Peter Nyikos and his "moralising"

[Wasell]

Long-time lurker[1] delurking:

NB: I kill-filed Peter Nyikos (PN) a long, long time ago. He is, quite
obviously, an amoral, bigoted arsehole. He's also mind-numbingly boring.
I do read some of the replies, though.

PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.

I feel compelled to ask the following questions:

(1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?

(2) Why does PN believe that "moralising" is a good thing to do?

(3) How can PN not see the complete immorality of:

(i) his comparing of same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage to
offspring;

(ii) his attempted outing of Ray Martinez;

(iii) his repeated, almost continuous, unfounded personal attacks on
"jillery", John Harshman, and many others;

(iv) his obsessive habit of reposting (falsely perceived) slights
from USENET's middle ages;

(v) a bazillion other things that can only be described as amoral
or immoral by any reasonable human being?

In a nutshell: What the hell is wrong with this fuck-wit? And why do
reasonable people keep replying to his fuck-wittery?

-----

[1] I have been reading talk.origins (on-and-off) since 1989.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2019 10:15 AM, Wasell wrote:
> Long-time lurker[1] delurking:
>
> NB: I kill-filed Peter Nyikos (PN) a long, long time ago. He is, quite
> obviously, an amoral, bigoted arsehole. He's also mind-numbingly boring.
> I do read some of the replies, though.
>
> PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
> to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
>
> I feel compelled to ask the following questions:
>
> (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?

You're really trying to make sense of what that asshole spouts? Good luck.

>
> (2) Why does PN believe that "moralising" is a good thing to do?

Because he's a self-righteous douche, as if that weren't obvious.

>
> (3) How can PN not see the complete immorality of:

He's a narcissist, in his eyes he can do no wrong.

>
> (i) his comparing of same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage to
> offspring;
>
> (ii) his attempted outing of Ray Martinez;
>
> (iii) his repeated, almost continuous, unfounded personal attacks on
> "jillery", John Harshman, and many others;
>
> (iv) his obsessive habit of reposting (falsely perceived) slights
> from USENET's middle ages;
>
> (v) a bazillion other things that can only be described as amoral
> or immoral by any reasonable human being?
>
> In a nutshell: What the hell is wrong with this fuck-wit?

A lot.

> And why do
> reasonable people keep replying to his fuck-wittery?

For fun.

>
> -----
>
> [1] I have been reading talk.origins (on-and-off) since 1989.
>

--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." - The Hitch

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2019 10:54 AM, Dexter wrote:

> ______________________________________________
>
> Peter is a resident of my kill files as well for many of
> the reasons which you stated. I might remind you that it
> is the express purpose of this newsgroup to attract such
> fuck wits in order to keep them from infesting other
> science minded newsgroups. It's a usenet version of fly
> paper for pestiferously mendacious posters the type of
> which Peter, among many others, is a shining example.
>

It doesn't keep him away from sbp.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:

>Long-time lurker[1] delurking:
>
> NB: I kill-filed Peter Nyikos (PN) a long, long time ago. He is, quite
> obviously, an amoral, bigoted arsehole. He's also mind-numbingly boring.
> I do read some of the replies, though.
>
>PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
>to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
>
>I feel compelled to ask the following questions:

Just a note: Don't expect a rational answer from Peter. He
will probably just add you to his list of "conspirators".

> (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?

Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:

moralize
(British moralise)

Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
unfounded air of superiority.

The "typically" part ties it to Peter quite nicely.

> (2) Why does PN believe that "moralising" is a good thing to do?

Good question. Again, don't expect an answer.

> (3) How can PN not see the complete immorality of:
>
> (i) his comparing of same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage to
> offspring;
>
> (ii) his attempted outing of Ray Martinez;
>
> (iii) his repeated, almost continuous, unfounded personal attacks on
> "jillery", John Harshman, and many others;
>
> (iv) his obsessive habit of reposting (falsely perceived) slights
> from USENET's middle ages;
>
> (v) a bazillion other things that can only be described as amoral
> or immoral by any reasonable human being?
>
>In a nutshell: What the hell is wrong with this fuck-wit? And why do
>reasonable people keep replying to his fuck-wittery?
>
>-----
>
>[1] I have been reading talk.origins (on-and-off) since 1989.

--

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> Long-time lurker[1] delurking:

I would rather put, "Long-term comet coming into view again." You have
appeared once each year [at least under your present identity] since your debut
on 8/31/16. Not with the predictability of a real comet, of course, but
I use the term informally.

> NB: I kill-filed Peter Nyikos (PN) a long, long time ago. He is, quite
> obviously, an amoral,

The opposite of the truth, and a very sour note on which to
begin your "concert".


> bigoted

Correction: someone perennially countering trumped-up charges of
being a homophobe. Can you name any other forms of bigotry
of which I have been charged?


> arsehole.

Your "unbiased" <wink, wink> opinion is duly noted.

> He's also mind-numbingly boring.

Ditto here.

> I do read some of the replies, though.
>
> PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
> to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.

To the best of my knowledge. You are quite free to propose other
candidates for that honor.

>
> I feel compelled to ask the following questions:
>
> (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?

I gave some indication of that in reply to Burkhard two days ago:

If I am a "monster" in your eyes, then it is because I am a "goddamn
moralizer" who has little patience with dishonesty, hypocrisy, and
baseless accusations.
...
As I have put it many times in many threads: I suffer fools gladly,
knaves with difficulty or not at all.

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uGkhekFCaxY/Q5sBa00lBAAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Homophobia and Related Concepts and Memes ATTN: Burkhard
Message-ID: <91f24a78-27aa-4e50...@googlegroups.com>

I will gladly elaborate if you wish.

> (2) Why does PN believe that "moralising" is a good thing to do?

Because, by its very nature, talk.origins is a place where by far the
most damage that can be done is through the three things I described
to Burkhard. One very rampant form of dishonesty of late is what
I call snip-n-deceive. Today I called attention to a particularly
blatant example here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GdVQyMaeu7c/TeuP09GxBAAJ
Subject: Re: What does one self-identified Christian leader pray for?
Message-ID: <79cfde31-ba9d-4566...@googlegroups.com>

> (3) How can PN not see the complete immorality of:
>
> (i) his comparing of same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage to
> offspring;

I've restricted that comparison to berating the hypocrisy of, on the one hand,
(1) claiming that all the financial and other perks that go with marriage
is a basic human right, and, on the other hand,
(2) denying the right of people caring full-time for aging or disabled parents
to marry either one of them.

> (ii) his attempted outing of Ray Martinez;

"outing" is the wrong word for trying to show that Ray was posting
under false pretense of being a Christian. People are free to argue
against my attempts, talk.origins being the kind of forum which
is ideally made for this kind of advocacy.

> (iii) his repeated, almost continuous, unfounded personal attacks on
> "jillery", John Harshman, and many others;

Your use of "unfounded" shows that you are either lying or are
posting from a starting point of abysmal ignorance.

Here is a test for you that should shed light on which of these
alternatives is true: I challenge you to reply to the two posts I've linked
for you, and show just why the things I write there are "unfounded
personal attacks" -- or retract the claim of "unfoundedness".

As the old saying goes, "Here is Rhodes, now jump!"


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if either (1) you insist
or (2) one or more person besides Oxyaena endorses its contents,
and insists.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

I would be interested in hearing reasoned perspectives from the people
(if any) who support Peter in his moral crusades.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:

> >PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
> >to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
> >
> >I feel compelled to ask the following questions:
>
> Just a note: Don't expect a rational answer from Peter.

Your taunt is belied by your failure to show that there
is anything NOT rational in the reply that I actually made to Wasell.

> He will probably just add you to his list of "conspirators".

The word "conspirators" is your spin-doctoring.

Aside from that, you really shouldn't get your hopes up like that.
Wasell has not shown any more skill in propaganda than Wolffan.
So I expect him to keep to his usual "long term comet" schedule
and to disappear from this thread, returning only some time in 2020
on a completely different topic.

And you should hope he does that, because otherwise you might find yourself
saddled with propping him up the way first Hemidactylus and then
jillery propped Wolffan up. But neither came to Wolffan's rescue
when I told "Wolfie" that I had decided long before that he
didn't have what it takes to be in the same league as jillery
and Oxyaena. [Hemidactylus was absent from the discussion, having
long ago stopped propping up Wolffan IIRC].

As a result, Wolffan stopped pestering me and hasn't resumed since.

> > (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?

Here, you've already shown Wasell that you are amenable to propping him up:

> Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
> something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
> oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:
>
> moralize
> (British moralise)
>
> Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
> unfounded air of superiority.

That last bit is pure editorializing that you won't find
in an authoritative dictionary like Merriam-Webster:

1 : to explain or interpret morally
2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
b : to improve the morals of

intransitive verb
: to make moral reflections

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralize

Your source seems to be in the same genre Ambrose Bierce's
_The Devil's Dictionary_. But then, I shouldn't judge on
the basis of one (highly suggestive) entry. But it's
definitely a hypothesis to keep at the back of my mind.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 6/18/2019 4:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip irrelevant, petty, and gratuitous lyrical waxing about other posters]

>
>
>
>>> (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?
>
>
> Here, you've already shown Wasell that you are amenable to propping him up:
>
>> Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
>> something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
>> oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:
>>
>> moralize
>> (British moralise)
>>
>> Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
>> unfounded air of superiority.
>
> That last bit is pure editorializing that you won't find
> in an authoritative dictionary like Merriam-Webster:
>
> 1 : to explain or interpret morally
> 2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
> b : to improve the morals of

None of what you do qualifies as "moralizing" by Merriam-Webster's
standards, what you do *does* qualify as "moralizing" by Lexico (note
that Lexico is *also* an authoritative source if a glance at the former
URL is any indication).

>
> intransitive verb
> : to make moral reflections
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralize
>
> Your source seems to be in the same genre Ambrose Bierce's
> _The Devil's Dictionary_. But then, I shouldn't judge on
> the basis of one (highly suggestive) entry. But it's
> definitely a hypothesis to keep at the back of my mind.

Especially since that entry hits the mark dead center.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/14/19 7:15 AM, Wasell wrote:
> > Long-time lurker[1] delurking:
> >
> > NB: I kill-filed Peter Nyikos (PN) a long, long time ago. He is, quite
> > obviously, an amoral, bigoted arsehole. He's also mind-numbingly boring.
> > I do read some of the replies, though.
> >
> > PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
> > to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
> >
> > I feel compelled to ask the following questions:
> >
> > (1) What does PN think that "moralising" means?
> >
> > (2) Why does PN believe that "moralising" is a good thing to do?
> >
> > (3) How can PN not see the complete immorality of:
> >
> > (i) his comparing of same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage to
> > offspring;
> >
> > (ii) his attempted outing of Ray Martinez;
> >
> > (iii) his repeated, almost continuous, unfounded personal attacks on
> > "jillery", John Harshman, and many others;

I thoroughly dismantled this character assassination in my direct reply to
Wasell the day BEFORE you posted this fishing expedition of yours, Mark.
You've been ignoring this reply, as has everyone else, including even
someone who has become a full-time troll in her replies to me: Oxyaena.


Did you see how Casanova rolled out the red carpet [figure of speech]
in welcoming Wasell for his crusade against me? You are taking
a more subtle way of letting him know his input is winning him
brownie points, by playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
and going along with putting the spotlight on me:

> I would be interested in hearing reasoned perspectives from the people
> (if any) who support Peter in his moral crusades.

Any support would give you and Casanova and Hemidactylus dandy targets to
crusade against. Just look at the way Glenn, who occasionally HAS supported
me in my crusade against your dishonesty and hypocrisy, was mercilessly targeted
by Hemidactylus in two very distinct ways:

1. Hemi has joined "everyone" [read: a minority of regulars here]
in pretending to think that Glenn is a troll who has contributed nothing
to on-topic issues and

2. Used Glenn as a pawn in his perennial campaign against me,
attacking me viciously for not denouncing Glenn for having written
something that he only VERY BELATEDLY brought up in direct reply
to Glenn, AFTER it became clear that his (Hemi's) character assassination
against me had boomeranged on him.


Turnabout is fair play: let's see how many people support this kind
of crusading by Hemidactylus, beginning with yourself.

Don't forget to include how, a while back, Hemi had severely criticized
John Harshman for discussing scientific issues with me and thereby
encouraging me to go on posting to talk.origins.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:
>
>> >PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
>> >to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
>> >
>> >I feel compelled to ask the following questions:
>>
>> Just a note: Don't expect a rational answer from Peter.
>
>Your taunt

It's an expectation, not a "taunt", You're not worth my time
to taunt, but try "Your mother was a hamster and your father
smelt of elderberries".

>was is belied by your failure to show that there

>is anything NOT rational in the reply that I actually made to Wasell.

What part of "you're not worth my time" escaped you?

<snip the usual crap>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:
>
>> >PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
>> >to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.

<snip to the point>

>> Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
>> something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
>> oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:
>>
>> moralize
>> (British moralise)
>>
>> Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
>> unfounded air of superiority.
>
>That last bit is pure editorializing that you won't find
>in an authoritative dictionary like Merriam-Webster:

Sparky, it came from the source I noted. If
oxforddictionaries.com isn't "authoritative" enough for you,
your problem is even worse than I thought.

> 1 : to explain or interpret morally
> 2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
> b : to improve the morals of
>
> intransitive verb
> : to make moral reflections
>
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralize
>
>Your source seems to be in the same genre Ambrose Bierce's
>_The Devil's Dictionary_. But then, I shouldn't judge on
>the basis of one (highly suggestive) entry. But it's
>definitely a hypothesis to keep at the back of my mind.

Yes, Peter, the OED (the 20-volume "offline" source from
which oxforddictionaries.com was derived) is *far* inferior
to Merriam-Webster.

You're an idiot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>...Wasell...Oxyaena...Casanova...Wasell...Casanova...Hemidactylus...Glenn...
>...Hemidactylus...Hemi...Glenn...Glenn...Glenn...Glenn... (Hemi's)...
>Hemidactylus...John Harshman.

Just *once*, why don't you try to post something that
involves no assertions about "conspirators", "sycophants" or
"supporters". C'mon, just *try*; I'm sure you can do it,
unnatural as it might seem to you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:
> >
> >> >PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
> >> >to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
>
> <snip to the point>
>
> >> Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
> >> something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
> >> oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:
> >>
> >> moralize
> >> (British moralise)
> >>
> >> Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
> >> unfounded air of superiority.
> >
> >That last bit is pure editorializing that you won't find
> >in an authoritative dictionary like Merriam-Webster:
>
> Sparky, it came from the source I noted. If
> oxforddictionaries.com isn't "authoritative" enough for you,
> your problem is even worse than I thought.

The OED name is a fine example of the adage, "every _________ has its price."
So is the Merriam-Webster name.

Companies often let other companies use their name to promote things far
removed from what that company is renowned for. An example that has
been around for some time is Lowenbrau, which sold the right to an
American firm, (Miller IIRC), for an unrevealed (AFAIK) price, to sell a beer it
calls Lowenbrau that is completely unlike, and vastly inferior to,
the centuries-old German Lowenbrau.

Budweiser is another example, one whose USA version has been around a lot longer,
although I'm not sure money was the only thing involved there.

Merriam-Webster allowed Milton Bradley company, makers of Scrabble,
to use its name on their cover for _The Official Scrabble Dictionary_, but you
will not find any sign inside the book that the Merriam-Webster
lexicographers had any input into it.

The ultimate giveaway is that it says at one point in the introduction
that the reader can find ADDITIONAL [caps mine, word *sic*] words in
the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in the edition that was
current at the time.

Mark that well, Casanova: not even the Unabridged, only the Collegiate.
Sounds to me like a "kickback" in the form of advertising for the Collegiate
dictionary.

> > 1 : to explain or interpret morally
> > 2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
> > b : to improve the morals of
> >
> > intransitive verb
> > : to make moral reflections
> >
> >https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralize
> >
> >Your source seems to be in the same genre Ambrose Bierce's
> >_The Devil's Dictionary_. But then, I shouldn't judge on
> >the basis of one (highly suggestive) entry. But it's
> >definitely a hypothesis to keep at the back of my mind.

Now you indulge in obvious sarcasm:

> Yes, Peter, the OED (the 20-volume "offline" source from
> which oxforddictionaries.com was derived) is *far* inferior
> to Merriam-Webster.

You've been conned by what would be a ripoff of the OED name,
were the OED people not exempt from that old adage.

Or have you? Are you not merely SIMULATING that you have been conned?


> You're an idiot.

...glass houses...stones.


Mark this well too, Casanova: that Merriam-Webster pseudo-ripoff has
NOTHING to do with the official list of acceptable words for
international Scrabble competitions. It would be interesting to
find out what interactions Milton Bradley co. has had with the
people who are responsible for the only official list that really matters.


Peter Nyikos

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in [talk.origins],
> the one that heralds [many] new [attacks by Casanova], is not
> 'Eureka!' but [`You're an idiot.'].

Fixed it for you.


HAND.

TGIF.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:28 +0200, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Wasell <from_...@wasell.eu>:
>> >
>> >> >PN claims, on apparently random occasions, to be "moralising". He also claims
>> >> >to be the most "moralising" participant in talk.origins.
>>
>> <snip to the point>
>>
>> >> Whether Peter has ever actually used the precise term is
>> >> something I don't recall, but Lexico (formerly
>> >> oxforddictionaries.com) seems to have nailed it:
>> >>
>> >> moralize
>> >> (British moralise)
>> >>
>> >> Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
>> >> unfounded air of superiority.
>> >
>> >That last bit is pure editorializing that you won't find
>> >in an authoritative dictionary like Merriam-Webster:
>>
>> Sparky, it came from the source I noted. If
>> oxforddictionaries.com isn't "authoritative" enough for you,
>> your problem is even worse than I thought.

OK, let's see if any of your reply refutes my claim
regarding an accepted definition of the word "moralize"...

>The OED name is a fine example of the adage, "every _________ has its price."
>So is the Merriam-Webster name.

None there.

>Companies often let other companies use their name to promote things far
>removed from what that company is renowned for. An example that has
>been around for some time is Lowenbrau, which sold the right to an
>American firm, (Miller IIRC), for an unrevealed (AFAIK) price, to sell a beer it
>calls Lowenbrau that is completely unlike, and vastly inferior to,
>the centuries-old German Lowenbrau.

None there.

>Budweiser is another example, one whose USA version has been around a lot longer,
>although I'm not sure money was the only thing involved there.

None there.

>Merriam-Webster allowed Milton Bradley company, makers of Scrabble,
>to use its name on their cover for _The Official Scrabble Dictionary_, but you
>will not find any sign inside the book that the Merriam-Webster
>lexicographers had any input into it.

None there.

>The ultimate giveaway is that it says at one point in the introduction
>that the reader can find ADDITIONAL [caps mine, word *sic*] words in
>the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in the edition that was
>current at the time.

None there.

>Mark that well, Casanova: not even the Unabridged, only the Collegiate.
>Sounds to me like a "kickback" in the form of advertising for the Collegiate
>dictionary.

None there.

>> > 1 : to explain or interpret morally
>> > 2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
>> > b : to improve the morals of
>> >
>> > intransitive verb
>> > : to make moral reflections
>> >
>> >https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralize
>> >
>> >Your source seems to be in the same genre Ambrose Bierce's
>> >_The Devil's Dictionary_. But then, I shouldn't judge on
>> >the basis of one (highly suggestive) entry. But it's
>> >definitely a hypothesis to keep at the back of my mind.

>Now you indulge in obvious sarcasm:

Wow, sarcasm as a response to an ignorant and unfounded
complaint! What else would you expect in reply to that
totally unfounded assertion? And, of course, none there.

>> Yes, Peter, the OED (the 20-volume "offline" source from
>> which oxforddictionaries.com was derived) is *far* inferior
>> to Merriam-Webster.
>
>You've been conned by what would be a ripoff of the OED name,
>were the OED people not exempt from that old adage.

None there.

>Or have you? Are you not merely SIMULATING that you have been conned?

And finally, none there.

>> You're an idiot.
>
>...glass houses...stones.
>
>
>Mark this well too, Casanova: that Merriam-Webster pseudo-ripoff has
>NOTHING to do with the official list of acceptable words for
>international Scrabble competitions. It would be interesting to
>find out what interactions Milton Bradley co. has had with the
>people who are responsible for the only official list that really matters.

Translation of the above:

"I don't agree, so even though I can't refute it your source
is a ripoff! Because Scrabble! So there!"

Not one shred of evidence, only opinions and "what-ifs"
based on dislike for a definition which accurately describes
your actions.

Get a life.
--

Bob C.

[Ernest Major]

For what it's worth

https://www.lexico.com/en/about

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 22:39:44 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

>For what it's worth
>
>https://www.lexico.com/en/about

Thanks.

Peter, of course, will probably deny that is accurate, and
continue to rant about "ripoffs" and Scrabble, simply
because he doesn't like Oxford's definition.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 22:39:44 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>
> >For what it's worth
> >
> >https://www.lexico.com/en/about
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter, of course, will probably

<snip rest of idiotic speculation>


My thanks go to Ernest too. Note that nowhere is there mention made
of the OED. Instead we learn about cooperation with the immensely varied
Oxford University Press, and Dictionary.com, which bills itself as
"the world's leading digital dictionary".

Returning to the wording of the above link, Lexico is also
"powered by Oxford's English and Spanish dictionaries and thesauruses,"

Note the peculiar word "powered" -- rather weird if one is
using the actual 20-volume paper-intensive OED.

Note also the ambiguous "Oxford's": even Oxford University Press
has yielded the floor to the immense lexicographical resources
of the city of Oxford, UK.

And that segues into the rest of Casanova's screed:

> [Peter} doesn't like Oxford's definition.

I wonder which dictionary in Oxford was used for the definition.
Surely somewhere in that famous city, there is a copy of
_The Devil's Dictionary_, by Ambrose Bierce.

And there may be many other dictionaries for which that tendentious
definition could be typical. Here it is again:

moralize
(British moralise)

Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an
unfounded air of superiority.

"typically" seems to refer to the self-serving usage of
ethically challenged opponents of "goddamn moralizers" like myself.
Our uses of the word "moralize" could be vastly outnumbered
by the uses of such opponents in social media.

After all, it is a common "mistake" of leftists to confuse
righteousness with self-righteousness, due to a denial of
the existence of objective moral standards.
Zencyle is one of the talk.origins regulars who "knows" that
no such standards exist, and isn't afraid to express this
"knowledge" publicly.

Others may be keeping this "knowledge" to themselves
while exploiting it to the hilt with deceitful behavior,
both kinds of hypocrisy, and such cowardly actions as snipping
text damaging to themselves and then alleging that it was snipped
because it was a bunch of crap...

...using a self-serving private definition of "crap," of course.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

The following semantic pedantry brought to you by:

Of course, it is a common tactic of trolls to allude to irrelevant
issues for the purpose of obfuscation and evasion, as illustrated
above.

Of course, it is a common tactic of self-righteous moralizers to
conflate their behavior with righteousness, as illustrated above.

Of course, both of the above tactics objectively qualify as crap
spewed from their puckered sphincters.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:13:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 22:39:44 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>
>> >For what it's worth
>> >
>> >https://www.lexico.com/en/about
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter, of course, will probably
>
><snip rest of idiotic speculation>
>
>
>My thanks go to Ernest too. Note that nowhere is there mention made
>of the OED. Instead we learn about cooperation with the immensely varied
>Oxford University Press, and Dictionary.com, which bills itself as
>"the world's leading digital dictionary".

From the website:

"Lexico.com features free content powered by Oxford’s
English and Spanish dictionaries..."

The OED *is* the Oxford English Dictionary, so your attempt
to weasel out by lying is refuted (unless, of course, you
simply failed to actually *read* the exceedingly long
"About" section on the page; all of 4 lines, wasn't it?
Oops, no; 3 lines and three words.

<snip rest of idiotic speculation>

[Oxyaena]

On 6/24/2019 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip pathetic weaseling and groveling]

Don't be so coy, we all know what people mean when they say "Oxford
English Dictionary" you dolt.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Hmmmm....

>
> "typically" seems to refer to the self-serving usage of
> ethically challenged opponents of "goddamn moralizers" like myself.
>

So Adam Smith’s impartial spectator must have gone on holiday then. My
impression of morality is grounded in other- orientation and not
self-serving command fiat. And ummm...what’s that word...paging David
Brooks...oh yeah...Humility. Morality is not an ego massage with a self
applied happy ending. Egoistic onanism gets us nowhere near Rav
Soloveitchik’s Adam the humble gardener. Your version of Conanism is more
like this:

https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos

Since you don’t do video:

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film)

“When asked "What is best in life?") To crush your enemies, see them driven
before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”

Not exactly virtuous. Combative is not a lofty virtue. Remember what I said
about magnanimity? Have you heard of humility?

>
> Our uses of the word "moralize" could be vastly outnumbered
> by the uses of such opponents in social media.
>

Social media cultivates Second Adam the image of God subjugator and Conan
the Competitive.

>
> After all, it is a common "mistake" of leftists to confuse
> righteousness with self-righteousness, due to a denial of
> the existence of objective moral standards.
>

Vacuous generalization of the Other as Leftist duly noted. Must politicize
everything. And how exactly do you go about grounding your objective moral
standards? Divine fiat? Discoverable laws of nature? Whatever massages your
gargantuan ego?

>
> Zencyle is one of the talk.origins regulars who "knows" that
> no such standards exist, and isn't afraid to express this
> "knowledge" publicly.
>

Intersubjective agreement is a start. Much moral dilemma offsets
individual rights and communal well being.

>
> Others may be keeping this "knowledge" to themselves
> while exploiting it to the hilt with deceitful behavior,
> both kinds of hypocrisy, and such cowardly actions as snipping
> text damaging to themselves and then alleging that it was snipped
> because it was a bunch of crap...
>

I’m sure Hume, Kant, Moore and Ross were concerned with text snipping.

>
> ...using a self-serving private definition of "crap," of course.
>

As in this group is going oh so quickly into the shitter while you press
the accelerator without regard for pedestrians on sidewalks, speed limits,
or that overheating light that just came on. If not the pedestrians at
least think of your poor cylinder heads before a gasket goes pop or a rod
gets thrown. Your recent output may be the sort of thing the NHRA had in
mind when they reduced the Top Fuel track from quarter mile to 1000 feet.

[Don Cates]

From the OED site:
"
What are the main differences between the OED and ODO?

The OED and the dictionaries in ODO are themselves very different. While
ODO focuses on the current language and practical usage, the OED shows
how words and meanings have changed over time.

The dictionary content in ODO focuses on current English and includes
modern meanings and uses of words. Where words have more than one
meaning, the most important and common meanings in modern English are
given first, and less common and more specialist or technical uses are
listed below. The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and
it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over
more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, and
including many obsolete and historical terms. Meanings are ordered
chronologically in the OED, according to when they were first recorded
in English, so that senses with the earliest evidence of usage appear
first and more recent senses appear further down the entry – like a
‘family tree’ for each word.

Both the OED and ODO contain a wealth of evidence from real English to
show how words are used in context. In the OED each word meaning is
illustrated by a set of quotations, spanning perhaps many centuries,
from the earliest recorded appearance to the most recent recorded
usages. In ODO, the evidence is derived from the 2.3 billion word Oxford
English Corpus, a huge databank of 21st century English, and each word
sense in the dictionary is linked to a set of sentences so you can see
how people are using the language today.

If you are looking for practical help or advice on how to use English in
writing and speaking today, then ODO will provide you with the
information you need. If you’re also interested in how our language has
developed over time or want to dig deeper into its origins or variations
around the world, then the OED is the definitive resource."

Sounds to me like the EOD (part of ODO) is the more authorative souce
for current usage.


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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:56:07 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

After I posted a rebuttal of his imaginary problem (a quote
from the page showing the OED reference was correct) he
became strangely silent.

>> "typically" seems to refer to the self-serving usage of
>> ethically challenged opponents of "goddamn moralizers" like myself.
>>
>So Adam Smith’s impartial spectator must have gone on holiday then. My
>impression of morality is grounded in other- orientation and not
>self-serving command fiat. And ummm...what’s that word...paging David
>Brooks...oh yeah...Humility. Morality is not an ego massage with a self
>applied happy ending. Egoistic onanism gets us nowhere near Rav
>Soloveitchik’s Adam the humble gardener. Your version of Conanism is more
>like this:

In Peter's case, shouldn't that be "Onanism"? It seems
appropriate to many of his posts...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:39:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, it appears that the
direct OED online is a fee site, and I'm not ready to spend
what they want for a subscription. Since Lexico claims to
derive from "Oxford's English and Spanish dictionaries", as
I noted in my response to Peter's objections (which he
ignored) I'll continue to rely on it.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-06-14 10:15, Wasell wrote:
> In a nutshell: What the hell is wrong with this fuck-wit?

He has a lot of time on his hands. He is self-propelled evidence that
idle hands are, indeed, the Devil's workshop.

> And why do
> reasonable people keep replying to his fuck-wittery?

Good question. I killfiled him a long time ago, in large part because he
elected to:

1 attack me for daring to ask a simple question about one of his posts

2 in the process of the attack he utterly failed to answer the question,
but did so in a way which revealed exactly why he made the attack and
why he failed to answer.

Basically, he's a fuck-wit, as you so eloquently put it.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-06-19 15:23, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
>> ...Wasell...Oxyaena...Casanova...Wasell...Casanova...Hemidactylus...Glenn...
>> ...Hemidactylus...Hemi...Glenn...Glenn...Glenn...Glenn... (Hemi's)...
>> Hemidactylus...John Harshman.
>
> Just *once*, why don't you try to post something that
> involves no assertions about "conspirators", "sycophants" or
> "supporters". C'mon, just *try*; I'm sure you can do it,
> unnatural as it might seem to you.
>

I might take him out of the killfile long enough to see that, except
that I don't think that he can do any such thing.

[Peter Nyikos]

Catching up on another thread that I lost track of.

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> The following semantic pedantry brought to you by:

jillery. She is being a pedant by not focusing on any relevant
information, but only on the say-so of her perennially faithful ally, Casanova.

This "editorialising" is a dead giveaway that the dictionary is
a specialized one. Legitimate dictionaries know that moralize
has a number of meanings -- the abridged OED lists four or more --
and rare is the one that editorializes as brazenly as Lexico.

> >"typically" seems to refer to the self-serving usage of
> >ethically challenged opponents of "goddamn moralizers" like myself.
> >Our uses of the word "moralize" could be vastly outnumbered
> >by the uses of such opponents in social media.
> >
> > After all, it is a common "mistake" of leftists to confuse
> >righteousness with self-righteousness, due to a denial of
> >the existence of objective moral standards.
> >Zencyle is one of the talk.origins regulars who "knows" that
> >no such standards exist, and isn't afraid to express this
> >"knowledge" publicly.
> >
> >Others may be keeping this "knowledge" to themselves
> >while exploiting it to the hilt with deceitful behavior,
> >both kinds of hypocrisy, and such cowardly actions as snipping
> >text damaging to themselves and then alleging that it was snipped
> >because it was a bunch of crap...
> >
> >...using a self-serving private definition of "crap," of course.
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
>

As usual, jillery uses the opening gambit "Of course" to preface
chicanery by herself -- three times, no less:

> Of course, it is a common tactic of trolls to allude to irrelevant
> issues for the purpose of obfuscation and evasion, as illustrated
> above.

Attempted guilt by association noted.

In this case, the issues are relevant, unlike in the case of trolls
whom jillery "very conveniently" neglects to identify
despite the allegation that it is a common tactic.

> Of course, it is a common tactic of self-righteous moralizers to
> conflate their behavior with righteousness, as illustrated above.

Jillery here is showing her propagandistic skills by a "curtained claim";
a baseless claim that I am guilty of self-righteousness is partly hidden
behind a curtain of equivocation inherent in the word "conflate".

The dictionary that her perennial ally Casanova cherry-picked is
of no help to jillery here:

Combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
`the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic, political,
and social issues'

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conflate

Jillery almost surely had a pejorative definition of "conflate" in mind,
and perhaps she will find a dictionary that supports her AND
editorilizes on the word "moralize." But I think she would
rather rely on her powers of rhetoric, polemic and propaganda
to salvage the bilge that is her second "Of course" piece of
chicanery.

> Of course, both of the above tactics objectively qualify as crap
> spewed from their puckered sphincters.

With this juvenile piece of garbage, jillery illustrates something
I wrote to her yesterday:

You and Mark Isaak have the exact opposite attitude from me
when it comes to truth and rhetoric: rhetoric is what concerns
the two of you, while truth is strictly optional: used by one of
you if that one thinks of a helpful way to use it,
but not cultivated to any major extent by either of you.

-- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/0u86tt9vTgs/DfI9MCMJFQAJ


In fact, jillery's entire spiel here is pure rhetoric, involving
no use of truth that she could legitimately claim.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

The following is just the latest example of Nyikos the peter
resurrecting a month's old zombie thread. For someone who chronically
complains of not having the time to back up his bald assertions, he
seems to have plenty of time to find old crap to throw.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:11:41 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Catching up on another thread that I lost track of.

<snip spewed spam>