Re: I'm back

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >[1] The other victim was himself, of a rearrangement of
> >text by jillery that made it seem like Mark was confessing
> >to a reprehensible attitude. You of course haughtily
> >refused to comment on it when I brought it to your attention,
> >and now jillery is shamelessly lying that I had never shown
> >that she had done Martin an injustice thereby.
>
>
> And you *still* have never justified this asinine spam of yours. This
> is just you compulsively practicing your Big Lie, of asserting facts
> not in evidence,

Translation: facts not proven on the spot, which applies to
what you are doing here too, and kept doing in post after
post in which some key ingredient of the proof was either
missing or shamelessly deleted by you in reply.

Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker Thrinaxodon, viciously
and at great length, slandered me over and over while I was
squeezing you into corner after corner, and Wolffan got into
the act too. And Sean Dillon claimed I was doing only myself
harm by continuing to reveal what a pathological liar you
were in your Watergate-magnitude cover-up of your "third rate
burglary" analogue of Martin's text.

I believe this was what really caused Martin Harran to
realize that I was fair game for any trumped-up charges.
And so he decided to have lots of FUN for a change go into a
rampage of unjustifiable attacks on me,
including stupid accusations of "lying" because I did three
different synonyms of what he was doing to try and
get a point across. I've alluded in this thread [1] to
a libel of his in which Bob Casanova was a willing
accessory after the fact.

[1] this thread was officially at 1003 posts when you posted,
so there is no telling where your post and this reply of mine
will ultimately end up in New Google Groups.


> and ejaculating your irrelevant spew from your
> puckered sphincter.

This is your Internet Angler Fish scam, pretending to be a
juvenile jerk so you can lull people into exposing themselves
to cunning, razor-sharp propaganda.


> Apparently the good DrDr has beaten you,

Kooky wishful thinking.

The Dr. Dr. is enjoying the spectacle of John Harshman
showing favoritism towards him against me, and me attacking
the infinitely more dangerous Harshman in preference to the
hapless Dr.Dr. But I'll turn my attention back to Dr.Dr. next week.

> so now you seek comfort in
> your old habits. Poor baby.

More of your Internet Angler Fish act.


Peter Nyikos

[David Greig]

On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker Thrinaxodon, viciously
> and at great length,

FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
to obscure the name, etc.

Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?

--D.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:21:22 -0000 (UTC), David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:

>On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>

>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker [XXXXXXXXXXX], viciously

>> and at great length,
>
>FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
>blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
>this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
>let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
>to obscure the name, etc.

This might cause problems when discussing Permian cynodonts, a topic
which has been legitimately raised in T.O.

>Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
>
>--D.

My impression is that's just another one of rockhead's imagined
accusations. To the best of my knowledge he provided no basis for it,
and mentions it only as irrelevant noise, as he did above.

--
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 Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >[1] The other victim was himself, of a rearrangement of
>> >text by jillery that made it seem like Mark was confessing
>> >to a reprehensible attitude. You of course haughtily
>> >refused to comment on it when I brought it to your attention,
>> >and now jillery is shamelessly lying that I had never shown
>> >that she had done Martin an injustice thereby.
>>
>>
>> And you *still* have never justified this asinine spam of yours. This
>> is just you compulsively practicing your Big Lie, of asserting facts

>> not in evidence, and ejaculating your irrelevant spew from your
>> puckered sphincter.

>

>Translation: facts not proven on the spot, which applies to
>what you are doing here too, and kept doing in post after
>post in which some key ingredient of the proof was either
>missing or shamelessly deleted by you in reply.

Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
posted explanations and calculations.


<snip your irrelevant spew containing banned reference>

>This is your Internet Angler Fish scam, pretending to be a
>juvenile jerk so you can lull people into exposing themselves
>to cunning, razor-sharp propaganda.

To be precise, that is my noting your irrelevant spew you ejaculate
from your puckered sphincter. And your juvenile jerkiness
disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged juvenile jerkiness.
Tu quoque back atcha.

>> Apparently the good DrDr has beaten you,
>
>Kooky wishful thinking.

You started posting irrelevant noise about other posters within your
replies to the good DrDr. Now you stopped replying to him, but you
continue to post your Big Lies about others and me. QED.

>The Dr. Dr. is enjoying the spectacle of John Harshman
>showing favoritism towards him against me, and me attacking
>the infinitely more dangerous Harshman in preference to the
>hapless Dr.Dr. But I'll turn my attention back to Dr.Dr. next week.

Since you use your posts to the good DrDr as a vehicle for your own
self-promotion, and to post irrelevant noise about others, the above
is an empty promise.

>> so now you seek comfort in
>> your old habits. Poor baby.
>
>More of your Internet Angler Fish act.

Your Internet Angler Fish act disqualifies you from complaining about
my alleged Internet Angler Fish act. Tu quoque back atcha.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
> posted explanations and calculations.

Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.

[John Harshman]

On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>

>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously

>> and at great length,
>
> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
> to obscure the name, etc.
>
> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?

Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
prior behavior.

[Burkhard]

seconded

[jillery]

1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.

2) Almost everyone who has replied to your posts on T.O. has noted
that you have never posted the explanations and calculations you
claimed to have posted. So it's not just me.

3) I can't understand what you have never posted. Of course, it
doesn't really matter, because whatever you post is almost always
incorrect.

4) Your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems are *still* a
poor substitute for a coherent line of reasoning.

5) It's spelled "discerning". You might want to remember that for the
next time you pretend to know anything.

[jillery]

I stand corrected wrt Oxyaena's nymshift.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
> >> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
> >> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
> >> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
> >> posted explanations and calculations.
> >Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
>
>
> 1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
> about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
> characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.

You are right there. Who could be interested in these chicken fights you get involved in. Perhaps someone who enjoys watching Jerry Springer.

>
> 2) Almost everyone who has replied to your posts on T.O. has noted
> that you have never posted the explanations and calculations you
> claimed to have posted. So it's not just me.

All you lying reptiles grow feathers crowd knows that I've posted the posted the explanations and calculations many times. You just don't want to accept the mathematical and empirical facts of life. And now Elmer Fudd is squirming all over the place trying to rationalize away the fact that a mosasaur fossil has carbon dated to 24600bp.

>
> 3) I can't understand what you have never posted. Of course, it
> doesn't really matter, because whatever you post is almost always
> incorrect.

There you go again, you don't understand it, therefore, it must be incorrect. Did you ever think that it is you don't want to understand it? Because it is not that difficult to understand.

>
> 4) Your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems are *still* a
> poor substitute for a coherent line of reasoning.

How do you know whether it is sequitur or not if you admit you don't understand?

>
> 5) It's spelled "discerning". You might want to remember that for the
> next time you pretend to know anything.

Too bad you are not as skilled in mathematics.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
>> >> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
>> >> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
>> >> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
>> >> posted explanations and calculations.
>> >Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
>>
>>
>> 1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
>> about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
>> characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.
>You are right there. Who could be interested in these chicken fights you get involved in. Perhaps someone who enjoys watching Jerry Springer.

So you watch Jerry Springer. It wouldn't surprise me if you were one
of his guests.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
> >> >> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
> >> >> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
> >> >> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
> >> >> posted explanations and calculations.
> >> >Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
> >> about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
> >> characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.
> >You are right there. Who could be interested in these chicken fights you get involved in. Perhaps someone who enjoys watching Jerry Springer.
>
>
> So you watch Jerry Springer. It wouldn't surprise me if you were one
> of his guests.

You are the one who likes those kinds of silly chicken fights. That's why you do it with Foghorn. A debate on mathematics is too tough for Barbie.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

She, like almost everyone else here, understands your
tactics quite well. You have never posted any calculations,
or any links to full papers *containing* the calculations,
which you claim support your idiotic assertions.

(Cue the usual "dim bulb", "slept through statistics
courses", etc. evasions.)
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?

Will wonders never cease...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:02:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
>> >> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
>> >> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
>> >> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
>> >> posted explanations and calculations.
>> >Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
>>
>>
>> 1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
>> about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
>> characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.
>You are right there. Who could be interested in these chicken fights you get involved in. Perhaps someone who enjoys watching Jerry Springer.
>>
>> 2) Almost everyone who has replied to your posts on T.O. has noted
>> that you have never posted the explanations and calculations you
>> claimed to have posted. So it's not just me.
>All you lying reptiles grow feathers crowd knows that I've posted the posted the explanations and calculations many times.

You have never posted any calculation. The most you have
done when asked to show the calculations which support your
assertions is to repeatedly post the equation(s) you claim
show that all the objective evidence is wrong; the classic
"Oh, look! Everyone's out of step but Allie!".

> You just don't want to accept the mathematical and empirical facts of life. And now Elmer Fudd is squirming all over the place trying to rationalize away the fact that a mosasaur fossil has carbon dated to 24600bp.

That is a lie, and John posted the quote from the paper
*showing* it's a lie.

>> 3) I can't understand what you have never posted. Of course, it
>> doesn't really matter, because whatever you post is almost always
>> incorrect.

>There you go again, you don't understand it, therefore, it must be incorrect.

Missed the part about "what you have never posted", did you?
It's still there, and still accurate.

> Did you ever think that it is you don't want to understand it? Because it is not that difficult to understand.

>> 4) Your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems are *still* a
>> poor substitute for a coherent line of reasoning.

>How do you know whether it is sequitur or not if you admit you don't understand?

No such admission exists, and your non sequiturs and ad
hominems are quite obvious.

>> 5) It's spelled "discerning". You might want to remember that for the
>> next time you pretend to know anything.

>Too bad you are not as skilled in mathematics.

Too bad your lies and evasions are so transparent that even
a "dim bulb" and a "Barbie" find them crystal-clear.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:35:20 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
>> >> >> noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
>> >> >> All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies. This is a bad
>> >> >> habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
>> >> >> posted explanations and calculations.
>> >> >Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1) It's almost certain you don't know or care what Nykios is lying
>> >> about, which means you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it,
>> >> characteristic behavior of a strange bedfellow.
>> >You are right there. Who could be interested in these chicken fights you get involved in. Perhaps someone who enjoys watching Jerry Springer.
>>
>>
>> So you watch Jerry Springer. It wouldn't surprise me if you were one
>> of his guests.
>You are the one who likes those kinds of silly chicken fights.

All you post are chicken-feather fights.

>That's why you do it with Foghorn.

You do it with everybody.

>A debate on mathematics is too tough for Barbie.

Debating about anything is too tough for Asshole Allie.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:35:20 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Barbie, you are soft as a feather pillow.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> > Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
> > noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.

"Never even tried to prove" is jillery indulging in what is
properly referred to as a Big Lie: a lie so huge, it's strains
credulity that anyone would try to tell it.

> > All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies.

Jillery's use of "Big Lie" is completely bogus. Below is just ONE of numerous
documentations of her doing the thing she denies.

> > This is a bad
> > habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
> > posted explanations and calculations.

Kleinman, you only made things worse for me by saying the following:

> Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.

It's about time you learned that "Barbie = jillery" is a pathological liar.
Your response to jillery's counterattack shows you aren't interested
in such "moralizing," but I'll demonstrate it anyway.


FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:

In this case, "Baldly assert" is her dishonest way of saying,

"Never admitted by me as proven, because if forced to testify
under oath, I can say that the proof was so long that my
attention span didn't take me from one end of the proof to the other."


And I now provide the proof for the umpteenth time. Martin Harran
had posted the following back and forth, with him going first and
then jillery, then himself again:


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>you tell about me.
>
>
>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>universe,


Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
you live in a different universe.

>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
starters.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
end of repost from Martin's post


NOTE TO READERS WHOSE ATTENTION SPAN HAS TAKEN THEM THIS FAR:

Observe how Martin's "Well, at least we are getting
somewhere..." is a logical rejoinder to the FIRST part of jillery's
paragraph. Now watch how Martin is made to look at best foolish,
and at worst, self-incriminating, by the way jillery altered
the placement of these words:


*************************************************
>>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>you tell about me.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

>
>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.


I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
universe.

>Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>starters.
******************************************************

NOTE TO READERS: Observe, too, how Martin's last sentence now looks
like a fish out of water, whereas in the original it was a logical,
direct meeting of jillery's challenge,

So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.


Here is where you can find Martin's post from which the first
excerpt was taken:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ
Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>

And here is where you can find the post in which the second excerpt
was taken:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/UXMBoqJDBwAJ
Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
Lines: 246
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <f6fcjc9nqeqsi0s1m...@4ax.com>

I've included the information on the number of lines to show you
why jillery is so much in love with the word "quotemine":
it is impossible to completely thwart its use without reposting
something so long. It's a real chore to find the incriminating
portion for anyone whose newsreader/netserver does not have a
"Find" option.


The above is essentially a repost from the following 101 line post by me:

https://groups.google.com/d//talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/afkemsQWAgAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Jillery's Forgery and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e447147a-5889-40f6...@googlegroups.com>

And there had been quite a few earlier demonstrations served
up in various ways before. So you can see just how dishonest
it is for jillery to talk about "Bald assertions".

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 7/6/2018 1:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>> On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
>>>> and at great length,
>>>
>>> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
>>> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
>>> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
>>> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
>>> to obscure the name, etc.
>>>
>>> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
>>
>> Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
>> doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
>> prior behavior.
>
> Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?
>
> Will wonders never cease...
>

Fuck Peter. I have at length apologized for my past behavior, and have
been making amends for the past three years. Peter's such a vindictive
jackass he never lets go of certain things, shoving it in your face for
the rest of time. Peter is also incapable of keeping his word, since him
and I agreed to a truce to let go of old grudges, and yet the King of
Lies himself has backtracked from his agreement. No doubt he will accuse
me of not holding up the bargain. Hypocrisy, thy name is Nyikos!

--
"Biology only makes sense in the light of evolution." - Theodosius
Doubzhansky

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>
> > > Your comment above is just another one of your transparent lies. As I
> > > noted before, you have never even tried to prove your asinine spam.
>
> "Never even tried to prove" is jillery indulging in what is
> properly referred to as a Big Lie: a lie so huge, it's strains
> credulity that anyone would try to tell it.
>
>
> > > All you have ever done is baldly assert your Big Lies.
>
>
> Jillery's use of "Big Lie" is completely bogus. Below is just ONE of numerous
> documentations of her doing the thing she denies.
>
> > > This is a bad
> > > habit you share with the good DrDr, who compulsively lies that he
> > > posted explanations and calculations.
>
>
> Kleinman, you only made things worse for me by saying the following:
>
> > Barbie thinks if she doesn't understand it, it is a lie. Take an introductory course in probability and try to understand it. Then you might have a chance in decerning the truth from a lie.
>
>
> It's about time you learned that "Barbie = jillery" is a pathological liar.

I think Barbie has a latent desire to be a contestant on the Jerry Springer show.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
> >On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
> >> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
> >>> and at great length,
> >>
> >> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
> >> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
> >> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
> >> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
> >> to obscure the name, etc.
> >>
> >> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
> >
> >Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
> >doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
> >prior behavior.
>
> Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?
>
> Will wonders never cease...
> --

Your bias against me is duly noted.

Of course, I've known about it for years now, along with your
favoritism towards jillery, and more recently towards
Martin Harran since he turned against me, for the probable
reason given in what has become the OP of this extension of
the original thread.


"Will wonders never cease" WOULD be the appropriate term
if ever you were to comment in detail about the proof I've posted for the
umpteenth time about jillery's dirty trick against Martin.

Nobody, including jillery, has ever had the guts to do that,
for various reasons. Some, because they too treat jillery
with favoritism. Others, because they really don't care
whether jillery IS a pathological liar -- Kleinman included,
of course: he has a vested interest in not caring about "moralizing."


And still others, because they see that talk.origins has
degenerated to the point where agreeing with me on such
an explosive issue would be a huge risk. The reasons for this
should be obvious if one has read the OP of this new thread.


And STILL others, because they know little about me and a
lot about what a bullshitter Kleinman is from looking at
thread after thread which is focused largely on him.
If they've seen jillery in action against him, they may well think
"What a shame a full Professor at a research institution
should be like that infamous Dr.Dr."

It is especially because of people in this last category
that jillery has an enormous vested interest in having
Kleinman posting copiously to talk.origins. She can
get the best of him without ever having to stoop to the
sorts of despicable behavior with which she routinely hits me.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

If you posted fewer lies and less bullshit yourself, people might take
you more seriously when you genuinely expose someone else's lies and
distortions.

At the moment, the aptly titled "Peter and the Wolf" seems an
appropriate analogy.

[David Greig]

You have threaded the needle, congrats. In not registering on my radar,
you have managed to actually earn an unbanning.

But for fucks sake you were persistent, like a Top-5 pain in the ass, for
YEARS. Jeeeeeezus.

Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.

--D.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:21:22 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org>:

It's Peter's accusation, so almost certainly not.

[David Greig]

On 2018-07-07, David Greig <dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:
> Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.
>

Thrinaxodon!

--D.

[Oxyaena]

>
> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker Thrinaxodon, viciously
> and at great length, slandered me over and over while I was
> squeezing you into corner after corner

Go to hell, Peter. You know just as well as I do that I never slandered
you, and I would prefer if you hold up your side of the bargain just as
I have been upholding mine. If anything, you have repeatedly slandered
me non-stop over the past year I was gone from talk.origins with no way
to defend myself against your accusations. It seems you are
categorically incapable of holding up your side of the bargain, since
you find the impulse to insult me behind my back too tempting to refrain
from.

This is my last warning, shape up or shut up.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:51:04 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>>
>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker Thrinaxodon, viciously
>> and at great length, slandered me over and over while I was
>> squeezing you into corner after corner
>
>Go to hell, Peter. You know just as well as I do that I never slandered
>you, and I would prefer if you hold up your side of the bargain just as
>I have been upholding mine. If anything, you have repeatedly slandered
>me non-stop over the past year I was gone from talk.origins with no way
>to defend myself against your accusations. It seems you are
>categorically incapable of holding up your side of the bargain, since
>you find the impulse to insult me behind my back too tempting to refrain
>from.

Don't take it personal, he does it with a few people in here.

[Mark Isaak]

I would not be surprised if Peter has set aside some money in his will
with instructions that it be used to insult ten or twenty people each at
least once a year, in perpetuity.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 7/7/18 6:55 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:51:04 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker Thrinaxodon, viciously
>>>> and at great length, slandered me over and over while I was
>>>> squeezing you into corner after corner
>>>
>>> Go to hell, Peter. You know just as well as I do that I never slandered
>>> you, and I would prefer if you hold up your side of the bargain just as
>>> I have been upholding mine. If anything, you have repeatedly slandered
>>> me non-stop over the past year I was gone from talk.origins with no way
>>> to defend myself against your accusations. It seems you are
>>> categorically incapable of holding up your side of the bargain, since
>>> you find the impulse to insult me behind my back too tempting to refrain
>>> from.
>>
>> Don't take it personal, he does it with a few people in here.
>
> I would not be surprised if Peter has set aside some money in his will
> with instructions that it be used to insult ten or twenty people each at
> least once a year, in perpetuity.
>

He could hire Kurzweil to upload a copy of his mind into usenet to haunt it
until the end of humanity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:55:58 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>:

>On 7/6/2018 1:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
>>>>> and at great length,
>>>>
>>>> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
>>>> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
>>>> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
>>>> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
>>>> to obscure the name, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
>>>
>>> Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
>>> doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
>>> prior behavior.
>>
>> Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?
>>
>> Will wonders never cease...
>>
>
>Fuck Peter.

I'll pass... ;-)

> I have at length apologized for my past behavior, and have
>been making amends for the past three years. Peter's such a vindictive
>jackass he never lets go of certain things, shoving it in your face for
>the rest of time.

Yeah, I've noticed. And simultaneously whines about any
unsupported claims of his anyone brings up after the same
length of time.

> Peter is also incapable of keeping his word, since him
>and I agreed to a truce to let go of old grudges, and yet the King of
>Lies himself has backtracked from his agreement. No doubt he will accuse
>me of not holding up the bargain. Hypocrisy, thy name is Nyikos!

Sorry, the only part of Peter's assertion I was noting as
"correct" was that you previously posted under a different
nym; any characterizations of you were ignored as being
"just more Peterisms".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>> >On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
>> >> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
>> >>> and at great length,
>> >>
>> >> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
>> >> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
>> >> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
>> >> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
>> >> to obscure the name, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
>> >
>> >Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
>> >doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
>> >prior behavior.
>>
>> Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?
>>
>> Will wonders never cease...

>Your bias against me is duly noted.

Your characterization of my comment as "bias", rather than
as judgement based on history, is duly noted.

<snip the usual rant>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 14:55:25 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

For "a few people", read "anyone who had the temerity to
disagree with anything he posted".

>>This is my last warning, shape up or shut up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 09:12:48 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org>:

Hey, anyone can change for the better; I'd even allow for
the possibility for The Good DrDr. Hell, even for TIBAMJTEM,
although that one would be quite a stretch, and might
require electroshock therapy. Or a lobotomy.

[Oxyaena]

Wow, that is rare for a moderator to admit some sort of respect for a
former troll. Thank you. Honestly it was an open secret among some
members of talk.origins (and widely known in sbp) that I was formerly
known as Thrinaxodon, but most of the people that knew didn't care and
had moved on from it, with the only person who still cared about that
being not so credible as it is. It doesn't help his case he had no
evidence for it, and only knew that I was once Thrinaxodon because I
told him so.

>
> But for fucks sake you were persistent, like a Top-5 pain in the ass, for
> YEARS. Jeeeeeezus.

I know how much of a pain in the ass I was, people across Usenet knew of
how much of a pain in the ass I was.

>
> Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.
>
> --D.
>

Again, thank you, but I think I'll be sticking to the nym of Oxyaena,
since most people think of me now as "Oxyaena" rather than "Thrinaxodon".

[Oxyaena]

Oh god, now that is truly nightmare material.

[Oxyaena]

I never lied about who I was, I admitted to being Thrinaxodon years ago,
and Peter only knows about my former identity because I straight up told
him. I told him so I could move past being known as Thrinaxodon, of
course it wasn't so much him being told as it was the denizens of sbp,
and others here know about it too, namely Simpson and Harshman. I have
apologized profusely for my actions as Thrinaxodon, and I have been
attempting to make ammends ever since.

I believe we should be judged by our actions, not by our words, and the
intervening few years since I gave up the mantle of Thrinaxodon I think
is more than enough to qualify as atonement for my actions.

[Oxyaena]

I`m fully aware of what he does. Do you realize how long Peter and I
have been going at it? Years, and he shows no sign of stopping. I`m not
responding to Peter anymore, and I advise you do the same.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Of course, Jillery has done that, at the time you first posted that
particular spam, and you know it, which makes you the pathological
liar here.

>for various reasons. Some, because they too treat jillery
>with favoritism. Others, because they really don't care
>whether jillery IS a pathological liar -- Kleinman included,
>of course: he has a vested interest in not caring about "moralizing."
>
>
>And still others, because they see that talk.origins has
>degenerated to the point where agreeing with me on such
>an explosive issue would be a huge risk. The reasons for this
>should be obvious if one has read the OP of this new thread.
>
>
>And STILL others, because they know little about me and a
>lot about what a bullshitter Kleinman is from looking at
>thread after thread which is focused largely on him.
>If they've seen jillery in action against him, they may well think
>"What a shame a full Professor at a research institution
>should be like that infamous Dr.Dr."

Your mindreading still sucks.

>It is especially because of people in this last category
>that jillery has an enormous vested interest in having
>Kleinman posting copiously to talk.origins. She can
>get the best of him without ever having to stoop to the
>sorts of despicable behavior with which she routinely hits me.

Your despicable behavior disqualifies you from complaining about my
alleged despicable behavior. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

[jillery]

So one can find redemption on Usenet after all. And the world is made
a better place.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:

Nyikos' text below consists of multiple examples of his repetitive Big
Lies. I have responded to and refuted every single point he made at
the time he made them. Nyikos' claim of "numerous documentations" are
in fact references to his repetitions of his bald assertions of
documentations, a tactic aped by the good DrDr. That Nyikos continues
to post them as if I haven't shown his points to be more of his Big
Lies is yet another example of this practice. He's like a dog on a
bone, unable to let it go even though there's no meat on it.

More to the point, Nyikos' Big Lies are just a part of his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter, which he compulsively
ejaculates into almost every post he makes. Whether it's irrelevant
references about other threads, other posters, other topics, or other
froups, his inability to stay on-topic, and his compulsion to hijack
any thread for his own purposes, is legendary, as demonstrated most
recently by his digressions from his criticism of the good DrDr to
attack other posters who were also criticizing the good DrDr.

Finally, Nyikos recently admitted he deliberately spams other threads
in order to increase the exposure of his irrelevant spew:
******************************
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> You have injected that thread into others multiple times. Once again,
>> since you have criticisms of my comments in that thread, the
>> appropriate place to raise said criticisms is in that thread,
>
>All in good time. But there are more participants on the threads
>where I mentioned this, than on that abandoned-by-everyone-since-June 24
>thread.
*******************************

So nobody should have any delusions about what Nykios is trying to do
here, and why he's doing it.

WRT Nyikos main point below, that he has posted "the proof for the
umpteenth time" of how I made Martin Harran "look at best foolish,

and at worst, self-incriminating, by the way jillery altered

the placement of these words".

Of course, for the umpteenth time, I reject Nyikos' claims, that my
"altered placement" caused Martin Harran to look any differently than
he already did, and that his "umpteenth" repost doesn't qualify as any
kind of a proof, any more than it did the first time.

And by proof, I don't mean in the pedantic sense of absolute
certainty, but instead I mean in the sense of backing up one's
opinions with facts and reason.

WRT "altered placement", I accept without argument Nyikos' text copies
below are accurate. However, I don't accept they are sufficient to
show the facts, and therefore misrepresent the facts.

Immediately before Harran posted what Nyikos calls the "first
excerpt", I posted this:

Message-ID: <toavic5vrounplfnn...@4ax.com>
On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:53:02 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
*****************************************

>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

*****************************************

Even a superficial comparison of the above to Nyikos' first excerpt
show that Harran altered the placement of my text before I did
anything to his. And even a superficial comparison to Nyikos' second
excerpt shows that I merely re-altered what Harran previously altered.

The above show I did nothing Harran didn't also do, yet Nyikos never
made any mention of Harran's "altered placement", despite his
"umpteen" reposts. More to the point, such alterations are SOP in
T.O. specifically and Usenet generally.

So even if Nyikos had some legitimate objection here, it would apply
to Harran as well. An irony here is Nyikos compulsively "alters"
other posters' paragraphs to such a degree that their coherence is
overwhelmed by his injected noise. Not sure why he doesn't complain
about his own behavior.

WRT how I made Harran appear, I accept that what Nyikos wrote is his
opinion and is what he infers from what I wrote. However, I disagree
with his opinions, and his inference is incorrect. Whatever he thinks
may have happened as a result of my "alterations", my intent was to
restore the integrity of my paragraph, which I did. How my
restoration might have affected Harran's comments was purely
incidental.

But even if Nyikos' bald assertion were correct, that I made Harran
look foolish or self-incriminating, that is also SOP in T.O. and
Usenet, and something Harran was trying to do to me. But in fact,
Harran made himself look foolish, by getting his panties in a twist
about an incidental comment Jerry Coyne said against the RCC, a
comment which was completely irrelevant to anything I had posted.

In summary, Nyikos' facts are not in dispute, but support no
distinctions between his opinions and mine. However, additional facts
support my opinion and not his, while Nyikos' expressed opinions are
no more facts than are mine. Also, his expressed opinions contrast
with standard practices for Usenet, T.O., and his own posting
behavior.

Therefore, Nyikos' spam below, which he admits he has posted "umpteen"
times, offers no supporting facts and provides no reasons to support
his assertions, and so does not qualify as any kind of proof, even in
the broadest sense of backing up his opinions with facts and reason.
It is merely a repetition of his Big Lies. Nevertheless, it's almost
certain he will post this spam umpteen more times no matter how I
reply.

<follows is an unaltered copy for documentation purposes of Nyikos'
latest ejaculation of irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter>

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:20:02 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:
> On 2018-07-07, David Greig <dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:
> > Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.
> >
>

> T***************n!
>
> --D.

I don't know whether this was a reaction to Oxyaena's Peter-flaming
response to Bob Casanova's "will wonders never cease", but it is a very
appropriate response regardless.


If Oxyaena hasn't been banned as a result, I suggest a probationary period.
Back while still posting under the T-handle, the T-persona informed us
that the mad binge of spam posts to sci.bio.paleontology was a thing
of the past, and that [s]he did not want us to dwell on them any more.

Shortly thereafter, the T-persona relapsed and, if anything, the
mad posts that had overwhelmed s.b.p. became even more frequent and crazy
than ever. It took another year or so before the T-persona finally
disappeared and we s.b.p. regulars could resume discussion of paleontology
without having our posts disappear in the index under a sea of T-spam.


Not long after that, the Oxuaena persona joined s.b.p. and
did an exemplary job of doing OP's in paleontology,
and contributed excellently to discussion of paleontology in s.b.p.
In fact, it took quite a while for the rest of us over there
to realize that this was the same person as the one behind
the T-persona.

However, there came a time last year when Oxyaena attacked me,
repeatedly, and at great length, in the style you have seen
just now in the reply to Casanova. Then early this year,
I was informed by Oxyaena that 'e had signed on to the 4+ year old
agreement between Harshman, Simpson, and myself.

I never saw the (alleged) post in which this took place,
but I was too relieved by the new, reasonable, behavior
to ask about how that post was worded.


However, on June 11, Oxyaena gave me a schoolmarmish tongue-lashing
on sci.bio.paleontology that really made me wonder just how
that alleged post was worded -- and even whether Oxyaena was
relapsing into the old T-persona ways:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.bio.paleontology/_1SL1XdRW5c

In the same post, 'e formally criticized Erik Simpson as well,
but the post showed blatant favoritism towards Erik.

So John Harshman was premature in saying that Oxyaena had
reformed. FTR, I never saw Oxyaena apologize "at length" for
his/her past behavior, as Harshman claimed. All I kept seeing
was reminders (FWIW) that this behavior was a thing of the past.

BTW, on June 24, Oxyaena made a legthy proposal for a new
agreement between the lot of us, in which we got more than
a reminder -- we got a long spiel about just how and why
these lapses were supposed to be a thing of the past, but again
(wihout naming me) showing favoritism towards Erik, and even
regretting having (belatedly) revealed that Oxyaena and the T-persona
were expressions of the same ventriloquist-analogue.


One thing I'll say for Oxyaena: these relapses are NOT (yet) to the
massive spam that endangered the very future of sci.bio.paleontology,
so I suggest probation rather than re-banning at this time.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[jillery]

<WHOOSH>

[Peter Nyikos]

Ah, so you disagree with my interpretation of DIG's one-liner.
Would you like to inform us all about YOUR interpretation?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I post no lies, ever, and I'd like to see what you
classify as "bullshit" from me.

> people might take
> you more seriously when you genuinely expose someone else's lies and
> distortions.
>

If you ever make a credible negative claim against me,
these words of yours would have some weight.

OTOH jillery could post these same words about you that you are using,
with considerable justice in your case. [As can I, of course.]


As it is, your words only send me the message, "You know you can't
lick 'em, so why not join 'em like I have?"

> At the moment, the aptly titled "Peter and the Wolf" seems an
> appropriate analogy.

With you the one crying "Wolf!" of course.

By the way, you issued a challenge against me on the original "I'm back"
thread, now closed at 1000 posts by NGG. I directed my reply at your ally
Bob Casanova, because he "vaccinated" you against any reply I
might make; and since my post was destined to be number 999,
I decided to kill two birds with one stone. But the main bird
was you, and here is the reply to your challenge.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4eB2fTKtKKE/1vie1_DnAwAJ
Subject: Re: I'm back
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b7cd4309-e163-4ccc...@googlegroups.com>

Happy reading!

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:

Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
who care about truth and justice.

> Nyikos' text below consists of multiple examples of his repetitive Big
> Lies. I have responded to and refuted every single point he made at
> the time he made them.

Unlike me, jillery is just making bald assertions here, and it is her
post here that is a bunch of repetitive "Big Lies".

I documented not only what happened between Martin and jillery,
but I also documented [1] a Jun 20 2j017 post I did last year from which
I was copying almost everything beyond a few introductory comments.

This showed just how much of a real Big Lie it was when jillery
alleged that I had never tried to show that she had done
Martin Harran an injustice.


[1] Unfortunately, my editing of the url of that link caused it not to
work. Here is an unedited url for that 20 Jun 2017 post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/OIJvNBXbAAAJ

And here is a (I hope!} correctly edited url for that same post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/OIJvNBXbAAAJ

This version enables everyone to scroll up and down to earlier
and later posts on that thread. One can easily see the falsity
of jillery's claim about the kind of documentation I do, and
also note that her "refutation" of what I wrote there was
a brief paragraph of what are CORRECTLY called Bald Assertions.

Earlier, she had made an attempt to counter my charges with
nitpicks at inessentials, spin-doctored to her advantage.

The following was the first in four (4) thorough refutations
of various "rebuttals" in that mendacious post of jillery's [2]:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/BFecqwPbAQAJ
Subject: Re: yet another rockhead rant: Re: OT: Jillery's Forgery and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <da8ae564-b9a9-45ef...@googlegroups.com>

Fortunately the thread stopped at 72 posts, so ...

TO ANY READERS WHO STILL CARE WHICH OF US IS TELLING THE TRUTH:

...you can easily follow the replies by how far posts are indented,
and so locate my four rebuttals without much trouble.

[2] Jillery was so full of chicanery and petty insults that it
took that much to lay all her mendacity bare.


Back to the post to which I am replying. Next, jillery does a
copycat statement that I have truthfully said about *her* in the past --
-- but in her hands, it is a bare faced lie:

> Nyikos' claim of "numerous documentations" are
> in fact references to his repetitions of his bald assertions of
> documentations, a tactic aped by the good DrDr.

"aped" applies, at best, to jillery's tactics, never to mine.

The links I gave not only show that jillery is lying here;
they also enable people to scroll up and down to vicious
attacks by Oxyaena whose existence shows exactly what
Oxyaena was "making amends for" during the last "three" years.

And that is spamming sci.bio.paleontology almost to extinction,
and NOTHING ELSE. Certainly not for vicious attacks on me that went
on unabated until the beginning of this year.

> That Nyikos continues
> to post them as if I haven't shown his points to be more of his Big
> Lies is yet another example of this practice. He's like a dog on a
> bone, unable to let it go even though there's no meat on it.

Jillery is piling lie on lie, as anyone wanting to get at the truth can
verify by looking at the relevant posts on the thread I've linked
with my two urls.

> More to the point, Nyikos' Big Lies are just a part of his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter, which he compulsively
> ejaculates into almost every post he makes.

Here you see jillery in her Usenet Angler Fish role. She regularly
posts never-explained, juvenile pieces of guttersnipe so as
to lull mature people into thinking she is just another silly
troll. But let them get careless and say anything other than
literal truth against her, and watch how the jaws of a skilled propagandist
will snap shut on them.


If only jillery were the juvenile troll she pretends to be here!
Then I wouldn't spend so much time refuting her voluminous lies
and half-truths.

However, in my estimation, she is the most dangerously dishonest
regular in talk.origins, just as (also in my estimation)
John Harshman is the most cunningly dishonest regular and Martin Harran
is the most clumsily dishonest regular.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:20:02 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:
>> On 2018-07-07, David Greig <dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:
>>> Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.
>>>
>>
>> T***************n!
>>
>> --D.
>
> I don't know whether this was a reaction to Oxyaena's Peter-flaming
> response to Bob Casanova's "will wonders never cease", but it is a very
> appropriate response regardless.
>
>
> If Oxyaena hasn't been banned as a result, I suggest a probationary period.
> Back while still posting under the T-handle, the T-persona informed us
> that the mad binge of spam posts to sci.bio.paleontology was a thing
> of the past, and that [s]he did not want us to dwell on them any more.

Bullshit, you fucking liar. I have apologized profusely, multiple times,
for my actions as Thrinaxodon. Grow up, you pretentious twit. If
anything, you should be the one being banned. Did you even read DIG's
reply, in which he said I`m not going to be banned, asshole?

>
> Shortly thereafter, the T-persona relapsed and, if anything, the
> mad posts that had overwhelmed s.b.p. became even more frequent and crazy
> than ever. It took another year or so before the T-persona finally
> disappeared and we s.b.p. regulars could resume discussion of paleontology
> without having our posts disappear in the index under a sea of T-spam.
>

I stopped posting as Thrinaxodon in March 2014, and the rest of that was
Ed Conrad, which I have pointed out to you multiple times, Iago. Have
you ever even thought of pulling your own head out of your ass, Peter?

>
> Not long after that, the Oxuaena persona joined s.b.p. and
> did an exemplary job of doing OP's in paleontology,
> and contributed excellently to discussion of paleontology in s.b.p.
> In fact, it took quite a while for the rest of us over there
> to realize that this was the same person as the one behind
> the T-persona.
>
> However, there came a time last year when Oxyaena attacked me,
> repeatedly, and at great length, in the style you have seen
> just now in the reply to Casanova. Then early this year,
> I was informed by Oxyaena that 'e had signed on to the 4+ year old
> agreement between Harshman, Simpson, and myself.
>
> I never saw the (alleged) post in which this took place,
> but I was too relieved by the new, reasonable, behavior
> to ask about how that post was worded.

Yes you did, you fucking bullshitter. I came to you, personally, to
suggest we put our grudges behind us. You agreed, only to start it up
again soon after.

>
>
> However, on June 11, Oxyaena gave me a schoolmarmish tongue-lashing
> on sci.bio.paleontology that really made me wonder just how
> that alleged post was worded -- and even whether Oxyaena was
> relapsing into the old T-persona ways:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.bio.paleontology/_1SL1XdRW5c
>
> In the same post, 'e formally criticized Erik Simpson as well,
> but the post showed blatant favoritism towards Erik.

Erik didn't do anything wrong, you nitwit, you were the one at fault.
Whenever Erik tried to engage you in civil discourse, you kept badgering
him about his alleged "violations" of the agreement, it got so bad he
just gave up replying to you.

>
> So John Harshman was premature in saying that Oxyaena had
> reformed. FTR, I never saw Oxyaena apologize "at length" for
> his/her past behavior, as Harshman claimed. All I kept seeing
> was reminders (FWIW) that this behavior was a thing of the past.
>

Go to hell, I have apologized profusely, and I can post the entirety of
that post, just so readers can get a non-biased version of events, free
from the paranoia-tinted glasses of the raging orc himself, Peter Nyikos.

> BTW, on June 24, Oxyaena made a legthy proposal for a new
> agreement between the lot of us, in which we got more than
> a reminder -- we got a long spiel about just how and why
> these lapses were supposed to be a thing of the past, but again
> (wihout naming me) showing favoritism towards Erik, and even
> regretting having (belatedly) revealed that Oxyaena and the T-persona
> were expressions of the same ventriloquist-analogue.
>
>
> One thing I'll say for Oxyaena: these relapses are NOT (yet) to the
> massive spam that endangered the very future of sci.bio.paleontology,
> so I suggest probation rather than re-banning at this time

There are no relapses, you projecting asshole. I have done nothing
wrong, worse, you have repeatedly slandered me over and over again,
whilst claiming I have been slandering you. Is your skull so fucking
thick that you can't even look in a mirror and recognize the
narcissistic paranoiac staring back at you?

[Oxyaena]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:20:02 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:
> > On 2018-07-07, David Greig <dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:
> > > Poof. editing procmailrc in a sec.
> > >
> >
> > T***************n!
> >
> > --D.
>
> I don't know whether this was a reaction to Oxyaena's Peter-flaming
> response to Bob Casanova's "will wonders never cease", but it is a very
> appropriate response regardless.
>
>
> If Oxyaena hasn't been banned as a result, I suggest a probationary period.
> Back while still posting under the T-handle, the T-persona informed us
> that the mad binge of spam posts to sci.bio.paleontology was a thing
> of the past, and that [s]he did not want us to dwell on them any more.

Go to hell, asshole. I have apologized at length for my prior behavior many times over, and if you are too blind to see that, then maybe you should be the one being banned. DIG himself said I`m not going to be banned, and yet here you are suggesting I be banned for no reason at all. Fuck you.

You slander me many times over, as you did above. All I did in my initial response was to ask you to not slander me in blatant violation of our agreement, which you show now signs at all of giving a shit about.

>
> Shortly thereafter, the T-persona relapsed and, if anything, the
> mad posts that had overwhelmed s.b.p. became even more frequent and crazy
> than ever. It took another year or so before the T-persona finally
> disappeared and we s.b.p. regulars could resume discussion of paleontology
> without having our posts disappear in the index under a sea of T-spam.
>

That wasn't me, I stopped in March of 2014, the rest of that was Ed Conrad. Again, you're slandering me.

>
> Not long after that, the Oxuaena persona joined s.b.p. and
> did an exemplary job of doing OP's in paleontology,
> and contributed excellently to discussion of paleontology in s.b.p.
> In fact, it took quite a while for the rest of us over there
> to realize that this was the same person as the one behind
> the T-persona.
>
> However, there came a time last year when Oxyaena attacked me,
> repeatedly, and at great length, in the style you have seen
> just now in the reply to Casanova. Then early this year,
> I was informed by Oxyaena that 'e had signed on to the 4+ year old
> agreement between Harshman, Simpson, and myself.
>
> I never saw the (alleged) post in which this took place,
> but I was too relieved by the new, reasonable, behavior
> to ask about how that post was worded.

You fucking liar, you saw me agree to it when I said I wanted to put any grudges in the past. I came to you to propose this.

>
>
> However, on June 11, Oxyaena gave me a schoolmarmish tongue-lashing
> on sci.bio.paleontology that really made me wonder just how
> that alleged post was worded -- and even whether Oxyaena was
> relapsing into the old T-persona ways:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.bio.paleontology/_1SL1XdRW5c
>
> In the same post, 'e formally criticized Erik Simpson as well,
> but the post showed blatant favoritism towards Erik.

Because Erik didn't do anything wrong, whenever Erik engaged you in conversation you kept badgering him about alleged "violations" of our agreement, it got so bad to the point that Erik refused to engage you anymore.

>
> So John Harshman was premature in saying that Oxyaena had
> reformed. FTR, I never saw Oxyaena apologize "at length" for
> his/her past behavior, as Harshman claimed. All I kept seeing
> was reminders (FWIW) that this behavior was a thing of the past.

Again, you're a fucking liar. I have apologized at length multiple times for my past behavior. I dare you to give any evidence for my supposed relapse besides your own assertions.

>
> BTW, on June 24, Oxyaena made a legthy proposal for a new
> agreement between the lot of us, in which we got more than
> a reminder -- we got a long spiel about just how and why
> these lapses were supposed to be a thing of the past, but again
> (wihout naming me) showing favoritism towards Erik, and even
> regretting having (belatedly) revealed that Oxyaena and the T-persona
> were expressions of the same ventriloquist-analogue.
>
>
> One thing I'll say for Oxyaena: these relapses are NOT (yet) to the
> massive spam that endangered the very future of sci.bio.paleontology,
> so I suggest probation rather than re-banning at this time.

Go to hell, if anything I`m awed by how DIG hasn't banned you yet, and many here would agree that I have reformed, where you clearly have not. In fact, I haven't seen you post in sbp at all this month, not since late last June, over two weeks ago. So again, put up or shut up.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
>
>Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
>who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
>with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
>who care about truth and justice.

Since you forgot to say "... and the American Way", I remind you to
put on your cape and watch out for kryptonite.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:

Am I the only one who wonders why any sane person would make "umpteen"
+1 posts about an issue so trivial, that even if were true wouldn't
even qualify as pedantic noise?

>>Nevertheless, it's almost
>>certain he will post this spam umpteen more times no matter how I
>>reply.

Thank you for proving me right once again. You must enjoy doing that,
you do it so often.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

This is a very short and very recent thread; DIG's first post to it
was last Friday morning, just three days ago. DIG posted HIS
"interpretation" just minutes before he posted the one to which you
replied. For someone like you, who repeatedly displays his ability to
find posts from years ago, it should be no problem to find out for
yourself what you're talking about.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>If you ever make a credible negative claim against me,
>these words of yours would have some weight.
>
>OTOH jillery could post these same words about you that you are using,
>with considerable justice in your case. [As can I, of course.]

OTGH your use of jillery as a witness would have some weight if you
didn't compulsively denigrate jillery as a person and what jillery
posts. IOW you rarely make your case by using a witness you
impeached, counselor.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 6:00:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> On 7/6/2018 1:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> > <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
> >
> >> On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
> >>> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
> >>>> and at great length,
> >>>
> >>> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
> >>> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
> >>> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
> >>> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
> >>> to obscure the name, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
> >>
> >> Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
> >> doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
> >> prior behavior.
> >
> > Wow! You mean that Peter's assertion was correct?
> >
> > Will wonders never cease...
> >
>

> Fuck Peter. I have at length apologized for my past behavior, and have
> been making amends for the past three years.

Your savage attacks on me less than a year ago in s.b.p. show
that the ONLY behavior for which you have been making amends
is your voluminous madcap spamming of s.b.p.

> Peter's such a vindictive
> jackass he never lets go of certain things,

Had you tried to find out more about me, you would have known
that I am very much in favor of letting bygones be bygones.
For instance, when I returned to talk.origins after almost
a decade of absence in December 2010, I explicitly said that
I was letting bygones be bygones with everyone [1] except
Howard Hershey who had made relentless attacks on me on a subject
which would destroy my credibility in talk.origins if it were
widely believed -- that I am a hater of gays.

Harshman hypocritically told me it was no good to hold
grudges against people -- and then he promptly nursed a grudge
against me from ten years before, and hasn't stopped nursing
it since. In contrast, I gave Howard Hershey a clean bill
of health after he had behaved himself for six months.

I also gave you a clean bill of health as soon as it became
evident that, as Oxyaena, you were never again likely to drive
sci.bio.paleontology to the brink of extinction with massive
amounts of spam posts.

But unlike Howard Hershey, you reverted to voluminously
making unprovoked attacks on me in both s.b.p. and talk.origins
last year, as I recounted to DIG today.

> shoving it in your face for
> the rest of time. Peter is also incapable of keeping his word, since him
> and I agreed to a truce to let go of old grudges,

You told me that you had signed on to our truce, and I welcomed
that development, but the truce between Harshman, Simpson, and
myself (and Richard Norman -- I sure do miss him, he was the best
of the lot of you) ONLY applied to s.b.p. and not to talk.origins.

Harshman did suggest once that I extend that truce to talk.origins,
but I told him I would no sooner do that than to give a
loaded gun to a serial killer.

One reason is that Harshman has ways of indulging
in blatant paleontology-based flamebait (and flaming, but that's
more typical of his sidekick Erik Simpson) against me here
in talk.origins. Here, very few people would recognize it as flamebait.
But s.b.p. has a completely different membership, so he doesn't
indulge in it there.

> and yet the King of
> Lies himself has backtracked from his agreement.

I am neither a liar nor have I backtracked. It is Erik Simpson
who backtracked, but you are hopelessly biased against me
and towards him, as I told DIG.

Even if all the trumped-up charges of lying over the years
against me had been true, they still would not be as numerous
as those indulged in by Ray Martinez, Ron Okimoto, and jillery
over those same years. So King of Lies is really over the top.

But it is exactly what one would have expected from the
way your T-persona attacked me from the get-go in talk.origins.
Evidently you found out from the get-go, just as Dr. Gary Hurd
found out from the get-go, that I was fair game for relentless
trolling attacks, because you never saw anyone defending me
against them.

However, Dr. Gary Hurd found out that he had bitten off
more than he could chew, and when Glenn and I poked
holes in his on-topic assertions, he left the "Judge Jones..."
thread where he had made them. AFAIK he left talk.origins
as well and has never returned.

Another contrast: Martin Harran and I had cordial relations
for years before he came like a bolt out of the blue with
T-persona style attacks. Evidently he belatedly learned
from the following thread what you and Hurd learned from the get-go.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/BFecqwPbAQAJ

> No doubt he will accuse
> me of not holding up the bargain.

You know damn well what you did in that June 21 s.b.p. post that I
linked in reply to DIG. You are like a 30-miles-over-the-limit
speeder predicting that the police in the car with flashing blue lights
will ticket him for speeding.

> Hypocrisy, thy name is Nyikos!

I'd like to see you try to argue for that claim instead of making
Bald Assertions like you are doing all through this post.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Horseshit. Every word that spews out of that cesspit you call a mouth
makes me vomit in my mouth. I have known you for years, Nyikos, and
never once have you been in favor of letting bygones be bygones. It's as
if whenever you accuse someone of something (almost invariably never
true) the same accusations could more accurately apply to you, it
doesn't help that you are a master of psychological projection.

> For instance, when I returned to talk.origins after almost
> a decade of absence in December 2010, I explicitly said that
> I was letting bygones be bygones with everyone [1] except
> Howard Hershey who had made relentless attacks on me on a subject
> which would destroy my credibility in talk.origins if it were
> widely believed -- that I am a hater of gays.

You *are* a hater of gays, numerous posts can attest to that, like the
one where you are in favor of allowing discrimination against gays on
religious grounds, after all, as you said, they could just "go to
another bakery", or when you weren't in favor of gay marriage.

>
> Harshman hypocritically told me it was no good to hold
> grudges against people -- and then he promptly nursed a grudge
> against me from ten years before, and hasn't stopped nursing
> it since. In contrast, I gave Howard Hershey a clean bill
> of health after he had behaved himself for six months.
>
> I also gave you a clean bill of health as soon as it became
> evident that, as Oxyaena, you were never again likely to drive
> sci.bio.paleontology to the brink of extinction with massive
> amounts of spam posts.
>
> But unlike Howard Hershey, you reverted to voluminously
> making unprovoked attacks on me in both s.b.p. and talk.origins
> last year, as I recounted to DIG today.

This describes you perfectly, for my year long absence from talk.origins
you were the only one mentioning me with any regularity, and because I
thought I was banned I had no way of defending myself against your
accusations, and the only place I could defend myself from your baseless
slander on my character was at sbp, which unfortunately not many people
frequent.

>
>
>> shoving it in your face for
>> the rest of time. Peter is also incapable of keeping his word, since him
>> and I agreed to a truce to let go of old grudges,
>
> You told me that you had signed on to our truce, and I welcomed
> that development, but the truce between Harshman, Simpson, and
> myself (and Richard Norman -- I sure do miss him, he was the best
> of the lot of you) ONLY applied to s.b.p. and not to talk.origins.
>
> Harshman did suggest once that I extend that truce to talk.origins,
> but I told him I would no sooner do that than to give a
> loaded gun to a serial killer.

Why? Do you enjoy causing virtual pain in other people? Do you enjoy
eating up bandwidth that could otherwise go to relevant, on-topic
discussions? Do you enjoy spamming your horseshit all over t.o. for the
sake of being a dick?

>
> One reason is that Harshman has ways of indulging
> in blatant paleontology-based flamebait (and flaming, but that's
> more typical of his sidekick Erik Simpson) against me here
> in talk.origins. Here, very few people would recognize it as flamebait.
> But s.b.p. has a completely different membership, so he doesn't
> indulge in it there.
>
>
>> and yet the King of
>> Lies himself has backtracked from his agreement.
>
> I am neither a liar nor have I backtracked. It is Erik Simpson
> who backtracked, but you are hopelessly biased against me
> and towards him, as I told DIG.

You're about as credible a source as a skunk with a "pet me" sign. No
one believes you, Peter, and with good reason. You have slandered me
multiple times, such as alleging that I spammed sbp for over a year when
most of that was Ed Conrad, and also I stopped posting as Thrinaxodon in
March 2014, months before Conrad presumably passed away.

>
> Even if all the trumped-up charges of lying over the years
> against me had been true, they still would not be as numerous
> as those indulged in by Ray Martinez, Ron Okimoto, and jillery
> over those same years. So King of Lies is really over the top.

The King of Lies deliberately obfuscates his actions, portraying himself
a as the victim while deliberately deceiving others to the extent of his
lies. I think the moniker "King of Lies" is more than appropriate for
such a serial bullshitter as yourself.



[snip irrelevant Nyikosisms]> You know damn well what you did in that

June 21 s.b.p. post that I
> linked in reply to DIG. You are like a 30-miles-over-the-limit
> speeder predicting that the police in the car with flashing blue lights
> will ticket him for speeding.

You know damn well as I do that sbp has nothing to do with talk.origins
beyond some shared posters. Are you incapable of reading what DIG
fucking wrote? He said he wasn't going to ban me, fuckwad. You're like a
bad combination of a vermin infestation that won't go away no matter how
hard you try to get rid of, and a Trumpian bullshitter who spews out
lies and baseless accusations on a daily basis, and will categorically
deny any wrongdoing when caught, despite how strong the evidence is.

>
>
>> Hypocrisy, thy name is Nyikos!
>
> I'd like to see you try to argue for that claim instead of making
> Bald Assertions like you are doing all through this post.
>

Psychological projection noted.



>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
>>
>> Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
>> who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
>> with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
>> who care about truth and justice.
>
>
> Since you forgot to say "... and the American Way", I remind you to
> put on your cape and watch out for kryptonite.
>

[spit take]

The cape! The cape!

>
> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
>
> Am I the only one who wonders why any sane person would make "umpteen"
> +1 posts about an issue so trivial, that even if were true wouldn't
> even qualify as pedantic noise?
>

#becausePeter

>
>>> Nevertheless, it's almost
>>> certain he will post this spam umpteen more times no matter how I
>>> reply.
>
>
> Thank you for proving me right once again. You must enjoy doing that,
> you do it so often.
>

Nyikos never ceases to be amazing.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/9/18 12:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
>
> Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
> who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
> with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
> who care about truth and justice.

> [mercy snip]

A plaintiff who pasted one political sign on public property (I'll call
him Jack) comes before Judge Peter and is found guilty of littering.
Judge Peter, in the interest of truth and justice, prints 1,000 flyers
telling Jack's guilt in great detail, omitting all mention of the
extenuating circumstances. The flyers also prominently depict Judge
Peter in shining armor and declare the guilt of several other people,
not connected with Jack's case, who have not even appeared in court.
Judge Peter then scatters these flyers willy-nilly through the streets
and parks of the city. Because Judge Peter cares so strongly about
truth and justice.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> By the way, you issued a challenge against me on the original "I'm back"
> thread, now closed at 1000 posts by NGG.
>

How can NGG close a thread at 1000 posts? I’m still seeing it on my
newsreader. Looking at the NGG abomination in it’s barely functional mobile
incarnation I think what you meant to say is that NGG breaks threads
because Google.

I see two “i’m back” threads on t.o via my reader. Unsure of separate
provenance. NGG is presently taking an explosive poop with this thread (6
threads so far). Not my problem.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Yes you do. Just 3 exampkles in regard to myself:

Example #1:
=======
In the shroud thread and in this thread, you insisted that I
enthusiastically supported the authenticity of the shroud which I most
certainly did not do.On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
neutrality about theauthenticity.

Example #2
=======
I this thread, you accuesed me of responidng violently to you. I have
never, ever responded violently to you or anyone else here.

Example #3
=======
In your response to Bob about me, you tried to weasle your wauy out of
Example #2 by stating that Iresponed to you with a fulll sentence in
capitals. I didn't, there were

[Martin Harran]

Sorry, hit send by mistake


On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Yes you do. Just 3 examples in regard to myself:

Example #1:
=======
In the shroud thread and in this thread, you insisted that I
enthusiastically supported the authenticity of the shroud which I most
certainly did not do.On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
neutrality about the authenticity.

Example #2
=======

I this thread, you accused me of responding violently to you. I have

never, ever responded violently to you or anyone else here.

Example #3
=======

In your response to Bob about me, you tried to weasel your way out of
Example #2 by stating that I responded to you with a full sentence
in capitals. I didn't, there were five words within the sentence in
capitals - "PLEASE STOP INVOKING MY NAME". Note the first word is
"please" so no hint of any sort about violence there.

Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.

>and I'd like to see what you
>classify as "bullshit" from me.

Example #1
=======
All the nonsense you post about me and others conspiring against you.

Example #2
=======
Trying to attack me on a made-up scenario where I have told lies about
really being Martin Harran.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 8:05:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [broken thread snip]
> >
> > By the way, you issued a challenge against me on the original "I'm back"
> > thread, now closed at 1000 posts by NGG.
> >
> How can NGG close a thread at 1000 posts? I’m still seeing it on my
> newsreader.

You are using a different newsreader. They are incomparable.
NGG started a new thread with my July 6 reply to jillery
as OP. OTOH Giganews starts a new thread with each change
of Subject line, while NGG does not.

> Looking at the NGG abomination in it’s barely functional mobile
> incarnation I think what you meant to say is that NGG breaks threads
> because Google.
>
> I see two “i’m back” threads on t.o via my reader. Unsure of separate
> provenance. NGG is presently taking an explosive poop with this thread (6
> threads so far). Not my problem.

Now you see why I economized on my last few posts to the original "I'm back."
I knew from past experience that the thread would shatter into an
indeterminate number of fragments once it hit the "glass ceiling"
of 1000 posts.

The old Deja News just kept on with threads whether the Subject line
got changed or not. So some threads went on for ca. 10,000 posts.

And the worst part was: even if you knew the url for a post there,
or could find it using the wonderful search engine, it would crank
on for an hour or more trying to get at the post you wanted.
I never hung around long enough to find out about the "or more" part.
[However, threads with fewer than 500 posts went reasonably quickly.]


Moral: there simply is no good way to decide where to break a thread.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 19:00:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>[broken thread snip]
>>
>> By the way, you issued a challenge against me on the original "I'm back"
>> thread, now closed at 1000 posts by NGG.
>>
>How can NGG close a thread at 1000 posts?

GurgleGropes, "New" *or* old, can't terminate a thread; all
it can do is refuse to follow it, the Gurgle equivalent of a
self-inflicted "time out". I'd call that a win...

> I’m still seeing it on my
>newsreader. Looking at the NGG abomination in it’s barely functional mobile
>incarnation I think what you meant to say is that NGG breaks threads
>because Google.
>
>I see two “i’m back” threads on t.o via my reader. Unsure of separate
>provenance. NGG is presently taking an explosive poop with this thread (6
>threads so far). Not my problem.
>

--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:45:08 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 7/9/18 12:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
>>
>> Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
>> who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
>> with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
>> who care about truth and justice.
>> [mercy snip]
>
>A plaintiff who pasted one political sign on public property (I'll call
>him Jack) comes before Judge Peter and is found guilty of littering.
>Judge Peter, in the interest of truth and justice, prints 1,000 flyers
>telling Jack's guilt in great detail, omitting all mention of the
>extenuating circumstances. The flyers also prominently depict Judge
>Peter in shining armor and declare the guilt of several other people,
>not connected with Jack's case, who have not even appeared in court.
>Judge Peter then scatters these flyers willy-nilly through the streets
>and parks of the city. Because Judge Peter cares so strongly about
>truth and justice.

Cue "Eerily Familiar Scenario" music...

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:45:08 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>
> >On 7/9/18 12:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS WHO CARE:
> >>
> >> Jillery's copycat salvo is only for the benefit of readers
> >> who care to know how best to attack me while being in good
> >> with jillery. What I write below is for the benefit of those
> >> who care about truth and justice.
> >> [mercy snip]
> >
> >A plaintiff who pasted one political sign on public property (I'll call
> >him Jack) comes before Judge Peter and is found guilty of littering.
> >Judge Peter, in the interest of truth and justice, prints 1,000 flyers
> >telling Jack's guilt in great detail, omitting all mention of the
> >extenuating circumstances. The flyers also prominently depict Judge
> >Peter in shining armor and declare the guilt of several other people,
> >not connected with Jack's case, who have not even appeared in court.
> >Judge Peter then scatters these flyers willy-nilly through the streets
> >and parks of the city. Because Judge Peter cares so strongly about
> >truth and justice.
>

> Cue "Eerily Familiar [Zany Hemidactylus Pseudo-Satire]" music...

Fixed it for you.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:26:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>Screwed it up as usual by changing it.

Fixed it for you...

[Oxyaena]

I had no reason to make amends for those posts, you mentally deranged
psychopath. The King of Deceit strikes again with his deliberate slander
on my character. Do you have nothing better to do than to deliberately
slander me, Peter? It honestly seems that way.

I suppose you'll start wearing a cape now too, since you are the great
Paragon of Truth and Justice persevering against the dark, ghastly
hordes of abominable Usenet helions, Peter? I propose the name "Bullshit
Man" to be christened upon you in recognition of your great deeds for
Truth and Justice.

[Peter Nyikos]

Martin Harran has become obsessed, in post after post, about what
he considers to be evidence that I am a "habitual liar" -- but
all I've ever seen in them so far is references to the three bogus "examples" below.

This last comment has become quite relevant again as I have
hit Kleinman on another thread, "When natural selection isn't
evolution and jillery has tried to discourage me from
squeezing Kleinman into a corner that no one else seems to
want to squeeze him into.


But back to you, Martin: you completely ignored what I wrote
about jillery. There are those who use the label "defense of X"
for what is actually an attack on the attacker of X, but
I don't need to go that far: look at what I write below about
jillery, you, and the "More Dawkins" thread.

> >> If you posted fewer lies and less bullshit yourself,
> >
> >I post no lies, ever,
>
> Yes you do. Just 3 examples in regard to myself:
>
> Example #1:
> =======
> In the shroud thread and in this thread, you insisted that I
> enthusiastically supported the authenticity of the shroud which I most
> certainly did not do.On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
> neutrality about the authenticity.

Like I told you before, that was the impression I got from seeing
several posts where you undermined arguments for lack of authenticity,
and none where you undermined arguments for authenticity.

> On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
> neutrality about the authenticity.

That's neither here nor there. One can support a point of view without
necessarily agreeing with it. I do it all the time, because there are
many issues on which there is a near-monopoly of people aggressively
pushing one point of view while ignoring arguments against it
and even aggressively asserting that all the evidence favors
their side. You can see it happening right on this thread.

> Example #2
> =======
> I this thread, you accused me of responding violently to you. I have
> never, ever responded violently to you or anyone else here.

As I explained to Bob in the part you are conveniently leaving out
below, I was using the word metaphorically.

> Example #3
> =======
> In your response to Bob about me, you tried to weasel your way out of
> Example #2 by stating

... a bunch of things that you are cherry-picking one thing out of,
conveniently leaving out what the caps were all about:

> that I responded to you with a full sentence
> in capitals. I didn't, there were five words within the sentence in
> capitals - "PLEASE STOP INVOKING MY NAME". Note the first word is
> "please" so no hint of any sort about violence there.

The second word was "stop" which was dishonest, because it implies
that I had done it before. The rest of the sentence was also
dishonest, because I wasn't invoking your name in connection with
child molestation. I was describing a heroic person, set upon
by a horde of villains, one of whom did a nasty trick of making him
look like he was admitting to being a child molester.

I was trying to give you some idea of the kind of forum talk.origins
might become if jillery's nasty trick of rearranging your text
became commonplace.


And you have shown jillery on "More Dawkins" just how phony
your indignation was towards me by your meek response to jillery
not only explicitly invoking your name in connection with child molestation,
but also blaming your kind of behavior for the RCC not doing
more to clean up the resulting Augean Stables.

No wonder you oh-so-conveniently left out WHAT you were asking
me to "stop doing".

Thus, your "please" was quite incongruous, given your dishonesty
and phony indignation.

> Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
> lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.

Please quote where this ever happened with any of these incidents.

In the universe I inhabit, not replying on YOUR timetable does not
count as a refusal to withdraw, nor does explaining why I had a certain
impression without explicitly recanting what I wrote.

> Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
> lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.

You are pointing out 2 and 3 for the first time here. Care to
try and show otherwise?


There was more to your post, but that can wait until next week.


HANW.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 18:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

[snip talk about other people]

I have told you ad nauseam that I have no interest whatsoever in what
you have to say about other people but you seem unable to accept that.

>
>> >> If you posted fewer lies and less bullshit yourself,
>> >
>> >I post no lies, ever,
>>
>> Yes you do. Just 3 examples in regard to myself:
>>
>> Example #1:
>> =======
>> In the shroud thread and in this thread, you insisted that I
>> enthusiastically supported the authenticity of the shroud which I most
>> certainly did not do.On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
>> neutrality about the authenticity.
>
>Like I told you before, that was the impression I got from seeing
>several posts where you undermined arguments for lack of authenticity,
>and none where you undermined arguments for authenticity.

There were no arguments presented for authenticity; the debate was
about the reliability of the evidence that was claimed as conclusive.

>
>> On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
>> neutrality about the authenticity.
>
>That's neither here nor there.

It is absolutely relevant - it removes any excuse for you claiming
that I supported authenticity.

>One can support a point of view without
>necessarily agreeing with it. I do it all the time, because there are
>many issues on which there is a near-monopoly of people aggressively
>pushing one point of view while ignoring arguments against it
>and even aggressively asserting that all the evidence favors
>their side. You can see it happening right on this thread.

It's starting to sound as if your excuse is "Guilty but stupid,
m'Lud." I could actually buy that excus .

>
>
>> Example #2
>> =======
>> I this thread, you accused me of responding violently to you. I have
>> never, ever responded violently to you or anyone else here.
>
>As I explained to Bob in the part you are conveniently leaving out
>below, I was using the word metaphorically.

I have no interest in what you explained to Bob or anyone else; you
accused me of responding violently; I challenged you on it and instead
of withdrawing what you said, he doubled down on it by telling lies
about what I had said..

>
>
>> Example #3
>> =======
>> In your response to Bob about me, you tried to weasel your way out of
>> Example #2 by stating
>
>... a bunch of things that you are cherry-picking one thing out of,
>conveniently leaving out what the caps were all about:
>
>> that I responded to you with a full sentence
>> in capitals. I didn't,

Do you now except that I did not respond with a full sentence in
capitals as you claimed to Bob?

>there were five words within the sentence in
>> capitals - "PLEASE STOP INVOKING MY NAME". Note the first word is
>> "please" so no hint of any sort about violence there.
>
>The second word was "stop" which was dishonest, because it implies
>that I had done it before.

Good God, do I really have to pull out a string of examples of where
you had previously invoked my name in discussions with other people?
It's something you do all the time, Peter -maybe it's a bit like
picking your nose, something you do so often that you just don't
notice yourself doing it any more.

>The rest of the sentence was also
>dishonest, because I wasn't invoking your name in connection with
>child molestation. I was describing a heroic person, set upon
>by a horde of villains, one of whom did a nasty trick of making him
>look like he was admitting to being a child molester.

Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
about, being accused of child molesting.

>

[snip even more talk about other people]

>No wonder you oh-so-conveniently left out WHAT you were asking
>me to "stop doing".

I asked you to stop invoking my name. What is unclear about that?

>
>Thus, your "please" was quite incongruous, given your dishonesty
>and phony indignation.
>
>
>> Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
>> lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.
>
>Please quote where this ever happened with any of these incidents.

I have already told given you an example - you continued to insist
that I was enthusiastic supporter of the Turin Shroud even after I
told you I wasn't.

And, of course, you're continuing it here by still trying to excuse
your lies and dismissing them my account of them as bogus.

[jillery]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
>thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
>about, being accused of child molesting.

Since you mention it, no one accused you, or Nyikos, or anybody else
in T.O., of child molesting. That is a lie you used to rationalize
your jerky knees, and to avoid discussing an issue you raised,
something both you and Nyikos do habitually. My impression is you and
he are working together to perpetuate this lie, where you argue as if
were true, when you know it isn't. To borrow your phrase, it's as if
you're picking each other's nose. That what strange bedfellows do.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 18:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Martin Harran has become obsessed, in post after post, about what
> >he considers to be evidence that I am a "habitual liar" -- but
> >all I've ever seen in them so far is references to the three bogus "examples" below.

Still true.

> >On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:30:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 06:13:18 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> >> >> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> >> >> >> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On 7/6/18 2:21 AM, David Greig wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 2018-07-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Oxyaena, formerly going under the moniker T*********n, viciously
> >> >> >> >>> and at great length,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> FYI for those who care, even MENTIONING the above name gets your post
> >> >> >> >> blocked. I had to manually post Dr. Nyikos' post even to discuss
> >> >> >> >> this point. I will also manually post this followup. Then I will
> >> >> >> >> let the bot stomp on the name freely. It also looks for attempts
> >> >> >> >> to obscure the name, etc.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Is the poster Oxyaena really a nym shift?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Yes, but he's reformed considerably, to the extent that I think he
> >> >> >> >doesn't deserve to be banned. He's even apologized at length for his
> >> >> >> >prior behavior.

I still don't know why Oxyaena was banned under her/his former name.
The only past behavior that has been apologized for was almost
destroying sci.bio.paleontology with mountains of spam posts,
and I'm not sure DIG was even aware of that.

You left most of it in.

> I have told you ad nauseam that I have no interest whatsoever in what
> you have to say about other people but you seem unable to accept that.

What makes you think that I care about what you are interested in,
and what you are not interested in?

This isn't private e-mail, and my words are increasingly written
with the other people reading this. You are becoming more
and more incorrigible.

> >
> >> >> If you posted fewer lies and less bullshit yourself,
> >> >
> >> >I post no lies, ever,
> >>
> >> Yes you do. Just 3 examples in regard to myself:
> >>
> >> Example #1:
> >> =======
> >> In the shroud thread and in this thread, you insisted that I
> >> enthusiastically supported the authenticity of the shroud which I most
> >> certainly did not do.On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
> >> neutrality about the authenticity.
> >
> >Like I told you before, that was the impression I got from seeing
> >several posts where you undermined arguments for lack of authenticity,
> >and none where you undermined arguments for authenticity.
>
> There were no arguments presented for authenticity; the debate was
> about the reliability of the evidence that was claimed as conclusive.

Thanks for adding details to what I wrote. You were doing exactly
the sort of thing I describe below about what I often do.

> >> On the contrary, I explicitly stated my
> >> neutrality about the authenticity.
> >
> >That's neither here nor there.
>
> It is absolutely relevant - it removes any excuse for you claiming
> that I supported authenticity.

By knocking down arguments for its being a forgery, you did support it.
If you use the word "support" differently, that's your privilege, but
the word "lie" should properly refer to statements that the utterer
does not believe to be true.

If you use a different meaning of the word "lie," and insist that
I lied according to your meaning, I don't have to accept that as
reflecting badly on me.

>
> >One can support a point of view without
> >necessarily agreeing with it. I do it all the time, because there are
> >many issues on which there is a near-monopoly of people aggressively
> >pushing one point of view while ignoring arguments against it
> >and even aggressively asserting that all the evidence favors
> >their side. You can see it happening right on this thread.

And I have done it for years by arguing for the Directed Panspermia
hypothesis of Crick and Orgel, without endorsing it any more
than they endorsed it. And, of course, I also knock down fallacious
arguments against it.

> It's starting to sound as if your excuse is "Guilty but stupid,
> m'Lud."

"stupid" being defined by not sharing your definition of the
word "support" and probably not of the word "lie." You really
need to be less self-important.

<snip>

> >> Example #2
> >> =======
> >> I this thread, you accused me of responding violently to you. I have
> >> never, ever responded violently to you or anyone else here.
> >
> >As I explained to Bob in the part you are conveniently leaving out
> >below, I was using the word metaphorically.
>
> I have no interest in what you explained to Bob or anyone else;

Then you aren't interested in truth, but only in forcing me to
go back over arguments. I call that Usenet Treadmill Salesmanship.

> you
> accused me of responding violently; I challenged you on it and instead
> of withdrawing what you said, he doubled down on it by telling lies
> about what I had said..

You are getting the chronology of events all screwed up.

> >
> >
> >> Example #3
> >> =======
> >> In your response to Bob about me, you tried to weasel your way out of
> >> Example #2 by stating
> >
> >... a bunch of things that you are cherry-picking one thing out of,
> >conveniently leaving out what the caps were all about:
> >
> >> that I responded to you with a full sentence
> >> in capitals. I didn't,
>
> Do you now except that I did not respond with a full sentence in
> capitals as you claimed to Bob?

Provisionally, yes, but for full agreement I need to dig up
the post to which I am referring. Meanwhile, I provisionally
retract the "full sentence" part.

> >there were five words within the sentence in
> >> capitals - "PLEASE STOP INVOKING MY NAME". Note the first word is
> >> "please" so no hint of any sort about violence there.
> >
> >The second word was "stop" which was dishonest, because it implies
> >that I had done it before.
>
> Good God, do I really have to pull out a string of examples of where
> you had previously invoked my name in discussions with other people?

You are dishonestly leaving out the rest of the sentence which you
claim was not in all caps. It was specific about WHAT I was supposed
to stop invoking your name in regard to.

<snip continuation of irrelevant reply by you>

>
> >The rest of the sentence was also
> >dishonest, because I wasn't invoking your name in connection with
> >child molestation. I was describing a heroic person, set upon
> >by a horde of villains, one of whom did a nasty trick of making him
> >look like he was admitting to being a child molester.
>
> Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
> thing and someone else,

You are oh-so-conveniently neglecting to identify what
I was allegedly accusing you of.

> absolutely nothing to do it were talking
> about, being accused of child molesting.

It has to do with it, because of the direction such blackguards
took talk.abortion, and you seemed not to care one whit about
the direction in which talk.origins is heading.

>
> >
>
> [snip even more talk about other people]

AND about your meek reaction to the (only one) "other people", which
justifies what I wrote below about phony indignation.

> >No wonder you oh-so-conveniently left out WHAT you were asking
> >me to "stop doing".
>
> I asked you to stop invoking my name. What is unclear about that?

You are doubling down on your dishonesty, identified above.

> >
> >Thus, your "please" was quite incongruous, given your dishonesty
> >and phony indignation.

You couldn't bear to look at the evidence that it was phony, so
you deleted it up there with a transparently phony explanation.

> >
> >> Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
> >> lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.
> >
> >Please quote where this ever happened with any of these incidents.
>
> I have already told given you an example - you continued to insist
> that I was enthusiastic supporter of the Turin Shroud even after I
> told you I wasn't.

You aren't quoting me. Given your false plural "other people" I must
insist on documentation.

> And, of course, you're continuing it here by still trying to excuse
> your lies and dismissing them my account of them as bogus.

I'm beginning to see why jillery wrote something I am loosely
paraphrasing below.

> >
> >In the universe I inhabit, not replying on YOUR timetable does not
> >count as a refusal to withdraw, nor does explaining why I had a certain
> >impression without explicitly recanting what I wrote.
> >
> >
> >> Each of these could be put down to error; what makes them full blown
> >> lies is that you refused to withdraw them when they were pointed out.
> >
> >You are pointing out 2 and 3 for the first time here. Care to
> >try and show otherwise?

<crickets>

Apparently you were using a bogus plural ("them") here also.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
> >thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
> >about, being accused of child molesting.
>
>
> Since you mention it, no one accused you, or Nyikos, or anybody else
> in T.O., of child molesting.

That's funny: on the "More Dawkins" thread, you wrote the following:

Just post something you will lie about,
like someone calling Harran a child molester,

Now it turns out that "you" was supposed to be Martin Harran
and not me. I most certainly did not claim anyone, least of all me,
had accused Martin of that.

> That is a lie you used to rationalize
> your jerky knees, and to avoid discussing an issue you raised,
> something both you and Nyikos do habitually.

Lack of specific alleged examples, noted.

Not that I doubt any more that Martin is guilty of such behavior,
but I think you are avoiding specifics because it would set
a bad precedent: people could start expecting you to provide
specifics, and that would make it difficult to go on using
some of your favorite formulas, such as:

Your ____________ disqualifies you from complaining
about my alleged ____________.

In the dozens if not hundreds of times you've used that formula,
I never saw a specific example, alleged or otherwise, of
the ____________ behavior you were accusing your opponent of.

> My impression is you and
> he are working together to perpetuate this lie, where you argue as if
> were true, when you know it isn't.

You are so bent on avoiding specifics, I have no idea what "this lie"
is supposed to be.

> To borrow your phrase, it's as if
> you're picking each other's nose. That what strange bedfellows do.

Martin is much less my bedfellow than he is of Oxyaena, as you can
see from the way he cozied up to Oxyaena. Notice how nicely they moved
towards a status of mutual admiration -- just as I thought they would:

______________excerpt, names added in brackets____________________________

[Peter, to jillery:]
>> And I wouldn't be surprised if you and Martin Harran got to be
>> best friends over your mutual admiration of Oxyaena.
>>
>> [Yes, he's shown no signs of admiring her yet, but two such similar
>> people can't long be unaware of each others' talents.]
>>
>>
>> But I don't expect any of the 27 people I've named on a list,
>> most of whom are "tough but fair," (as you yourself agreed) to join in.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>

[Oxyaena, repeatedly libeling me:]
>What do we have here? A malicious, libelous, gossiping son of a bitch
>who never gave any "damning" evidence, and had to resort to insulting me
>behind my back as a convenient escape hatch when this Machiavellian
>douche bag was painted into a corner with his own lies?

[Martin, using a now-obsolete description of my behavior:]
Yep, he's tried the same with me. I challenged him weeks ago about
specific lies he told about me and he made no effort to deal with
them. Now he tries to snipe at me in a discussion in which I am not
even involved, probably in the hope that I won't even notice it.

>This is what I
>find, and what I find here seems more like the writings of a
>grade-schooler than a 72 year old mathematician, since it has about as
>much maturity as one.

I'm inclined to agree on the basis that he clearly thinks he is
successfully bluffing people with his patent nonsense.

============== end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/3OqmjaSNAAAJ
Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:30:51 +0100
Message-ID: <l8i8md14c9bp9gmfq...@4ax.com>

Note: only a few hours before I *did* deal with his trumped-up
charges of lying.

If Martin is a "strange bedfellow" of mine, then by a similarly
titanic hyperbole, he is madly in love with Oxyaena.

Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I find something incredibly sad about a poster replying to someone who
has them killfiled. Depending on someone like you to respond to it to
get it noticed seems like a fairly clear symptom of attention
starvation.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
>> >thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
>> >about, being accused of child molesting.
>>
>>
>> Since you mention it, no one accused you, or Nyikos, or anybody else
>> in T.O., of child molesting.
>
>That's funny: on the "More Dawkins" thread, you wrote the following:
>
> Just post something you will lie about,
> like someone calling Harran a child molester,
>
>Now it turns out that "you" was supposed to be Martin Harran
>and not me. I most certainly did not claim anyone, least of all me,
>had accused Martin of that.

I never said you or anyone else called me a child molester.

Once again you're falling for what Jillery regards as her clever
wordplay where she *implies* that I said you called me a molester but
leaves herself what she considers the get-out that she never
*explicitly* said that I said that.

It's that sort of bullshit that led me to deciding there was no fit
place for her except the bozo bin and, if you keep coming out with the
same bullshit as you have recently, you will soon be joining her in
it.

[匽

[Oxyaena]

What newsreader do you use?


>
> […]
>

[Oxyaena]

I'd been spamming in t.o. then at the same time I was destroying sbp,
sbp wasn't the only newsgroup I targeted you know, as I have pointed out
to you multiple times, and that is the only past behavior I need to
apologize for, everything else you *think* I need to "apologize" for was
due to you provoking me.

I`m done. Stop referencing me in your bullshit posts, I want NOTHING to
do with you.

[Oxyaena]

On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

Don't get your hopes us. Nyikos has been coming out with bullshit about
me for years.


>
> […]
>

[Oxyaena]

I hope you get cancer. I never "cozied" up to Martin, and when it comes
to religion he's a total idiot like yourself, but Martin is infinitely
more pleasant to deal with than yourself, you tumor on society.

>
> ______________excerpt, names added in brackets____________________________
>
> [Peter, to jillery:]
>>> And I wouldn't be surprised if you and Martin Harran got to be
>>> best friends over your mutual admiration of Oxyaena.
>>>
>>> [Yes, he's shown no signs of admiring her yet, but two such similar
>>> people can't long be unaware of each others' talents.]
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don't expect any of the 27 people I've named on a list,
>>> most of whom are "tough but fair," (as you yourself agreed) to join in.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>
>

> [Oxyaena, repeatedly telling the truth about me:]

Literally no one outside of you believes I libeled you, Peter, and that
post I responded to was YOU telling other people things they damn well
shouldn't know, complete with sophomoric insults on my character [post
in full:

" Oh, yes, Oxyaena gave away the fact in sci.bio.paleontology that she is
married [2] and her husband is a paleontologist.

He won't post there, according to Oxyaena. I wonder whether that has
anything to do with the way Oxyaena, under her old T-name, went on a spam
rampage that almost destroyed sci.bio.paleontology.

But I think it's safe to assume she will never tell the truth about the
connection, if any.

[2] So much for her talking about how she doesn't reveal such "private,"
"personal" information. You saw that on another thread, didn't you?

Will you also reveal such "private, personal" information about yourself?
Or do you plan to go on being as tight-lipped as Glenn about it?


> I can assume you refer to your final sentence
> from it:

>
> "Remainder deleted, to be replied to later."
>

> Damning evidence indeed, but not of Oxyaena.

You really love to flaunt how illogical you can be, don't you?

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

You approve of Oxyana's libels, but there is no need for you to
defend her right to go on lying her head off.
After all, the people I named above will be glad to help you
shoulder that "burden".

By the way, I forgot to add Bob Casanova, who does a lot better
job of fooling people than you do in his own reply to the post
to which you are replying here. Also Wolffan, of course.

Maybe y'all can recruit John Harshman to go to bat for Oxyaena's
latest libels, too.

And I wouldn't be surprised if you and Martin Harran got to be
best friends over your mutual admiration of Oxyaena.

[Yes, he's shown no signs of admiring her yet, but two such similar
people can't long be unaware of each others' talents.]


But I don't expect any of the 27 people I've named on a list,
most of whom are "tough but fair," (as you yourself agreed) to join in."

You always demand evidence that you're a libelous, gossiping son of a
bitch, well here you go. I find it cute that you always cut the context
of what I had written, given that you always love to quote mine what I
say without the proper context. Why haven't you dropped dead yet?

>> What do we have here? A malicious, libelous, gossiping son of a bitch
>> who never gave any "damning" evidence, and had to resort to insulting me
>> behind my back as a convenient escape hatch when this Machiavellian
>> douche bag was painted into a corner with his own lies?
>
> [Martin, using a now-obsolete description of my behavior:]
> Yep, he's tried the same with me. I challenged him weeks ago about
> specific lies he told about me and he made no effort to deal with
> them. Now he tries to snipe at me in a discussion in which I am not
> even involved, probably in the hope that I won't even notice it.
>
>> This is what I
>> find, and what I find here seems more like the writings of a
>> grade-schooler than a 72 year old mathematician, since it has about as
>> much maturity as one.
>
> I'm inclined to agree on the basis that he clearly thinks he is
> successfully bluffing people with his patent nonsense.

Like how you clearly think you are "successfully bluffing people" with
your "patent nonsense". Psychological projection noted, Nyikos.

>
> ============== end of excerpt from
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/3OqmjaSNAAAJ
> Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:30:51 +0100
> Message-ID: <l8i8md14c9bp9gmfq...@4ax.com>
>
> Note: only a few hours before I *did* deal with his trumped-up
> charges of lying.
>
> If Martin is a "strange bedfellow" of mine, then by a similarly
> titanic hyperbole, he is madly in love with Oxyaena.

I really *really* hope you have a fucking heart attack. While others may
condemn my hatred for you, my patience has worn fucking thin, and I am
sick and tired of your horseshit and libelous fecal matter written about
me. This thread HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. FUCK OFF! STOP INVOKING MY
NAME IN THINGS I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH! I'm about to have a fucking
migraine again. Thanks (but no thanks) to you I've had to reveal more
about myself to combat your bullshit than I ever had to previously in my
history on Usenet, including the revelation that I suffer from several
neurological disorders stemming from a history of abuse, genetics, and
other sources.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. FUCK YOU.

Ugh! Fellow non-Nyikos members of talk.origins, I apologize for my
unprofessional behavior, but I am rightfully infuriated at his patent
nonsense written about me, and I stand by what I have written.


>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
>> >thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
>> >about, being accused of child molesting.
>>
>>
>> Since you mention it, no one accused you, or Nyikos, or anybody else
>> in T.O., of child molesting.
>
>That's funny: on the "More Dawkins" thread, you wrote the following:
>
> Just post something you will lie about,
> like someone calling Harran a child molester,
>
>Now it turns out that "you" was supposed to be Martin Harran
>and not me. I most certainly did not claim anyone, least of all me,
>had accused Martin of that.

Nobody said you said, certainly not me.

>> That is a lie you used to rationalize
>> your jerky knees, and to avoid discussing an issue you raised,
>> something both you and Nyikos do habitually.
>
>Lack of specific alleged examples, noted.

Since you asked, the topics you raise below are as good as any. You're
welcome.

>Not that I doubt any more that Martin is guilty of such behavior,
>but I think you are avoiding specifics because it would set
>a bad precedent: people could start expecting you to provide
>specifics, and that would make it difficult to go on using
>some of your favorite formulas, such as:
>
> Your ____________ disqualifies you from complaining
> about my alleged ____________.
>
>In the dozens if not hundreds of times you've used that formula,
>I never saw a specific example, alleged or otherwise, of
>the ____________ behavior you were accusing your opponent of.

Of course, I reply with the above when you baldly accuse me of doing
things you do, almost always in the text immediately above said reply.
It's possible you're congenitally blind to your own actions, but the
more likely answer is you baldly deny your actions as readily as you
baldly accuse others.

>> My impression is you and
>> he are working together to perpetuate this lie, where you argue as if
>> were true, when you know it isn't.
>
>You are so bent on avoiding specifics, I have no idea what "this lie"
>is supposed to be.

That could be because you already mangled the context with your
irrelevant spew. To refresh your convenient amnesia, still preserved
in the quoted text: "Yes, you make a direct connection between your

accusing me of one thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it
were talking about, being accused of child molesting."

Hope that helps, but I doubt it.

>> To borrow your phrase, it's as if
>> you're picking each other's nose. That what strange bedfellows do.
>
>Martin is much less my bedfellow than he is of Oxyaena, as you can
>see from the way he cozied up to Oxyaena. Notice how nicely they moved
>towards a status of mutual admiration -- just as I thought they would:

That you acknowledge Harran as your fellow nose-picker is relevant.
Your ranking of strange bedfellows is not.

>______________excerpt, names added in brackets____________________________

<snip your remaining irrelevant spew>

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 07:54:05 +0100, Martin Harran

<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
>>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>I find something incredibly sad about a poster replying to someone who
>has them killfiled. Depending on someone like you to respond to it to
>get it noticed seems like a fairly clear symptom of attention
>starvation.

Only a self-absorbed asshole would even bother to post something as
stupid as the above. Apparently it has never occurred to you that I
respond not to you personally, but to the comments you made. I have
no problems with you not replying to me, directly or otherwise, as
your replies never rose to the level of a coherent and relevant
response.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 08:14:14 +0100, Martin Harran

<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
>>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Yes, you make a direct connection between your accusing me of one
>>> >thing and someone else, absolutely nothing to do it were talking
>>> >about, being accused of child molesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you mention it, no one accused you, or Nyikos, or anybody else
>>> in T.O., of child molesting.
>>
>>That's funny: on the "More Dawkins" thread, you wrote the following:
>>
>> Just post something you will lie about,
>> like someone calling Harran a child molester,
>>
>>Now it turns out that "you" was supposed to be Martin Harran
>>and not me. I most certainly did not claim anyone, least of all me,
>>had accused Martin of that.
>
>I never said you or anyone else called me a child molester.
>
>Once again you're falling for what Jillery regards as her clever
>wordplay where she *implies* that I said you called me a molester but
>leaves herself what she considers the get-out that she never
>*explicitly* said that I said that.

Of course, it's you who's playing word games here, where you claim you
never *explicitly* said anyone called you a child molester. Nor did I
imply anything you said I implied. You inferred it.

OTOH "being accused of child molesting" are *your* words, still
preserved in the quoted text above.

>It's that sort of bullshit that led me to deciding there was no fit
>place for her except the bozo bin and, if you keep coming out with the
>same bullshit as you have recently, you will soon be joining her in
>it.

And once again you prove how little self-control you have over your
obsession with me, and how little exercise you give your personal
integrity. I predicted it wouldn't take long. You must enjoy proving
me right, you do it so often.

[Martin Harran]

Forte agent, why?

>
>
>>
>> [匽
>>

[Oxyaena]

Because Thunderbird doesn't have a killfile option, I desperately need
one so I can shove Nyikos in there.


>>
>>
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

I can't be arsed trying to sort out your wandering in and out of
things to do with other people so I'll just summarise it. Basically
your defence is:

Lie #1 - You still want to make out that I supported the authenticity
of the Shroud even though I explicitly said I was neutral about it and
you can't produce a single post where I said I supported the
authenticity.

Lie #2 - you want to define your own meaning for the word "violently".

Lie #3 - you don't dispute that I didn't post a full sentence in
capitals but you are neither defending nor withdrawing it because
you're not sure either way as you're too incompetent to do a simple
Google post for a literal expression, even though I gave the full
sentence in a direct reply to you on the 5th July

You're not just a liar Peter, you're a pathetic one.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 05:07:05 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:

[...]

>. I never "cozied" up to Martin, and when it comes
>to religion he's a total idiot like yourself,

I generally find that people who dismiss other people as idiots simply
on the grounds that they disagree with them about something, are
actually looking in a mirror but are too idiotic to realise it.

[...]

[Oxyaena]

I`m calling you an idiot because you refused to actually address my
argument and played word games to avoid the million dollar question:

How does one tell the difference between allegory and truth in the Bible?

[Ernest Major]

On 08/08/2018 14:16, Oxyaena wrote:
>
> Because Thunderbird doesn't have a killfile option, I desperately need
> one so I can shove Nyikos in there.

Thunderbird does have a killfile option. Right click on the sender's
name in the headers and there's a "create filter from" option.

There's also a Tools|Message Filters option on the menu.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Oxyaena]

Thanks, it's done.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:44:03 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:

>On 8/8/2018 9:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 05:07:05 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> . I never "cozied" up to Martin, and when it comes
>>> to religion he's a total idiot like yourself,
>>
>> I generally find that people who dismiss other people as idiots simply
>> on the grounds that they disagree with them about something, are
>> actually looking in a mirror but are too idiotic to realise it.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>I`m calling you an idiot because you refused to actually address my
>argument and played word games

Seems a rather peculiar use of the word "idi\ot ", particularly when I
told you clearly why I have no interest in addressing your (non)
argument.

> to avoid the million dollar question:
>
>How does one tell the difference between allegory and truth in the Bible?

I don't see why it merits the "million dollar question" description,
just like any area of human knowledge, it requires careful exegesis.
Just as those other areas require drawing on all relevant aspects of
human knowledge, I don't believe that that exegesis can be carried out
using the Bible in isolation. Neither does the Catholic Church which,
unlike the Protestant *sola scriptura* approach, does not depend on
the Bible alone but uses the 'tripod' of the Bible, Tradition and the
magisterium of the Church; that is one of the main reasons why the
Catholic Church has far less problems with science than many of the
Protestant denominations, particularly the fundamentalist ones.

[jillery]

Yet another example of Martin Harran claiming a high road he doesn't
follow.

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

[jillery]

I hope it helps you, but it didn't help me with Nyikos. And it's not
helping Harran control his obsession about me, as he proved just
today.

[Oxyaena]

On 8/8/2018 12:52 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:00:32 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2018 9:52 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2018 14:16, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Because Thunderbird doesn't have a killfile option, I desperately need
>>>> one so I can shove Nyikos in there.
>>>
>>> Thunderbird does have a killfile option. Right click on the sender's
>>> name in the headers and there's a "create filter from" option.
>>>
>>> There's also a Tools|Message Filters option on the menu.
>>>
>> Thanks, it's done.
>
>
> I hope it helps you, but it didn't help me with Nyikos. And it's not
> helping Harran control his obsession about me, as he proved just
> today.

Thanks, I killfiled Harran already. I delisted Nyikos because I realized
he would just find some way to clutter up t.o. anyways with his inane
shit, even with the killfile, and as insufferable as Nyikos is, Harran's
far worse.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 12:57:18 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:

>On 8/8/2018 12:52 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:00:32 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2018 9:52 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2018 14:16, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because Thunderbird doesn't have a killfile option, I desperately need
>>>>> one so I can shove Nyikos in there.
>>>>
>>>> Thunderbird does have a killfile option. Right click on the sender's
>>>> name in the headers and there's a "create filter from" option.
>>>>
>>>> There's also a Tools|Message Filters option on the menu.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, it's done.
>>
>>
>> I hope it helps you, but it didn't help me with Nyikos. And it's not
>> helping Harran control his obsession about me, as he proved just
>> today.
>
>Thanks, I killfiled Harran already. I delisted Nyikos because I realized
>he would just find some way to clutter up t.o. anyways with his inane
>shit, even with the killfile, and as insufferable as Nyikos is, Harran's
>far worse.
>

This is the guy who called *me* an idiot!

[Martin Harran]

Well that was kinda waste of time!

I can't help wondering did he killfile me without wait ring to see my
response or did he see my response and decided that killfiling me was
better than trying to counteract what I said.

Go figure.

[Peter Nyikos]

Martin plays a hackneyed Internet Hellion gambit against me below.

At least, I think it was against me, inasmuch as he is directly following
upto a post of mine. But since I was replying to Jillery, he may
have broken a precedent of half a year by actually saying something
to me that reflected badly on an opponent of his.

That's pretty hard to believe, so I'm addressing both possibilities
below.

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:55:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:28:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:58:38 +0100, Martin Harran
> >> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]


> I find something incredibly sad about a poster replying to someone who
> has them killfiled.

Martin, would you mind telling me who you have in mind? Burhkard
un-killfiled me, at least temporarily, and your new-found commiserator
Oxyaena only killfiled me yesterday, the day AFTER you did this post,
and only (at least to my knowledge) in sci.bio.paleontlogy.

If it is JILLERY about whom you are talking, I never saw her
claiming to have killfiled you, and she replies directly to
scads of posts by you -- and you very often return the "favor".

> Depending on someone like you to respond to it to
> get it noticed

Being noticed was never high on my list of priorities, and
I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Jillery gets LOTS of attention, so it's also idiotic to
claim that she is hungry for more.

By the way, your greatest t.o. benefactor, Bob Casanova,
keeps posting about crickets to get the attention of
people who don't respond to him on HIS timetable.

And that segues into the next thing you wrote:

> seems like a fairly clear symptom of attention
> starvation.

I guess you never saw my most frequent reply to people who
announced they were killfiling me:

If _________________ wants to bury his head in the sand,
that's his prerogative, but it certainly won't stop
me from talking about him.

Of course, with so many people like yourself clamoring for
my attention, it's only worthwhile to talk like that under
three conditions:

1. Reminding people that X has me killfiled, so they shouldn't
expect X to respond to what I am writing.

2. [intensification of 1] When nobody else is saying something
relevant about what X is debating, and I would like for X to
see that relevant thing, to help get a clear picture of the issues.

3. If X is saying something nasty and unjustifiable about me.
I call this kind of behavior "kicking like an ostrich in my
direction while keeping his head buried deep in the sand".


Something I posted under the rubric of Item 2. resulted in Burkhard
un-killfiling me. If you are still under the delusion that I'm in his
killfile, you've got a lot of catching up to do.


On the other hand, if it is jillery you have in mind here,
consider the above an invitation to get your mind right about
the dynamics that accompany killfile announcements.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 07:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

I was talking about Jillery posting to me when I had said I have
killfiled her .

Your thinking that many people are "clamoring for your attention"
shows clearly that it is you who needs to get his mind right.

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:19:05 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I was talking about Jillery posting to me when I had said I have
>killfiled her .

And I was not posting to you, but instead posting in response to your
comments. That's the downside to killfiles that nobody seems to
understand; they don't stop anybody from responding to your posts,
they only stop you from seeing specific replies, and only then if
nobody follows-up to those posts.

Of course, the upside is all mine, that I don't have to worry *as
much* about you obsession with posting lies about me. But even that
isn't perfect, as long as there is someone like Nyikos the peter to
help you pretend you're not going to post lies about me. That's what
strange bedfellows do. And I predicted that you *still* wouldn't be
able to control your obsession with posting about me. You must enjoy

proving me right, you do it so often.

[Oxyaena]

That doesn't exactly answer the question, the "argument" you're using is
a handwave. The issue still stands, even though the Catholic Church uses
the "tripod approach" they still to some extent rely on the Bible to
grant legitimacy to the drivel they preach, so, back to the issue of the
million dollar question:

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are allegorical and
which are literal?

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 05:28:47 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.address>
wrote:

#1 I thought you had me killfiled.

#2 What's the point in me trying to have a sensible discussion with
you when you have dismissed me as an idiot?

[Oxyaena]

I did, but every time I log out of my computer or shut it down it
deletes all the new data on it, so I said "fuck it" and I`m only
killfiling people that are truly annoying, like AlphaBeta or Gary.

>
> #2 What's the point in me trying to have a sensible discussion with
> you when you have dismissed me as an idiot?
>

Okay, I apologize for calling you an idiot, but you are still
*extremely* pig-headed when it comes to discussing religion.

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-08-12 18:43:18 +0000, Oxyaena said:

> On 8/12/2018 1:19 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 05:28:47 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.address>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2018 10:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:44:03 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/8/2018 9:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 05:07:05 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.god> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> . I never "cozied" up to Martin, and when it comes
>>>>>>> to religion he's a total idiot like yourself,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I generally find that people who dismiss other people as idiots simply
>>>>>> on the grounds that they disagree with them about something, are
>>>>>> actually looking in a mirror but are too idiotic to realise it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I`m calling you an idiot because you refused to actually address my
>>>>> argument and played word games
>>>>
>>>> Seems a rather peculiar use of the word "idi\ot ", particularly when I
>>>> told you clearly why I have no interest in addressing your (non)
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>>> to avoid the million dollar question:
>>>>>
>>>>> How does one tell the difference between allegory and truth in the Bible?

*
Here is an idea for a start.

Let's find those instances in the Bible that are patently impossible,
that violate the current best-known laws of physics and biology, and
define them as non-literal. For example: Methusaleh lived 900 years.
Jesus fed a thousand people with three fish and two hamburgers. Water
into wine. Virgin birth. Life after death.

Mark Twain said:

"It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and
some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good
morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

--Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 - 1910) "Mark Twain"

As a kid, the text in my Bible was printed in two colors. The word of
God was in red and everything else was printed in black.

I would like to see a Bible that implements Mark Twain's description.
We could print the word of God in red, the noble poetry in pink, the
clever fables in blue, the good morals in green, the obscenity in
purple, and the thousand lies in yellow.

Such a Bible would be very useful.

It would also mark the beginning of the downfall of Christianity!

earle
*

[freon96]

All of the technology of that last 200 years or so would
have been patently impossible. To most people throughout
history, modern science would be considered absurd. The
credibility of a proposition depends on the credulity of
those who think about it.

Bill

[Martin Harran]

So basically, you want to remove all supernatural elements from the
Bible. I suspect that religious people generally wouldn't find a Bible
without God to be particularly useful.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:43:18 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.address>

Would you mind giving me an example of this "pig-headedness?

This is a serious question; several accusations such as "knee jerking"
and defending torture and killing have been made about me recently in
response to posts I have made about the Catholic Church and I am
genuinely struggling to find any justification for those accusations
and those making the accusations seem rather reluctant, or perhaps
just incapable, of giving any examples to support their accusations..