous exchange:

[begin]

>On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:

>> On 9/23/2018 4:07 PM, satoshi wrote:

>> > He will be emotional about this, as you have underestimated his actual IQ by 30 to 35 points.

>> More like 70-75 points.

[end]

That says that the *underestimation*, not the actual IQ, was
by 70-75 points, not 30-35, which in turn means the number
underestimated was 40 points *higher* than estimated. At
least, that's what it means to anyone with even the
slightest understanding of English (and arithmetic). YM, of
course, MV. And almost certainly does, given the competence
of your posts here.

[satoshi]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> >> >> More like 70-75 points.
> >> >>
> >> >> <plonk>
> >> >
> >> >so your IQ is ten points less than I thought and posited for you
> >>
> >> Apparently in satoshiWorld "underestimated by 30 to 35
> >> points" results in a higher number than "underestimated by
> >> 70-75 points". Been studying under DocDoc?
>
> >the other person said their iq was 70 to 75 points.
>
> Oh, let's restore the content

wow you have no idea what humor and insults traded are

do you not understand anything at all?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:05:06 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi

<biggda...@gmail.com>:

Nice try at damage control.

BTW, it failed. HTH.

>do you not understand anything at all?

Sure. I understand you're a morphing moron suffering from
paranoia and delusions. Is that what you meant?

[satoshi]

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:

> paranoia and delusions.

i dont have any of those

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:46:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<biggda...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> paranoia and delusions.

>i dont have any of those

Oh, of course you don't; it's some *other* moron who insists
he's being stalked by imaginary people.

(And BTW, Stan, that should be *either* of those; "any"
generally applies if there are more than two. HTH.)

[satoshi]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:46:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> <biggda...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >> paranoia and delusions.
>
> >i dont have any of those
>
> Oh, of course you don't; it's some *other* moron who insists
> he's being stalked by imaginary people.
>
> (And BTW, Stan, that should be *either* of those; "any"
> generally applies if there are more than two. HTH.)

you mean a plural?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:35:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<biggda...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:46:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
>> <biggda...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> >> paranoia and delusions.
>>
>> >i dont have any of those
>>
>> Oh, of course you don't; it's some *other* moron who insists
>> he's being stalked by imaginary people.
>>
>> (And BTW, Stan, that should be *either* of those; "any"
>> generally applies if there are more than two. HTH.)
>
>
>you mean a plural?

No, I mean a bathtub filled with brightly-polished machine
tools. (That was sarcasm, BTW.)

I mean a comparative rather than a superlative.

You can look up the difference.

[satoshi]

someone claims wrongfully someone is having delusions
their response is that they don't have any of those
and you have found some clever way to not understand that

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<biggda...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:35:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
>> <biggda...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:46:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
>> >> <biggda...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> paranoia and delusions.
>> >>
>> >> >i dont have any of those
>> >>
>> >> Oh, of course you don't; it's some *other* moron who insists
>> >> he's being stalked by imaginary people.
>> >>
>> >> (And BTW, Stan, that should be *either* of those; "any"
>> >> generally applies if there are more than two. HTH.)
>> >
>> >
>> >you mean a plural?
>>
>> No, I mean a bathtub filled with brightly-polished machine
>> tools. (That was sarcasm, BTW.)
>>
>> I mean a comparative rather than a superlative.
>>
>> You can look up the difference.

>someone claims wrongfully someone is having delusions
>their response is that they don't have any of those
>and you have found some clever way to not understand that

Your delusions are there for all to see. And the fact that
you deny that is irrelevant, since nothing you say can be
proven.

(That's a variant of your favorite "Prove who you are!"
idiocy, Sparky. Learn from it.)

[satoshi]

that you failed to comprehend what I typed?

communication is the ability to convey a thought to someone else
so they understand it

if most can understand the concept, that means they understand

you have severe problems understanding me

others might understand what i type here, did that occur to you?