info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Just for Nyikos
250 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Oct 11, 2014, 9:33:17 AM10/11/14
to
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.
I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.
Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ
He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.
One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ
It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.
The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ
QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.
But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.
So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.
Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:
Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.
Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.
Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.
This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ
Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.
Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J
The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.
Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ
Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ
Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ
Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J
It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.
Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J
Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.
By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ
My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J
Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.
I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.
Ron Okimoto
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.
I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.
Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ
He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.
One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ
It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.
The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ
QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.
But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.
So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.
Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:
Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.
Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.
Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.
This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ
Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.
Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J
The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.
Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ
Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ
Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ
Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J
It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.
Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J
Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.
By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ
My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J
Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.
I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Oct 11, 2014, 11:55:26 AM10/11/14
to
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:17 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
>posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can’t do anything about
who agree with your comments and recognize the need for documenting
his behavior, 2. Those who agree with your comments but oppose
documenting his behavior, and 3. those who disagree with your
comments. The vast majority are of the second category, which means
that your efforts are to some degree self-defeating. Good luck
anyway.
--
Intelligence is never insulting.
[...]
>I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
>Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
>leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
>would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
>him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
>I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
>Nyikos can’t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
>leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
>would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
>him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
>I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
>to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
>already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
>some other way.
My impression is there are three kinds of posters on T.O.: 1. Those
>already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
>some other way.
who agree with your comments and recognize the need for documenting
his behavior, 2. Those who agree with your comments but oppose
documenting his behavior, and 3. those who disagree with your
comments. The vast majority are of the second category, which means
that your efforts are to some degree self-defeating. Good luck
anyway.
--
Intelligence is never insulting.
RonO
Oct 11, 2014, 2:28:01 PM10/11/14
to
On 10/11/2014 10:55 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:17 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
>> posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:17 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
>> Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
>> leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
>> would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
>> him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
>> I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
>> Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
>> leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
>> would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
>> him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
>> I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
>> to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
>> already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
>> some other way.
>
>
> My impression is there are three kinds of posters on T.O.: 1. Those
> who agree with your comments and recognize the need for documenting
> his behavior, 2. Those who agree with your comments but oppose
> documenting his behavior, and 3. those who disagree with your
> comments. The vast majority are of the second category, which means
> that your efforts are to some degree self-defeating. Good luck
> anyway.
>
>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.
>
This thread is just for Nyikos. He whines about evidence, but when he
>> already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
>> some other way.
>
>
> My impression is there are three kinds of posters on T.O.: 1. Those
> who agree with your comments and recognize the need for documenting
> his behavior, 2. Those who agree with your comments but oppose
> documenting his behavior, and 3. those who disagree with your
> comments. The vast majority are of the second category, which means
> that your efforts are to some degree self-defeating. Good luck
> anyway.
>
>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.
>
gets it he runs. I do not want to discuss anything with an asshole like
Nyikos. If he does post to me in the future he is going to get this
post to remind him of what an utter ass he is. This is just a post
where I intend to tell the asshole that he obviously has all these other
issues that he is running from that he should take care of before he
starts anymore of his asinine stupidity. The faster that I can make him
run the better for me. Nyikos has already run from a lot of the
evidence above several times, so what is he going to do? We will see.
My guess is that he snips and runs from nearly all of it or he
concentrates on junk like the difference between "could" and "should"
to lie to himself about addressing the material. That is what he has
consistently done in the past so I don't expect anything more. If he
tries that stupid and dishonest nonsense he is just going to get the
full post again.
Since I looked up all the evidence and he has just run again, why should
I bother the next time the asshole posts to me just to get him to run
away again? I just intend to see how trying to get the asshole to face
reality is going to work out when I don't have to do much but repost
what he has already run from. I already see Nyikos whining to other
posters about his last assoholic display. I can't do anything about
that. The victims can just direct Nyikos to this thread and tell him to
address the issues where he should address them. That is about all that
I can do. I refuse to follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
Oct 12, 2014, 11:30:17 AM10/12/14
to
On 10/11/2014 9:33 AM, RonO wrote:
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> “tomorrow” has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
> and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
> insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
> him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
> been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
> reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
> answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
> every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
> reality.
When Marvel turns this into a comic book, which of you is the superhero
> and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
> insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
> him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
> been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
> reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
> answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
> every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
> reality.
and which of you is the supervillain?
-- Steven L.
Sneaky O. Possum
Oct 12, 2014, 1:01:46 PM10/12/14
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:m1e6qf$55n$1...@dont-email.me:
That's unfair. They can both be supervillains.
--
S.O.P.
--
S.O.P.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 12, 2014, 2:20:31 PM10/12/14
to
If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
Bob Casanova
Oct 12, 2014, 3:12:51 PM10/12/14
to
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
--
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
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
jillery
Oct 12, 2014, 4:08:48 PM10/12/14
to
jillery
Oct 12, 2014, 4:08:37 PM10/12/14
to
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 12, 2014, 4:47:57 PM10/12/14
to
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>
>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
>for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
before it got that far.
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>
>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
>for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
before it got that far.
RonO
Oct 13, 2014, 7:40:13 AM10/13/14
to
with Nyikos will be brought to a minimum. In the nearly three months
that Nyikos was running from his last harassment fiasco (listed in my
post above) involving me who was he posting to? Not me, and I like it
that way. If you want to keep poking at the asshole you are welcome to
him. It is just a fact, that the only way to get Nyikos off your back
for any amount of time is to demonstrate what a lying loser he is when
he is doing his tragically stupid dirty tricks, and trying to rewrite
history. That is how it has been for years. I realize that he just
goes off and starts lying to everyone else, but anyone that believes the
guy at this point is likely a lost cause. I can't do anything about
what Nyikos does with other posters, and I refuse to follow the boob
around TO with a pooper scooper. When he gets in my face I put him down
like the rabid dog that he is because that is what I believe you have to
do with rabid dogs.
Ron Okimoto
RonO
Oct 13, 2014, 7:50:35 AM10/13/14
to
about someone behind their backs is just the Nykosian way. I have just
found that the fastest way to get Nyikos to stop posting his junk to you
is to demonstrate what a lying loser he is. If he chooses to post to
me, that is what he can expect. Between early June and Sept. the guy
was running and I had a vacation from the asshole. This thread is just
something that I am trying to see how quickly the lying loser will run
when confronted by evidence that he has run from in the past. He stalls
around demanding evidence and running whenever it is presented, so I
figure since I looked up some of the earliest Nyikosian stupidity that
he should get to relive it whenever he decides to be an asshole again.
Ron Okimoto
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 13, 2014, 11:05:59 AM10/13/14
to
and in two threads where I have left four long posts he did
less than two weeks ago (one 377 lines long) unanswered,
because he is persistently trying to change the topic while running away from
being caught red-handed in at least two documented lies (with documentation
that they WERE lies) in the past two months.
To avoid facing up to his documented dishonesty, Ron O has been trying
repeatedly (even while telling at least one of those lies) to force
me to return to posts that occurred within a week after I returned to
talk.origins in December 2010 after an absence of about 9 and a half
years.
On this thread, he links that 377 lines long post where that is
about all he is trying to do, and I doubt that anyone
here will bother to read all of it--or even a sizable fraction of it,
because he is coming across in it like a gibbering idiot.
He is bringing trumped-up charges of lying against me here, for
daring to "disobey his orders" but makes no attempt to show that any
of my comments were lies. In fact, the ONLY quote he gives from me is
a very recent comment involving "Hemidactylus" whose actual wording
he ignores while ridiculously calling it a "lie"-- something he
has consistently done while repeatedly being corrected on it.
Of course, he has ignored the corrections.
All through his OP, he is grotesquely rewriting Usenet history,
and continuing to do so (with even less attempt at documentation)
in his subsequent posts. In Hemidactylus's case, he is
falsely accusing me of having "harrassed" Hemidactylus "for years,"
when I only very rarely interacted with him at all, and always
in a friendly fashion. I kept being polite to him even for a while
after he started posting in a highly bizarre way, expressing an
irrational hatred for me that he ("Hemidactlyus," whose real name
I could tell you if you are interested) had never hinted at before.
Ron O mentions a "knockdown post" which consisted of me
telling Hemidactlyus, the only person to whom it was relevant
to talk about it, about how I was inaugurating a new policy
towards Ron O, and of the events which led up to it.
I will tell you about it and about any charges by Ron O that
you may be concerned about, if you are interested.
But since you have revealed, for reasons you do not even hint at,
that you went into "ignore" mode for me, I'm not bothering
to do that here, since the only other people who are posting
to this thread so far are people with long standing grudges against me.
I'll leave them to stew in their own juices for a couple of weeks, unless
you reveal why you have hit "ignore" when I have always tried to
be helpful to you, or unless someone else joins this thread
--someone who does not want to join their little stew, that is.
Peter Nyikos
Bob Casanova
Oct 13, 2014, 1:33:32 PM10/13/14
to
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>>
>>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
>>for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
>>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
>
>Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
>before it got that far.
OK.
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>>
>>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
>>for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
>>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
>
>Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
>before it got that far.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 13, 2014, 2:04:59 PM10/13/14
to
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>On Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:20:31 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
>> If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>
>Problem is, Ron O is the one who fits this description on this thread,
If so, why don't *you* simply ignore him?
>On Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:20:31 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
>> If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>
>Problem is, Ron O is the one who fits this description on this thread,
[snip stuff in which I have no interest whatsoever and simply can't
be bothered to read]
Paul J Gans
Oct 13, 2014, 2:04:59 PM10/13/14
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 13, 2014, 2:36:03 PM10/13/14
to
On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
> >>
> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
it, as in your case. AAQ has not displayed anything remotely like
this in my experience. [In the solidarity department, for instance,
he and "walksalone" could well switch nyms.] He has behaved
magnificently against people who DO display these reprehensible
traits, in what I have seen from him this far. [This might hold
true for "walksalone" as well, but I have yet to see him under
the kind of fire to which I've seen AAQ subjected.]
> >> or for asking
> >>for data supporting his assertions,
attack you for that, I only pointed out to you that I hadn't
fallen in with your one-trick-pony approach to DP whenever it
was discussed because of your use of the insulting term "WAG".
[And it is insulting: just spell out the middle word.] And
my wording was nonconfrontational.
> >> while citing "evidence"
> >>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
a bloodless "nothing personal, just business" insult. The
context of what had gone on in that thread should have given
you a clue about that.
> >Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
> >before it got that far.
entered into my mind to do anything like what you've suggested
to him.
And this one sentence is the first indication I have that he
is in "ignore mode" where I am concerned. Even about that,
I was very civil to him and will continue to treat him with
respect unless he indulges in the kind of reprehensible behavior
I described above.
> OK.
The situation is a lot less clear than this OK of yours suggests.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 13, 2014, 5:49:01 PM10/13/14
to
On Monday, October 13, 2014 2:04:59 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >On Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:20:31 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
Nice to know you aren't *completely* ignoring me, AAQ. I'll try to
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >On Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:20:31 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
be less, er, forthcoming about the strengths and weaknesses of
other people here when I reply to you.
I get the impression you got irritated by that after a while,
even though I was sincerely trying to help you.
> >> If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
> >> with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
> >> some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
> >Problem is, Ron O is the one who fits this description on this thread,
> If so, why don't *you* simply ignore him?
his posts on this thread [looks like you didn't] you will see that
few things infuriate him as much as these long silences of mine.
Note that this thread was begun by him, and he's practically desperate
to make me resume a debate we had back in December 2010, less than
a week after we first encountered each other. If I were
to do something like that...
But then, I've probably taxed your patience with me already, so
I'll close with a little suggestion that you might like to read
the on-topic posts [I do at least one each day I post to that thread]
I do on the thread I began about the panorama of evolution on earth:
Subject: Punctuated Equilibrium On a Grand Scale
OP:
Message-ID: <6f1bc86c-0d32-4afb...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/JK7Gc7IBmS0J
> [snip stuff in which I have no interest whatsoever and simply can't
> be bothered to read]
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Oct 13, 2014, 6:03:53 PM10/13/14
to
On 10/13/14, 2:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Subject: Punctuated Equilibrium On a Grand Scale
> OP:
> Message-ID: <6f1bc86c-0d32-4afb...@googlegroups.com>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/JK7Gc7IBmS0J
Well, this is a bit disturbing. The post in question has not shown up on
> Subject: Punctuated Equilibrium On a Grand Scale
> OP:
> Message-ID: <6f1bc86c-0d32-4afb...@googlegroups.com>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/JK7Gc7IBmS0J
my server. Is Usenet having propagation problems? Or is it Google's fault?
Bob Casanova
Oct 14, 2014, 1:56:59 PM10/14/14
to
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
> On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
>
>> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>> >>
>> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
>
>I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
>dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
>it, as in your case.
No, Peter, you originally began to attack me as "displaying
dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
provide data supporting those values. When I insisted a bit
too strongly for your taste you attacked me and ran away.
> AAQ has not displayed anything remotely like
>this in my experience. [In the solidarity department, for instance,
>he and "walksalone" could well switch nyms.] He has behaved
>magnificently against people who DO display these reprehensible
>traits, in what I have seen from him this far. [This might hold
>true for "walksalone" as well, but I have yet to see him under
>the kind of fire to which I've seen AAQ subjected.]
>> >> or for asking
>> >>for data supporting his assertions,
>
>You just can't get off that DP hobbyhorse of yours, can you?
It's not my hobbyhorse; it's yours. All I did was request
data supporting your hobbyhorse. Multiple times, with no
result.
> I didn't
>attack you for that, I only pointed out to you that I hadn't
>fallen in with your one-trick-pony approach to DP whenever it
>was discussed because of your use of the insulting term "WAG".
And yet you ignored the post in which I rephrased that.
Nothing you could attack?
>[And it is insulting: just spell out the middle word.] And
>my wording was nonconfrontational.
Yeah, "hobbyhorse" and "one-trick pony" are certainly
nonconfrontational...
>> >> while citing "evidence"
>> >>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
>I didn't take the "WAG" as a personal attack, but merely as
>a bloodless "nothing personal, just business" insult. The
>context of what had gone on in that thread should have given
>you a clue about that.
>> >Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
>> >before it got that far.
>I haven't the foggiest idea why AAQ wrote "Not quite". It never
>entered into my mind to do anything like what you've suggested
>to him.
>
>And this one sentence is the first indication I have that he
>is in "ignore mode" where I am concerned. Even about that,
>I was very civil to him and will continue to treat him with
>respect unless he indulges in the kind of reprehensible behavior
>I described above.
>> OK.
>The situation is a lot less clear than this OK of yours suggests.
Not to me, given that I was responding to his explanation.
Perhaps you failed to read the question I asked him, for
which a response of "not quite" seems entirely appropriate.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
> On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
>
>> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>> >>
>> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
>
>I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
>dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
>it, as in your case.
dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
provide data supporting those values. When I insisted a bit
too strongly for your taste you attacked me and ran away.
> AAQ has not displayed anything remotely like
>this in my experience. [In the solidarity department, for instance,
>he and "walksalone" could well switch nyms.] He has behaved
>magnificently against people who DO display these reprehensible
>traits, in what I have seen from him this far. [This might hold
>true for "walksalone" as well, but I have yet to see him under
>the kind of fire to which I've seen AAQ subjected.]
>> >> or for asking
>> >>for data supporting his assertions,
>
>You just can't get off that DP hobbyhorse of yours, can you?
data supporting your hobbyhorse. Multiple times, with no
result.
> I didn't
>attack you for that, I only pointed out to you that I hadn't
>fallen in with your one-trick-pony approach to DP whenever it
>was discussed because of your use of the insulting term "WAG".
Nothing you could attack?
>[And it is insulting: just spell out the middle word.] And
>my wording was nonconfrontational.
nonconfrontational...
>> >> while citing "evidence"
>> >>of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
>I didn't take the "WAG" as a personal attack, but merely as
>a bloodless "nothing personal, just business" insult. The
>context of what had gone on in that thread should have given
>you a clue about that.
>> >Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
>> >before it got that far.
>I haven't the foggiest idea why AAQ wrote "Not quite". It never
>entered into my mind to do anything like what you've suggested
>to him.
>
>And this one sentence is the first indication I have that he
>is in "ignore mode" where I am concerned. Even about that,
>I was very civil to him and will continue to treat him with
>respect unless he indulges in the kind of reprehensible behavior
>I described above.
>> OK.
>The situation is a lot less clear than this OK of yours suggests.
Perhaps you failed to read the question I asked him, for
which a response of "not quite" seems entirely appropriate.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 14, 2014, 4:37:12 PM10/14/14
to
It is only amusing, not disturbing, that you didn't seem to realize that "OP"
means "original post" -- it was the first post to that thread.
What may be disturbing is that you didn't recognize the post
when you saw it. But then, you never replied to that post, but
only the one that followed it, and which quoted from it. And all
you had to say to the second post was "Go on."
What may be really disturbing is that this curt response suggests a deep
suspicion that I had a hidden agenda. Erik Simpson obviously had
it; he paid scant attention to anything I wrote until I had the
effrontery to actually QUOTE something from _Darwin's Doubt_--
a book even YOU have quoted from, though in a very skimpy fashion.
He then went into a tirade -- actually TWO tirades that were
completely off topic, and falsely accused me of not being interested
in either the Cambrian explosion or what I call "PuncEq writ large."
Don't worry, I'll tell him about this post on his return. Besides, you
have both my permission and my blessing [you recognize the allusion,
of course] to e-mail him and let him know what I wrote about him here.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Oct 14, 2014, 5:55:12 PM10/14/14
to
On 10/14/14, 1:37 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, October 13, 2014 6:03:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/13/14, 2:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Punctuated Equilibrium On a Grand Scale
>>
>>> OP:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <6f1bc86c-0d32-4afb...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/JK7Gc7IBmS0J
>
>> Well, this is a bit disturbing. The post in question has not shown up on
>> my server. Is Usenet having propagation problems? Or is it Google's fault?
>
> Google puts it right at the beginning of the thread, where it belongs.
>
> It is only amusing, not disturbing, that you didn't seem to realize that "OP"
> means "original post" -- it was the first post to that thread.
Oh. Never mind, then.
> On Monday, October 13, 2014 6:03:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/13/14, 2:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Punctuated Equilibrium On a Grand Scale
>>
>>> OP:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <6f1bc86c-0d32-4afb...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/JK7Gc7IBmS0J
>
>> Well, this is a bit disturbing. The post in question has not shown up on
>> my server. Is Usenet having propagation problems? Or is it Google's fault?
>
> Google puts it right at the beginning of the thread, where it belongs.
>
> It is only amusing, not disturbing, that you didn't seem to realize that "OP"
> means "original post" -- it was the first post to that thread.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 15, 2014, 10:42:22 AM10/15/14
to
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
> > On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
> >> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
> >> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
> >
> >> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
> >> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
> >> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
> >> >>
> >> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
> >
> >I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
> >dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
> >it, as in your case.
>
> No, Peter, you originally began to attack me as "displaying
> dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
> pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
> values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
> provide data supporting those values.
Correlation does not imply causation. There was a hell of
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
> > On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
> >> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
> >> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
> >
> >> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
> >> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
> >> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
> >> >>
> >> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
> >
> >I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
> >dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
> >it, as in your case.
>
> No, Peter, you originally began to attack me as "displaying
> dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
> pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
> values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
> provide data supporting those values.
a lot going on between us on at least one such occasion
as you are so generically describing. How about providing
an url for this incident? Or a direct quote in context?
Perhaps, if you already had not had a track record of
dishonesty and hypocrisy going back to at least 2012,
I might have looked upon your behavior on that thread
(or threads) in a different light.
Therefore, I am highly skeptical about your word "originally."
Would you like for me to pull a Ron Okimoto, and dredge up
posts by us interacting two or more years ago?
Actually, I would only pulling a Ron O in the most
value-free sense. Unlike Ron O, I would be telling the truth
about Usenet history, while Ron O is lying his head off all
through this thread about the history of our earlier interactions.
Also, I would repost actual text that is really damaging, rather
than sending people to a wild goose chase involving links within
links within links, each one usually taking you further from Ron O's
original allegation.
> When I insisted a bit
> too strongly for your taste you attacked me and ran away.
so favorably for yourself. Just look at how favorably
you are interpreting something of yours which I read very, very
carefully:
<snip of things to be addressed later>
> >> >Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
> >> >before it got that far.
>
> >I haven't the foggiest idea why AAQ wrote "Not quite". It never
> >entered into my mind to do anything like what you've suggested
> >to him.
> >
> >And this one sentence is the first indication I have that he
> >is in "ignore mode" where I am concerned. Even about that,
> >I was very civil to him and will continue to treat him with
> >respect unless he indulges in the kind of reprehensible behavior
> >I described above.
>
> >> OK.
>
> >The situation is a lot less clear than this OK of yours suggests.
>
> Not to me, given that I was responding to his explanation.
he had passed judgment on me. See what he wrote,
preserved at the beginning of this post.
If you inferred such a thing from what he wrote, then you are
perhaps too much in tune with Ron O's demented accusations
against me.
> Perhaps you failed to read the question I asked him, for
> which a response of "not quite" seems entirely appropriate.
question, you may be right:
"Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him or for asking
for data supporting his assertions, while citing "evidence"
of personal attacks on him, which was no such thing?
Whether you ARE right depends on how carefully AAQ thought
before answering. We may never find out about that, and I'm
willing to live with such ambiguity. Life is full of such
unresolved ambiguities. That's what makes it so interesting--
although I am reminded of the old Chinese curse, "May you
live in interesting times."
Peter Nyikos
Bob Casanova
Oct 15, 2014, 2:02:15 PM10/15/14
to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
> There was a hell of
>a lot going on between us on at least one such occasion
>as you are so generically describing. How about providing
>an url for this incident? Or a direct quote in context?
Go for it. Of course, context should be provided.
>Perhaps, if you already had not had a track record of
>dishonesty and hypocrisy going back to at least 2012,
Cites, please, with context.
>I might have looked upon your behavior on that thread
>(or threads) in a different light.
>
>Therefore, I am highly skeptical about your word "originally."
Your privilege.
>Would you like for me to pull a Ron Okimoto, and dredge up
>posts by us interacting two or more years ago?
Sure, feel free. Again, provide context.
I may even read them.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>>
>> > On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> >> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>> >> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
>> >
>> >> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> >> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> >> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
>> >
>> >I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
>> >dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
>> >it, as in your case.
>>
>> No, Peter, you originally began to attack me as "displaying
>> dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
>> pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
>> values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
>> provide data supporting those values.
>Correlation does not imply causation.
That makes no sense in this context.
>On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>>
>> > On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> >> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:12:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:20:31 +0100, the following appeared
>> >> >>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions:
>> >
>> >> >>>If he irritates you that much, why don't you just ignore him like I do
>> >> >>>with posters who persist with tedious exchanges and/or seem to get
>> >> >>>some feeling of achievement out of silly point scoring?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Has he attacked you for disagreeing with him
>> >
>> >I NEVER attack people for disagreeing with me, only for displaying
>> >dishonesty, hypocrisy, or extreme solidarity with others who display
>> >it, as in your case.
>>
>> No, Peter, you originally began to attack me as "displaying
>> dishonesty [and] hypocrisy" when I refused to give you a
>> pass on the imaginary "probabilities" you selected for the
>> values of terms in the Drake Equation, and insisted you
>> provide data supporting those values.
>Correlation does not imply causation.
> There was a hell of
>a lot going on between us on at least one such occasion
>as you are so generically describing. How about providing
>an url for this incident? Or a direct quote in context?
>Perhaps, if you already had not had a track record of
>dishonesty and hypocrisy going back to at least 2012,
>I might have looked upon your behavior on that thread
>(or threads) in a different light.
>
>Therefore, I am highly skeptical about your word "originally."
>Would you like for me to pull a Ron Okimoto, and dredge up
>posts by us interacting two or more years ago?
I may even read them.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 15, 2014, 6:10:43 PM10/15/14
to
any causation. And there is ample reason for suspecting that
there is no causation between your asking for info and my pointing
out that you were displaying dishonesty and hypocrisy. Here it is:
> > There was a hell of
> >a lot going on between us on at least one such occasion
> >as you are so generically describing. How about providing
> >an url for this incident? Or a direct quote in context?
>
> Go for it.
described requests for data you were referring to. The latest
one was just this month.
> Of course, context should be provided.
and then we could just call it a draw between us.
I snipped the rest, which seemed to indicate a willingness to call
it a draw, especially your parting words, "I may even read them,"
and the lack of response to about half of what I wrote, most notably
"I'd love to see the text which you are interpreting
so favorably for yourself."
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 16, 2014, 7:09:38 AM10/16/14
to
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
[...]
> On Monday, 1:33 PM EDT, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:47:57 +0100, the following appeared in talk.origins,
>> posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>> >Not quite but that is possibly because I switched into*ignore mode*
>> >before it got that far.
>
>I haven't the foggiest idea why AAQ wrote "Not quite". It never
>entered into my mind to do anything like what you've suggested
>to him.
>
>And this one sentence is the first indication I have that he
>is in "ignore mode" where I am concerned.
long posts but I don't deliberately ignore you.
The analogy I was making for Ron - and what I thought Bob was
referring to - was in regard to somebody else who insists on following
me around and posting snide replies to my posts even though I told her
long ago that I was not interested in playing her silly games.
[...]
jillery
Oct 16, 2014, 9:16:44 AM10/16/14
to
show that you're doing the exact opposite of ignoring them. Apparently
you don't mind playing silly games, as long as you can make the rules
for others to follow.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 16, 2014, 12:25:57 PM10/16/14
to
As I told Casanova, I kept a high opinion of you even while I was under
the misconception you've commented on, and I look forward to reading more
of your posts, and perhaps discussing some of them with you.
Trivia: As if on cue, the "somebody else" (jillery) continued the
game she played in her first reply to you on this thread,
posting sophomorically about the word "ignore," and indulging in
a childish "tu quoque" game, commonly referred to as a
"Pee Wee Hermanism".
Jillery plays these games ad infinitum, always wanting to get in the last
word. She shares that trait with Ron O, whose public persona is under the
delusion that if someone cuts off a back-and-forth with him, he has
won every argument they had on that thread, no matter how many there were and
no matter how irrelevant his last post was to the issues argued previously.
Peter Nyikos
jillery
Oct 16, 2014, 12:58:56 PM10/16/14
to
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>Jillery plays these games ad infinitum, always wanting to get in the last
>word
Sez the wee "peter" trying to get the last word.
>Jillery plays these games ad infinitum, always wanting to get in the last
>word
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Oct 16, 2014, 2:46:16 PM10/16/14
to
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 16, 2014, 2:49:12 PM10/16/14
to
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:16:44 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:09:38 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The analogy I was making for Ron - and what I thought Bob was
> >referring to - was in regard to somebody else who insists on following
> >me around and posting snide replies to my posts even though I told her
> >long ago that I was not interested in playing her silly games.
That "somebody else" popped up soon enough, thereby making it pretty clear
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:09:38 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The analogy I was making for Ron - and what I thought Bob was
> >referring to - was in regard to somebody else who insists on following
> >me around and posting snide replies to my posts even though I told her
> >long ago that I was not interested in playing her silly games.
what she (jillery) was really up to when she falsely accused me, a good
while back, of stalking her.
Her chief t.o. benefactor, Paul Gans, corrected her very gently
by saying that he hadn't seen any sign of me following her around
from thread to thread for the chief purpose of annoying her, and
explaining that it is this kind of behavior that "stalking" consists
of in a Usenet context.
Jillery has been doing this very thing to me, on and off. Now I see
that I am not alone in this. And so, her accusation seems to have
been an example of a dirty debating strategy/tactic for which
I have coined the following term:
The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy
This can be a one-shot thing or it can be frequently employed for
a long time until the payoff comes.
The first phase consists of making [and in some cases often repeating]
a carefully chosen, unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation
about a person--call him/her X-- of which the accuser is (or is
plannng to be) guilty.
The payoff comes when the guilty party earns the accusation,
Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person X is
indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
score on "the irony meter", etc.
And now, we come to something by you, jillery:
> By going out of your way to say you're ignoring somebody,
when you first played a game with the word "ignore", and now he
succeeded in being enormously helpful to me by explaining who he
was referring to [in part--you provided the rest of the explanation
by rearing your ugly head here].
I've snipped the rest, having already described it in reply to AAQ.
Your reply to the post where I did this reveals more clearly than ever
before the juvenile kind of game you play in revenge for me
occasionally calling you "jillery" by way of letting people
know that is not your real name.
Yours is a kind of game most twits stop playing when they emerge from
puberty, but then, your behavior in t.o. seems to be a case of
arrested development in many more ways than just this one.
Peter Nyikos
Bob Casanova
Oct 16, 2014, 2:48:25 PM10/16/14
to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
I suppose that's fair; I say I may read your response and
you therefore feel free to ignore most of my post.
HAND
>, most notably
>
> "I'd love to see the text which you are interpreting
> so favorably for yourself."
>
>Peter Nyikos
you therefore feel free to ignore most of my post.
HAND
>, most notably
>
> "I'd love to see the text which you are interpreting
> so favorably for yourself."
>
>Peter Nyikos
jillery
Oct 16, 2014, 3:43:45 PM10/16/14
to
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:49:12 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>That "somebody else" popped up soon enough, thereby making it pretty clear
>what she (jillery) was really up to when she falsely accused me, a good
>while back, of stalking her.
It's good to see you and AAQ cozy-up together, but your stalking me is
>That "somebody else" popped up soon enough, thereby making it pretty clear
>what she (jillery) was really up to when she falsely accused me, a good
>while back, of stalking her.
quite valid, which you demonstrate every time you irrelevantly inject
my nic into one of your posts.
>Jillery has been doing this very thing to me, on and off.
it.
>Now I see that I am not alone in this.
jillery
Oct 16, 2014, 3:44:09 PM10/16/14
to
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:46:16 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Excellent example of QED ;)
I could not agree more. Of course, you and I almost certainly
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Excellent example of QED ;)
disagree on what is actually demonstrated here.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 16, 2014, 3:52:30 PM10/16/14
to
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:48:25 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
longer germane to the issue with which this post begins. I
made a true statement about myself which you made a big show of
denying, but in the last go-around you were already showing
signs of folding after I called your bluff.
And now you have folded ("defaulted", as I put it earlier), saving
face by interpreting my action so favorably to yourself. [A common
pattern, as the preserved text at the bottom hints.]
> HAND
The same to you, buddy.
jillery
Oct 16, 2014, 4:04:21 PM10/16/14
to
Bob Casanova
Oct 17, 2014, 1:48:34 PM10/17/14
to
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:52:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
....and then you wake up.
>And now you have folded ("defaulted", as I put it earlier), saving
>face by interpreting my action so favorably to yourself. [A common
>pattern, as the preserved text at the bottom hints.]
Erroneously.
>> HAND
>
>The same to you, buddy.
>
>> >, most notably
>> >
>> > "I'd love to see the text which you are interpreting
>> > so favorably for yourself."
>
>Peter Nyikos
>And now you have folded ("defaulted", as I put it earlier), saving
>face by interpreting my action so favorably to yourself. [A common
>pattern, as the preserved text at the bottom hints.]
>> HAND
>
>The same to you, buddy.
>
>> >, most notably
>> >
>> > "I'd love to see the text which you are interpreting
>> > so favorably for yourself."
>
>Peter Nyikos
RonO
Oct 18, 2014, 8:53:59 AM10/18/14
to
On 10/11/2014 8:33 AM, RonO wrote:
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> “tomorrow” has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
> he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
> and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
> insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
> him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
> been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
> reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
> answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
> every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
> reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> “tomorrow” has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
> he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
> and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
> insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
> him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
> been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
> reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
> answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
> every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
> running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
> should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
> someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
> Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.
>
> I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
> old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
> denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
> posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
> first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
> continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
> will just start reposting this post.
>
> Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
> Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
> creationist (9/10/14)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ
>
> He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
> was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
> to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
> address the material that he is still running from “tomorrow,” but
> tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
> that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.
>
> One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ
>
> It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
> same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
> run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.
>
> The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ
>
> QUOTE:
> Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
> thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
> relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
> now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
> sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
> from that point on.
>
> But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
> on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.
>
> So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
> that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
> I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
> caution to the winds.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> END QUOTE:
>
> Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
> knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
> last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
> Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.
>
> Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
> relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
> even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
> the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.
>
> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
>
> It wasn’t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
> known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
> other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
> and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
> switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
> on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells’
> comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
> ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
> just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
> science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
> the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
> that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
> that the addition to the Discovery Institute’s education policy
> qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
> schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
> that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
> their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
> definitely had the “required” qualification.
>
> This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
> denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
> Discovery Institute’s involvement from 2011.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ
>
> Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
> be taught in the public schools:
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
>
> Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
> making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
> and ran from the obvious explanation twice.
>
> Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J
>
> The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
> at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
> education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
> up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
> teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
> Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
> policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
> thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
> and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
> could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
> that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
> nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
> the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
> perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
> year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
> would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
> There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
> clearer on what he was doing. It doesn’t matter for Nyikos because
> Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
> pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.
>
> Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ
>
> Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
> that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
> of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
> that Nyikos indulges in.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ
>
> Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ
>
> Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J
>
> It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
> posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
> escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
> harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
> he did.
>
> Nyikos’ previous harassment thread:
> By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J
>
> Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
> because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
> he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
> removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
> defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
> toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
> see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
> evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.
>
> By their Fruits March 2014
> The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
> Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ
>
> My response to what Nyikos did:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J
>
> Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.
>
> I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
> posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can’t do anything about
> Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
> leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
> would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
> him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters. I
> am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time Nyikos
> can’t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan to just
> repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has already run
> from before starting something else or lying about the past some other way.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
It looks like the naysayers were wrong. The truth and reality are like
garlic and silver bullets to the Nykosian silly and sad menace. Anyone
can note that Nyikos only pretended to address what he is running from
by doing his stupid act of lying to other posters, and he did not deal
with the issues where they are issues. Tomorrow has not yet come for
those posts because there has been no vindication for those stupid and
dishonest Nykosian posts, and he obviously can't bring himself to deal
with reality.
I am sorry that some of you are still stuck with the tar baby, but the
liar can't seem to deal with what is posted above without doing what he
denies that he always does do. There are multiple examples of his
stupid and dishonest behavior in the threads listed above and he
obviously cannot deny what he is gulity of. The only advice that I have
is for anyone that wants the fool off their case is to develop your own
post like the one above. Nyikos will still run and lie to other posters
about his stupidity, but my guess is that anyone that would believe the
liar at this late stage probably isn't worth considering. Really,
Nyikos routinely comes to me with his stories about other posters, but
why would I believe the turkey when I don't even know what he is talking
about, and I know what kind of backbiting liar he is? I can't do
anything about the senseless and stupid things that Nyikos does.
I admit that this is gloating, but what else can I do? It seems the
only way that Nyikos can deal with the above material is with his stupid
toddler behavior of snipping it out and/or running from it and
pretending that it never existed. He knows that he can't keep pulling
his threadbare baby blanket over his head and pretend that no one can
see him, so what has he done?
When Nyikos darkens my door again he will just get a repost and a link
to this thread where it is obvious that he does exactly what I claim.
Why would anyone want to start any new topics of discussion with Nyikos
when he continues to lie about issues that are years old at this time?
He just will not be able to lie to himself and misdirect the argument
any longer until he deals with his past stupidity and dishonesty.
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages