Nyikos doesn't need Glenn to tell him what the issue is.

[RonO]

Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
Top Six issue.

Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
determine something about it by Glenn's actions.

I have told Nyikos that the IDiots just can't face the ID Perp's Top
Six, and that his challenge is senseless. He needs to figure out why
Glenn keeps running from the Top Six, but Glenn can still go back to the
ID perps for second rate junk.

Here I am trying to get Glenn to help Nyikos out, but he just runs.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/WMbtfeaHAAAJ

Glenn snipping and running (Nyikos should understand this behavior).

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/mKbraf2IAAAJ

Here I am trying to get Glenn to do the right thing, but he just runs again.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/LUL77CuIAAAJ

This is Glenn snipping and running again (Nyikos should be very familiar
with snipping and running from what he can't deal with).

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/zXO_pv6IAAAJ

Nyikos should realize from this behavior that his challenge is stupid
and bogus. The issue is what I claim in the post that Nyikos has run
from himself multple times.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

Nyikos runs from what I have to tell him and he is obviously not going
to get any help from Glenn. This is what Glenn has been doing for over
2 and a half years since Nov 2017. He just can't face reality. None of
the other IDiots on TO could face the Top Six as the Top Six. They can
lie to themselves about one at a time, but they all understand that they
can't learn anything from them, nor understand what they all are in
context with each other. These 6 god of the gaps creationist denial
arguments only fool the rubes if the rubes are allowed to lie to
themselves about them and then forget them in order to lie to themselves
about something else. The Top Six were never meant to be used to build
anything. A better understanding of nature was never the goal with
respect to these Top Six. Just putting them together as the Best that
IDiocy has destroys their usefulness for creationist denial.

This is not something for Nyikos to be a lying asshole about for the
next decade. Nyikos will never get the IDiots to tell him what the
issue is because they do not want to even understand that there is an
issue. Willful ignorance and denial is all they have left.

The ID perps claim that these six are in their order of occurrence and
not in their order of importance to IDiocy. Here are the IDiot Top Six
in their own words:

1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

This is the best evidence for IDiocy that the ID perps have come up
with. They don't even call it scientific evidence for IDiocy. It is
just their best evidence. 6 god of the gaps denial arguments. These
are the best that they have.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 12:19:58 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
> Top Six issue.
>
> Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
> determine something about it by Glenn's actions.
>

Am I disruptive, Ronald?

[RonO]

No, just useless.

REPOST:

Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
Top Six issue.

Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
determine something about it by Glenn's actions.

END REPOST

[Glenn]

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:44:58 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/18/2020 4:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 12:19:58 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
> >> Top Six issue.
> >>
> >> Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
> >> determine something about it by Glenn's actions.
> >>
> > Am I disruptive, Ronald?
> >
>
> No, just useless.
>

Not entirely.

[RonO]

Pretty much useless as Denton would say.

REPOST:

Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
Top Six issue.

Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
determine something about it by Glenn's actions.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

Funny... Ron O hasn't been badgering me about how I "should"
respond to this post. I only learned about this thread late
last night when he finally referenced it.

The many canards about me being "narcissistic" notwithstanding,
looking for threads with my name in the title is something way
down in my list of priorities. That's something I might need
to change.

> Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
> Top Six issue.

That claim about me having to stop beating my wife -- excuse me, having to
stop lying about the top six issue -- is a classic example of
the fallacy of Begging the Question. So far from demonstrating a
single lie by me, Ron O doesn't even DESCRIBE one.

NOBODY who is familiar with Ron O's habits should be surprised by this.

>
> Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
> determine something about it by Glenn's actions.

Ron O is deluding himself.

Oh, wait, I CAN determine something about it. Ron O desperately
NEEDS Glenn to answer a question Ron O has been running away from
even before Ron O started badgering me about how I "should" read a June 6
post that is just as devoid of evidence as this one is.

> I have told Nyikos that the IDiots just can't face the ID Perp's Top
> Six, and that his challenge is senseless.

I *have* been told that. But when I asked Ron O a key question
about it that would finally shed light on whether Ron O knows
the first thing about whether his claim is true, he ignored the
question. And he has continued to ignore reminders that he is
afraid to answer the question.


Here is what Ron O had written:

> but you will never see any of them do that
> because they do not want to believe in the god that fills the Top Six gaps.

And here is the question that Ron O has never dared to face, even though
I reposted it at least four more times, once on the thread where he
had made the comment you see above and at least three times on another
two or three threads:

What makes you think that? That "god" is just a modernized version
of the God of Genesis 1, and you think Glenn and MarkE are creationists
who believe in that God, don't you?

> He needs to figure out why
> Glenn keeps running from the Top Six, but Glenn can still go back to the
> ID perps for second rate junk.

Some of it IS second rate, though not junk, compared to some updates that
go FAR beyond the short arguments in the posts Ron O keeps linking.
I've made many of these updates myself over the years in talk.origins.

>
> Here I am trying to get Glenn to help Nyikos out, but he just runs.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/WMbtfeaHAAAJ
>
> Glenn snipping and running (Nyikos should understand this behavior).

Yes, the two of the three most faithful allies of Ron O, the militant atheists
jillery and Oxyaena, do it all the time, snipping damning evidence
against themselves and calling it "mindless bullshit" and similar things,
now that the evidence is no longer in plain sight.

And I believe Ron O loves them for doing this.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/mKbraf2IAAAJ
>
> Here I am trying to get Glenn to do the right thing, but he just runs again.

"do the right thing" is pretending to believe in a morality that
is alien to Ron O.

There is no fear of the Lord in Ron O, his membership in a
Methodist congregation notwithstanding.

The Biblical adage, "The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord"
means nothing to Ron O. He is not in search of wisdom, only of
victory against people whom he has arbitrarily decided to make
himself the enemy of.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/LUL77CuIAAAJ
>
> This is Glenn snipping and running again (Nyikos should be very familiar
> with snipping and running from what he can't deal with).

"he" should be replaced by "jillery and Oxyaena".

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/zXO_pv6IAAAJ
>
> Nyikos should realize from this behavior that his challenge is stupid
> and bogus.

Refusal to confirm what Ron O is powerless to document is evidence
only in Ron O's megalomaniac mind.

> The issue is what I claim in the post that Nyikos has run
> from himself multple times.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

This is that June 6 one-post thread to which I referred above.
Not only I, but everyone else in talk.origins has ignored it.

Small wonder: it is just a documentation-devoid mass of typical Ron O
rhetoric. Apparently Ron O fancies himself to be such a great orator
that he thinks his mere "eloquence" is enough to convince people
of something he is unable to document.

The ONLY link in that June 6 post is to the following post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/L21KpMBQEXk/x8R6s8qoEAAJ

It features webpages for the Top Six,
followed by another rant that is devoid of documentation. Not even
a link to a post in talk.origins is to be found there.


Peter Nyikos

PS Anyone masochistic enough to look for evidence of anything Ron O
wrote above, is being humored by me: I'm leaving in the rest of his
garbage post below.

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>Funny... Ron O hasn't been badgering me about how I "should"
>respond to this post. I only learned about this thread late
>last night when he finally referenced it.
>
>The many canards about me being "narcissistic" notwithstanding,
>looking for threads with my name in the title is something way
>down in my list of priorities. That's something I might need
>to change.

The peter persona continues to reply to RonO even though he previously
claimed to boycott RonO's posts, even as he does what he claims is of
low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.


<snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
repeat>


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >Funny... Ron O hasn't been badgering me about how I "should"
> >respond to this post. I only learned about this thread late
> >last night when he finally referenced it.
> >
> >The many canards about me being "narcissistic" notwithstanding,
> >looking for threads with my name in the title is something way
> >down in my list of priorities. That's something I might need
> >to change.
>
>
> The peter persona continues to reply to RonO even though he previously
> claimed to boycott RonO's posts,

The person who made the above comment (under the byline "jillery")
acts as though 'e were oblivious to the post (done under the same byline ca. a quarter of an hour earlier), where the following exchange appeared:

__________________________ excerpt, my words going first and last___________

>I'm sure Ron O knows that I am boycotting his replies to me until August 6 for never
>answering a simple question [1] I've repeatedly asked him about MarkE and Glenn.


Jillery is just as sure RonO couldn't care less about peter persona's
bullshit boycotts.


>However, since Ron O is hobnobbing with his moral and ethical bedfellow
>jillery below, I'm free to respond to his crybaby comments below,
>and so I will.
========================= end of excerpt =====================

Note the words, "boycotting his replies to me." The "jillery" who
is active below goes on simulating obliviousness to the four words that follow "boycotting,"
as well as to my explanation of why I was free to respond this time.

> even as he does what he claims is of
> low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.

Au contraire, it is the jillery persona's seeming desire to rival or outdo
Ron O in various surreal, irresponsible ways that knows no bounds.

Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.

There are about ten perennial regulars who come under the category
"their kind," but the aforementioned confidence seems to be shared
by only about half of them.

> <snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
> repeat>

This naive/disingenuous use of "obligation" is indicative of the apparent
disdain "jillery" and Ron O have for the principle of freedom of speech.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:54:44 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Jillery acknowledges there is a difference between boycotting RonO's
replies generally and boycotting RonO's replies to the peter persona
specifically. However, when compared against the utter stupidity of
the peter persona's boycotts, the difference has little distinction,
and even then only to the peter persona.

>> even as he does what he claims is of
>> low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.
>
>Au contraire, it is the jillery persona's seeming desire to rival or outdo
>Ron O in various surreal, irresponsible ways that knows no bounds.
>
>Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
>confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.

ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
claimed or required.

>There are about ten perennial regulars who come under the category
>"their kind," but the aforementioned confidence seems to be shared
>by only about half of them.
>
>
>> <snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
>> repeat>
>
>This naive/disingenuous use of "obligation" is indicative of the apparent
>disdain "jillery" and Ron O have for the principle of freedom of speech.

Only the delusional mind of the peter persona would imagine a meaning
of "freedom of speech" which obliges others to copy his mindless crap.

[Glenn]

"jillery" is a persona. Peter is Peter Nyikos, as jillery well knows.
jillery could be any number of posters using the persona "jillery".
jillery refers to jillery in the first person, which is so odd as to be
considered mentally and emotionally unstable, perhaps pathological.
jillery's attitude against others reinforces that assumption.

Above, jillery does not admit to a lie, but only to "acknowledge" a difference.
One wonders if jillery "acknowledged" that difference when jillery lied about the aforementioned boycott. One loses any doubt about that when jillery claims that Peter's boycotts are "stupid" and the distinction only mattering to Peter, not jillery.

jillery is dysfuntional. Everything jillery does or says will be influenced and tainted. jillery's opinions are worthless.

[RonO]

On 8/4/2020 9:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> Funny... Ron O hasn't been badgering me about how I "should"
> respond to this post. I only learned about this thread late
> last night when he finally referenced it.

It isn't funny it is tragic since I have linked to this thread in the
posts that you are currently running from. Just check them out. I
started this thread July 18th, and several of my subsequent posts to you
have the link to this thread in them as well as to the thread from June
6th that you have been running from for the last two months.

>
> The many canards about me being "narcissistic" notwithstanding,
> looking for threads with my name in the title is something way
> down in my list of priorities. That's something I might need
> to change.

Run from reality, but you will not take the information from me (you
have been running from that post for 2 months), and you have no hope of
Glenn telling you what the issue is.

>
>
>> Glenn's behaviour should tell Nyikos that he should stop lying about the
>> Top Six issue.
>
> That claim about me having to stop beating my wife -- excuse me, having to
> stop lying about the top six issue -- is a classic example of
> the fallacy of Begging the Question. So far from demonstrating a
> single lie by me, Ron O doesn't even DESCRIBE one.
>
> NOBODY who is familiar with Ron O's habits should be surprised by this.

You have been lying about this issue for 2 months. You can stop
whenever you want to, but you just can't. No one who knows your stupid
assoholic habits should be surprised.

>
>>
>> Even if Nyikos doesn't want to ask Glenn what the issue is, he can
>> determine something about it by Glenn's actions.
>
> Ron O is deluding himself.

You may be too mentally incompetent to get the message from Glenn, but
my guess is that you are just lying.

>
> Oh, wait, I CAN determine something about it. Ron O desperately
> NEEDS Glenn to answer a question Ron O has been running away from
> even before Ron O started badgering me about how I "should" read a June 6
> post that is just as devoid of evidence as this one is.

Nope, check how what I actually aske Glenn to do. It wasn't answering a
question, but it was to help you out of your assoholic behavior. He
obviously refused to do that.

>
>
>> I have told Nyikos that the IDiots just can't face the ID Perp's Top
>> Six, and that his challenge is senseless.
>
> I *have* been told that. But when I asked Ron O a key question
> about it that would finally shed light on whether Ron O knows
> the first thing about whether his claim is true, he ignored the
> question. And he has continued to ignore reminders that he is
> afraid to answer the question.

You have run from my explanation for 2 months. There is no reason to
lie about this junk any longer. It is you that have been running. I
responded to your stupidity June 6th. What have you done?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

>
>
> Here is what Ron O had written:
>
> > but you will never see any of them do that
> > because they do not want to believe in the god that fills the Top Six gaps.
>
> And here is the question that Ron O has never dared to face, even though
> I reposted it at least four more times, once on the thread where he
> had made the comment you see above and at least three times on another
> two or three threads:
>
> What makes you think that? That "god" is just a modernized version
> of the God of Genesis 1, and you think Glenn and MarkE are creationists
> who believe in that God, don't you?

It doesn't matter what god they want to put in that gap. Their god just
isn't that god. Did it matter to MarkE what god he had to put in that
gap? He couldn't do it because his god isn't the one that would fit in
that gap. No one but MarkE needed to know what god he was trying to
support using the origin of life god of the gaps denial. So you are
just full of what you are usually full of, you know that brown smelly
stuff that you keep regurgitating.

>
>
>> He needs to figure out why
>> Glenn keeps running from the Top Six, but Glenn can still go back to the
>> ID perps for second rate junk.
>
> Some of it IS second rate, though not junk, compared to some updates that
> go FAR beyond the short arguments in the posts Ron O keeps linking.
> I've made many of these updates myself over the years in talk.origins.

It doesn't matter. The Top Six are the ID Perp's Top Six. The rest is
not the Top Six. Second rate is as accurate as you need to get for the
bogus junk that is left.

>
>>
>> Here I am trying to get Glenn to help Nyikos out, but he just runs.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/WMbtfeaHAAAJ
>>
>> Glenn snipping and running (Nyikos should understand this behavior).
>
> Yes, the two of the three most faithful allies of Ron O, the militant atheists
> jillery and Oxyaena, do it all the time, snipping damning evidence
> against themselves and calling it "mindless bullshit" and similar things,
> now that the evidence is no longer in plain sight.

What an ass. You know that you do the same thing consistently when you
can't deal with an issue. It doesn't matter what Jillery and Oxyaena
do. It is that you are looking in the mirror when you see what Glenn is
doing.

>
> And I believe Ron O loves them for doing this.

Beats me with what this has to do with the fact that what I posted is
absolutely the truth and is what you and Glenn do when you can't deal
with an issue.

>
>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/mKbraf2IAAAJ
>>
>> Here I am trying to get Glenn to do the right thing, but he just runs again.
>
> "do the right thing" is pretending to believe in a morality that
> is alien to Ron O.

Glenn just has to tell you why he has to run from the Top Six. You run
from my explanations, so you have to get it from your asshole buddy, but
look what he did.

>
> There is no fear of the Lord in Ron O, his membership in a
> Methodist congregation notwithstanding.

Why would I fear God for telling the truth? Demonstrate that what I
wrote was false in any way. The truth may be bad in your case, but that
shouldn't surprise you considering your assoholic history.

>
> The Biblical adage, "The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord"
> means nothing to Ron O. He is not in search of wisdom, only of
> victory against people whom he has arbitrarily decided to make
> himself the enemy of.

Poor guy. This is Nyikos the nut job that thinks that he can lie to God
with Pascal's wager. Just think what kind of god Nyikos believes in.

>
>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/LUL77CuIAAAJ
>>
>> This is Glenn snipping and running again (Nyikos should be very familiar
>> with snipping and running from what he can't deal with).
>
> "he" should be replaced by "jillery and Oxyaena".

Beats me what you are talking about here. It is just a plain fact that
you do the same thing as Glenn all the time when you can't deal with an
issue. There is no point in denial by senseless stupidity about other
posters.

>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/zXO_pv6IAAAJ
>>
>> Nyikos should realize from this behavior that his challenge is stupid
>> and bogus.
>
> Refusal to confirm what Ron O is powerless to document is evidence
> only in Ron O's megalomaniac mind.

What should you infer from Glenn not being able to face the Top Six. He
has been doing this for over 2 and a half years. You are just lying
about the situation, so you could stop any time, but you will likely be
lying about this junk for the next decade.

>
>
>
>> The issue is what I claim in the post that Nyikos has run
>> from himself multple times.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ
>
> This is that June 6 one-post thread to which I referred above.
> Not only I, but everyone else in talk.origins has ignored it.

Because the post was for you. It directly addressed the issue that you
were lying about, and you ran, and have run for 2 months.

>
> Small wonder: it is just a documentation-devoid mass of typical Ron O
> rhetoric. Apparently Ron O fancies himself to be such a great orator
> that he thinks his mere "eloquence" is enough to convince people
> of something he is unable to document.

Go and face it directly and make the lie above a Nyikosian self
contained lie. Beats me why you think that you can lie about things
that aren't in the posts that you lie about them in. A lie is a lie.
Go face the post and demonstrate that you are not lying.

>
> The ONLY link in that June 6 post is to the following post:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/L21KpMBQEXk/x8R6s8qoEAAJ

Why lie.

REPOST:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/L21KpMBQEXk/x8R6s8qoEAAJ

Yes, this is the same link that Nyikos misused in his thread.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/qy1Yg4zrAwAJ

It is just one of the links where I list links to the Top Six and
describe the state of IDiot denial about them.

It demonstrates that Nyikos doesn't have a clue about what he is talking
about, and his stupid lies are just, well, stupid at this point. He is
just the asshole that everyone knows him to be.

The saddest thing is that I have never tried to get the IDiots to
support the Top Six. I have simply tried to get them to acknowledge
that the Top Six exist, and to understand what the Top Six are. Really,
no IDiot on TO can face the Top Six as the Top Six. Dean restated the
TOP Six and asked for other IDiot help in dealing with them, but not a
single IDiot helped him out. He forgot that he could not deal with them
and started putting them up one at a time to lie to himself about them,
but he quit when I reminded him of what he could not deal with.

My entire post to Glenn in the OoL thread:
Why keep lying? Why not deal with the Top Six? Of what use is going
back to the ID perps for second rate junk that has never amounted to
anything in decades and run from the best that they have to give you?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/L21KpMBQEXk/x8R6s8qoEAAJ
END REPOST:

Really, where did Nyikos get my link to the Top Six and what would make
the asshole lie about something so stupid?

The Top Six are just the best "evidence" that the ID perps can come up
with for IDiocy and no IDiot on TO can face the Top Six as the Top Six.
The ID perps call it their best evidence and bend over backwards to not
claim that it is scientific evidence. Really, read their stupidity on
each of the Top Six. They are very careful to never claim that the junk
is scientific evidence for IDiocy. It is just the best evidence that
they have and no IDiot can deal with them. IDiots can lie to themselves
about one at a time like MarkE is currently doing, but they can't allow
themselves to learn anything from the Top Six in order to keep lying to
themselves.

There never was a challenge for IDiots to defend the Top Six. The
challenge to existing IDiots is to just deal with the Top Six in a
logical and competent manner. No IDiot is capable of doing that.

These are the Top Six god of the gaps denial arguments that still fool
the rubes. They were all used by the Scientific creationists that came
before the ID perps. The simple fact is that the vast majority of
IDiots do not want to believe in the god that would fit in those gaps.
You can see it in how MarkE doesn't even want to put his god in the gap
that he is creating. If he did he would have to acknowledge that there
is no point in trying to demonstrate that such a gap exists or that it
is never going to be anything but a gap because he doesn't even want to
believe that, that gap exists.

Glenn can't even get himself to acknowledge that the Top Six exist. He
will lie about running from the Top Six even as he is running from the
Top Six. There isn't a single post where Glenn has faced the Top Six
since they were put out by the ID perps 2 and a half years ago, but
multiple posts where Glenn will go to the ID perps for second rate junk
that did not make the Top Six to continue to lie to himself about IDiocy.

The simple existence of the Top Six as the IDiot Top Six is what the
IDiots can't live with. They may be the best god of the gaps denial
arguments that still fool the rubes, but they aren't anything that the
vast majority of IDiots want to understand as the Top Six. You don't
see the ID perps putting up their best IDiot model using the Top Six.
All they have done is acknowledge their existence one at a time. They
couldn't even put them in the same post.
END REPOST:

There seems to be 2 different links in the post that you are lying
about. The one that you left out was to your own bogus post. The one
where you are lying about what the issue is.

>
> It features webpages for the Top Six,
> followed by another rant that is devoid of documentation. Not even
> a link to a post in talk.origins is to be found there.

What did Glenn run from? It wasn't what you claimed.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Anyone masochistic enough to look for evidence of anything Ron O
> wrote above, is being humored by me: I'm leaving in the rest of his
> garbage post below.

PS this is the new REPOST that I am going to put up when Nyikos starts
lying about the Top Six issue again.

He has already run from it once.

REPOST:
Note that Nyikos did not address this post that I posted to him on this
subject. No one could make this up. Nyikos has run from this link so
many times that there is no excuse for continuing to lie about this subject.

Nyikos has run from this link half a dozen times, and never can face it.
He would rather lie about it in post to other posters. That is how
sad this is and it should stop.

I am going to repost this post when Nyikos starts lying about this
stupid topic again. This is not something that he should be lying about
for another decade.

This is Nyikos running from my explanation over and over. He has never
addressed the post that I posted June 6th even though I have given him
the link multiple times. All he had to do was follow the link and
address that post, and stop lying about the issue, but he runs instead
just like he did in this response.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/_ZgYFbJYAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/LTfmTt9LAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/nSvuFBLxAgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/TlZFLKY8AwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/n865qRo8AwAJ

There are others, and Nyikos has run from my post addressing this issue
in all cases. He has just kept lying about the issue instead.

For whatever stupid Nyikosian reason Nyikos can't bring himself to
address my post addressing his stupidity about what the issue is with
the Top Six.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

He should have addressed this post over a month ago. I posted it June
6th. He should use this link and address that post.

I have told Nyikos that if he can't bring himself to get an explanation
from me that he should ask Glenn. That will never happen. This is why
Nyikos can't get Glenn to tell him what the issue is.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rUGsNBW7cwA/DtxTLM-MAAAJ

Glenn could tell Nyikos what the issue is, but that will never happen
because denial of the Top Six is the only way that Glenn can deal with
the issue.

>>>
>>> How many times have you run from this link. I posted this post D-Day
>>> the 6th of June.
>>>
>>> This is not something that you should lie about for a decade.
>>>
>>> If you have a beef with me, you should not lie to some other poster
>>> about the issue.
>>>
>> I might have a beef with you, but you'd pay the tab and tip.
>
> I think you meant to insert, "have to" before "pay." And don't
> forget the taxi fare from your place and back >
> Ron O is libeling me multiple times, by accusing me of "lying"
> just because I've never replied to a post that is pure mindless
> ranting about his fantasies, such as:
>
> The simple fact is that the vast majority of
> IDiots do not want to believe in the god that would fit in those gaps.
> You can see it in how MarkE doesn't even want to put his god in
the gap
> that he is creating. If he did he would have to acknowledge that
there
> is no point in trying to demonstrate that such a gap exists or
that it
> is never going to be anything but a gap because he doesn't even
want to
> believe that, that gap exists.

If you want to address my post, don't post the junk to Glenn, and ignore
what I have written to you.

Your above quote is one reason, and it obviously applies to MarkE. You
can't demonstate otherwise because you know that I asked MarkE to state
where his God fit in that Gap and all he did was misdirect the argument
and run away. The IDiots can obviously put up the Top Six one at a
time, but none of them can face the Top Six as the Top Six. MarkE was
trying to better define the gap so that he could claim that it would
never be filled, but he could not face the gap that he was creating in
terms of what his god would have to have done to fill that gap. It is
what is around the gap that MarkE can't face. That is why MarkE can't
face the Top Six. Nothing is supposed to be learned from the god of the
gaps IDiot stupidity. They are only meant to allow the rubes to lie to
themselves just long enough to get to the next one, and they have to
remain willfully ignorant of the previous gap that they lied to
themselves about. The IDiots really can't face the Top Six as the Top
Six because they have to acknowledge that they all exist as what they
are. They aren't running from putting up the Top Six one at a time
because look at what Dean did. Before he quit posting he had forgotten
that he could not deal with the Top Six, and that no other IDiot would
help him out, and he put up 3 of the Top Six one at a time even as I was
reminding him of his utter failure from a few months before.


>
> This is sheer insanity. MarkE kept trying to get Bill Rogers to talk
> about the vast gap around the tiny part of the abiogenesis gap that
Bill wanted
> to talk about, because it had been filled. Ron O never lifted a finger
> to try to get Bill to look at the gap that Ron O THINKS MarkE never
wanted to
> put "his god" into.

All MarkE wanted to do was define the gap as something that would never
be filled. What he could not do himself was put his god in that gap
because the god that fit in that gap was not the god that he wanted to
believe in. This is no different from the scientific creationist YEC
fundies putting up #1 (The Big Bang) as a creationist denial argument
claiming that we will never determine what came before the Big Bang and
what caused the Big Bang. These creationists only want to lie to
themselves about reality for just a short period of time and then go
into denial mode again. Everyone knows that this is true because #1 was
one of the science topics that the Kansas creationist Fundies dropped
out of their science standards when they got the chance. They removed
the Big Bang, radiometric dating, and learning about isotopes in
Chemistry from the Kansas science standards along with biological
evolution. That tells you why a lot of IDiots can't face the Top Six.
#1 may be something that they can lie to themselves about, but they
don't want any connection with reality, nor the other Top Six topics.
The ID perps told the IDiot rubes that the Top Six were in their order
of occurrence. I haven't found a single IDiot source that has talked
about the ID perp Top Six since the ID perps put them up.

Nyikos can look for any IDiots supporting the Top Six and get back to
everyone. No IDiots can face the Top Six as the Top Six. All you will
see is them lying to themselves about them one at a time. Even the ID
perps have only addressed them one at a time since putting them up.

>
> With this "put his god in the gap," Ron O is in a "do as I say, not
as I do"
> situation. Note the lower case, by the way, and the "his".
> This is the language of atheists, and Ron O has never tried to
> show that he is NOT an atheist. He once claimed to "believe in a
> creator," but has never tried to show that it is the Christian God.

Why keep lying about my religious beliefs. You are just a sick and sad
person. As far as I am concerned my God does not have to fit into any
gap. It is my belief that God has to fit into what we know, not what we
do not know at this time. Why do old earth creationists and other
theistic evolutionists exist if that were not the case for a lot of
religious people. The IDiot/creationists that depend on the Top Six
denial arguments do not want to understand nature, and why MarkE could
not put his god in the gap that he was creating. MarkE does not want to
believe in the god that would fit into that gap. He only wanted to use
the OoL (#3 of the Top Six) for denial purposes. He never wanted a
better understanding of nature, he only wanted to lie to himself just
long enough to get to the next gap. The Top Six puts all the gaps
together, and even IDiots aren't stupid enough to not understand that
they do not want to know what is between the gaps.

The sad thing is that Nyikos has to lie about my religious beliefs
because he has lied so often about his own. Nyikos is the church going
Catholic agnostic that has tried to defend Pascal's wager on TO. What
kind of IDiot would think that they could lie to God and get away with
it? Nyikos is that kind of religious nut job.

>
> Maybe you could help me out with something, Glenn, if you joined
> talk.origins several years before 2011. Ron O had away from EVERY post
> by Ray Martinez for a long time before I re-joined in December 2010,
using the
> transparently hypocritical and unspported claim that Ray was "insane."

Glenn was posting before you left TO at the turn of the century. What
you should be asking him is what the issue about the Top Six is, so that
you no longer have to lie about it.

There is no doubt that Ray was insane. I could not help the guy, and I
just stopped posting to him. No matter how much he harassed me. He
eventually quit posting to me, and things had settled out for years that
way. That makes Ray saner than you, but that isn't saying much. You
are just a saddistic lying asshole, and you likely will never change.
Insanity isn't a defense, it is only an excuse for being the lying
asshole that you are.

>
> My suspicion is that Ray kept interrogating Ron O about
> his religious beliefs, and Ron O was afraid he would slip up and
> say something so clueless that Ray could nail him and destroy Ron O's
> claim that he is a real Methodist, instead of a mole within the
Methodist Church.
>
> Can you shed any light on this suspicion of mine?

Nope. I just felt sorry for Ray, and I could no longer justify posting
to someone as lost as he was. You are just a lying asshole, so you get
what you deserve.

So I am going to repost this post whenever you start lying about this
issue. You could address the post that you have been running from for
over a month.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

Just to remind you of what a lying asshole that you have been for the
last decade this is the REPOST link, and you can lie about that forever.

The Top Six is not something that you should be lying about for the next
decade. It will only keep reminding Glenn and the other IDiots of what
they are running from.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IRQMOuRz1WU/iqY8dmxlAgAJ

Additions to the repost with links to material where the links had gone
broken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gHqIIDqaiwI/hSScLtCuCQAJ

This link will take you to the 2018 thread which you likely have some
found memories over. Isn't it sad that I first posted this repost in 2014?
END REPOST:

This is in Nyikos' challenge thread where his lying about what the issue is.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Tsw5f7e0AAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Nyikos posts whenever he wants to keep lying. It doesn't matter what he
claims that he is doing. His temporary self inflicted boycotts are just
his excuse to run from the posts that he doesn't want to address.
Nyikos just lies about a lot of things. Glenn should remember about the
tomorrow that never came, but reality doesn't seem to matter to either
of them.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:28:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 8/4/2020 10:04 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny... Ron O hasn't been badgering me about how I "should"
>>> respond to this post. I only learned about this thread late
>>> last night when he finally referenced it.
>>>
>>> The many canards about me being "narcissistic" notwithstanding,
>>> looking for threads with my name in the title is something way
>>> down in my list of priorities. That's something I might need
>>> to change.
>>
>>
>> The peter persona continues to reply to RonO even though he previously
>> claimed to boycott RonO's posts, even as he does what he claims is of
>> low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>> <snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
>> repeat>
>>
>>
>
>Nyikos posts whenever he wants to keep lying.

And he lies whenever he wants to keep posting. Since he has no idea
what he's talking about, all he can do is lie about what others talk
about. That is a habit common to trolls.

>It doesn't matter what he
>claims that he is doing. His temporary self inflicted boycotts are just
>his excuse to run from the posts that he doesn't want to address.
>Nyikos just lies about a lot of things. Glenn should remember about the
>tomorrow that never came, but reality doesn't seem to matter to either
>of them.
>
>Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

As is "Glenn".

>Peter is Peter Nyikos, as jillery well knows.

Glenn identifies no distinction between "Peter Nyikos" and "peter",
and so his comments above are mindless truisms not in dispute. No
surprise there.

>jillery could be any number of posters using the persona "jillery".

As could "Glenn". As could "Peter Nyikos". All are Usenet
identifiers of convenience. Indeed, there are active on T.O. several
using the label "Bill", and there are more than one using the label
"Ron". I know of no effort to assure these labels are associated with
multiple posters, save for identifying banned posters, spambots, sock
puppets, and other abuses.

Right here would have been a good place for Glenn to have identified
evidence of such abuse by jillery. That he did not shows he knows he
can not, because his asinine allusion is just more of the mindless
crap he and his strange bedfellow spew from their collective ass to
make T.O. a Hellhole.

>jillery refers to jillery in the first person, which is so odd as to be
>considered mentally and emotionally unstable, perhaps pathological.

Glenn doesn't back up his expressed opinions. He doesn't, not just
because his opinions are utterly without basis, but also because his
posts show he has no clue how to back up his opinions. Glenn is like
a spoiled brat who acts as if his opinions are infallible dictates
simply because he says them.

Glenn has no good reason to concern himself with how Jillery refers to
Jillery. But since he has mindlessly stuck his nose where it doesn't
belong, Jillery points out, in Glenn's haste to post his mindless
noise, he posted a logical error. It is standard practice for English
speakers to refer to themselves in the first person, so there is
nothing odd about such behavior. Based on Glenn's previous
complaints, Jillery assumes Glenn meant to say "jillery refers to
jillery in the *third* person".

FTR Jillery refers to Jillery the way the posters to whom Jillery
replies refer to Jillery, in order to highlight those persons' ways.
In the specific case which Glenn has his knickers in a twist, it is
the peter persona who initiated that specific form of address. In the
specific case of Glenn's reply, it is Glenn who refers to jillery as
jillery.

So by Glenn's own words, since Jillery's use of third person "is so

odd as to be considered mentally and emotionally unstable, perhaps

pathological", then so too is Glenn's use of third person. And so too
is the peter persona's use of his creative address.

Glenn has yet to figure out how to avoid tarring himself and his
strange bedfellow with the same brush he attempts to tar Jillery.
Since Glenn is a willfully stupid village idiot, that's no surprise.

>jillery's attitude against others reinforces that assumption.

Right here would have been a good place for Glenn to have identified
what he means by "jillery's attitude". Until then, Glenn is just
making up mindless crap because he knows he has nothing intelligent to
say.

>Above, jillery does not admit to a lie, but only to "acknowledge" a difference.

So Glenn also has a personal definition of "lie". Perhaps someday he
will manage to arouse enough functioning brain cells to specify what
is that definition. Even his strange bedfellow did that.

>One wonders if jillery "acknowledged" that difference when jillery lied about the aforementioned boycott.

Jillery posted no lie, any more than Glenn posted a lie when he wrote
"jillery refers to jillery in the first person". One wonders how
Glenn and his strange bedfellow exaggerate the least pedantic quibble
into imaginary mountains of lies, while aping the three monkeys to
their own lies.

>One loses any doubt about that when jillery claims that Peter's boycotts are "stupid" and the distinction only mattering to Peter, not jillery.

So the peter persona's stupid boycotts matter to Glenn. If only the
peter persona had addressed his reply to Glenn instead of to RonO, who
has explicitly and repeatedly expressed his opinion of the peter
persona's stupid boycotts.

>jillery is dysfuntional. Everything jillery does or says will be influenced and tainted. jillery's opinions are worthless.

Sez the willfully stupid village idiot who holds himself above backing
up his own claims.

[Peter Nyikos]

"utter stupidity" = done by Peter as a measure against having to reply to
people in good with jillery

"thoroughly praiseworthy" = done by people in good with jillery, such
as by Burkhard, who boycotted Peter for years;
and as by Casanova, who jeered when Peter mentioned
him, for supposedly craving attention ("Poor Baby".)

AAAAAnd such as jillery, who killfiled Peter for the better part of a year,
and whined to her mentor, Paul Gans, a.k.a. Dr. Gansenstein, about Peter
talking about her even though she had Peter killfiled.


Wait, there's a third category:

"to be discreetly passed over in silence" = boycotts of someone in good with
jillery by someone ALSO in good
with jillery, such as Burkhard's
killfiling of Ron O a number of
years ago, and ignoring questions about
whether the boycott is still in effect.

> the difference has little distinction,
> and even then only to the peter persona.

In the World According to "Jillery," the only distinction is as to WHO
is doing it, and and against WHOM, and then it makes all the difference in the world.

In this way, "jillery" flaunts how much power she thinks she wields
in talk.origins.

>
>
> >> even as he does what he claims is of
> >> low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.
> >
> >Au contraire, it is the jillery persona's seeming desire to rival or outdo
> >Ron O in various surreal, irresponsible ways that knows no bounds.
> >
> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
>
>
> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
> claimed or required.

They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
to myself in the last 20 hours. Take a look at the analysis I did
in reply to Hemidactylus where these spiels took place:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/ddNiuLvhBAAJ
Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b550a814-7b52-4e0e...@googlegroups.com>

A completely different, though just as telling, example came when
Sean D. told me, but not jillery, that I was only hurting myself
by continuing to fight back against jillery's virulent attacks
for continuing to expose the true nature of of something she had
done to his fellow Irishman, Martin Harran.

I told Sean that there were only two, diametrically opposite ways
I could make sense of his comment:

1. I am so much more respected than jillery that by continuing to
fight her, I am only lowering myself part way to her level;

2. I am so much less popular than jillery that I am just antagonizing
people by attacking her.

Sean backed off and claimed that he only wanted the bickering to stop --
to me but NOT to jillery, who very well understands the Machiavellian principle
that it is better to be feared than to be loved.

>
>
> >There are about ten perennial regulars who come under the category
> >"their kind," but the aforementioned confidence seems to be shared
> >by only about half of them.
> >
> >
> >> <snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
> >> repeat>
> >
> >This naive/disingenuous use of "obligation" is indicative of the apparent
> >disdain "jillery" and Ron O have for the principle of freedom of speech.

By the way, this was just frosting on the cake of hundreds of totalitarian-mentality
uses of "disqualifies" in the following ruthless and almost invariably
libelous jillery formula:

Your __________ disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged __________.

> Only the delusional mind of the peter persona would imagine a meaning
> of "freedom of speech" which obliges others to copy his mindless crap.

Only a cunning propagandist like jillery would deliberately "miss the
point" that the very bringing in of such a concept as "obligation"
into a ruthless snip-n-deceive operation is to suggest that some forms
of speech are obligatory rather than free. (Or, as above, "disqualified"
rather than free.)


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
> his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
> to myself in the last 20 hours.

Neither Ron nor Jillery likened me to someone named Galen Hekhuis who
posted in talk.abortion at sometime in the past and toward whom you still
may harbor unresolved animosity. Unhealthy?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/PEqLd9o8BAAJ

“Here is an analogy. When I came to talk.origins in 1995 I had been active
in talk.abortion since mid-1992, and had learned how to recognize numerous
dirty debating tactics of the counterparts of Paul Gans (Chris Lyman),
Hemidactylus (Galen Hekhuis),and others.

Before I returned to talk.origins in 2010 after 9+1/2 years of absence, I
had returned to talk.abortion two years earlier, and was appalled at how
badly it had deteriorated. The counterparts of jillery (james keegan,
Elizabeth Frantes), Mark Isaak (Ray Fischer), as well as the two
counterparts I mentioned above, were then in almost absolute control of
talk.abortion along with their henchmen and henchwomen. I managed to stem
the tide there and even to reverse it to a modest extent.”

So I am a counterpart of someone named Galen Hekhuis? Strangest application
of set theory ever.

I have myself color coded and your post here is the first spot I am
mentioned in this thread. Here I am. What color do you think I labeled my
name as a keyword? I may not have even participated in this thread if I
wasn’t conjured into it. No I don’t grant wishes.

[erik simpson]

Just as a matter of idle curiosity, do you have any idea what precipitated
Peter's 9+ years absence? I have no intention to try to bring about such an
event again (why bother?), but it must have been something dramatic.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don’t recall. My own participation ebbed and flowed over the same time.
And notably both Larry Moran and PZ Myers left altogether at some point
before Peter returned. And Wilkins left too more recently as did Norman. So
Peter’s hiatus may not have had any dramatic cause. There are plenty of
regulars from the late 90s that no longer post. And I can’t recall when he
started but Dana Tweedy no longer posts. He was usually very responsive to
Ray’s various tropes.

[jillery]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:37:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

>> the peter persona's boycotts, the difference has little distinction,

>> and even then only to the peter persona.
>

>"utter stupidity" = done by Peter as a measure against having to reply to
> people in good with jillery

So the peter persona admits to boycotting RonO because of jillery and
not because of anything RonO wrote or didn't write. Not sure how even
the peter persona thinks that make his boycotts any less stupid.


>"thoroughly praiseworthy" =


was neither mentioned nor implied, and so is yet more of the peter
persona's meaningless crap spewed out of his ass to make T.O. a
Hellhole.

>Wait, there's a third category:
>
>"to be discreetly passed over in silence" =

ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona makes much of what is not written, while
ignoring the words on the screen in front of his face.

>In the World According to "Jillery," the only distinction is as to WHO
>is doing it, and and against WHOM, and then it makes all the difference in the world.
>
>In this way, "jillery" flaunts how much power she thinks she wields
>in talk.origins.

Liar[1]. In this way, the peter persona shows the utter stupidity of
what he pawns off as reason. ONCE AGAIN, what makes his boycotts
stupid is his spamming about them. Not sure how even he *still*
doesn't understand this.

>> >> The peter persona continues to reply to RonO even though he previously

>> >> claimed to boycott RonO's posts, even as he does what he claims is of

>> >> low priority. The peter persona's stupefying illogic knows no bounds.
>> >
>> >Au contraire, it is the jillery persona's seeming desire to rival or outdo
>> >Ron O in various surreal, irresponsible ways that knows no bounds.
>> >
>> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
>> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
>>
>>
>> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
>> claimed or required.
>
>They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
>his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
>to myself in the last 20 hours. Take a look at the analysis I did
>in reply to Hemidactylus where these spiels took place:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/ddNiuLvhBAAJ
>Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
>Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <b550a814-7b52-4e0e...@googlegroups.com>

Liar[1]. Hemidactylus posted nothing to Jillery or RonO in the past
20 hours. To the contrary, most of his posts in the last several days
have been direct replies to the peter persona. And his last reply to
Jillery was over a week ago, and had nothing whatever to do with the
peter persona.

And there's nothing in the above cite about Hemidactylus' replies to
jillery or RonO.

<snip obfuscating noise about posters not involved in this topic>

>> >> <snip peter persona's remaining spew jillery has no obligation to
>> >> repeat>
>> >
>> >This naive/disingenuous use of "obligation" is indicative of the apparent
>> >disdain "jillery" and Ron O have for the principle of freedom of speech.

Liar[1].

>By the way, this was just frosting on the cake of hundreds of totalitarian-mentality
>uses of "disqualifies" in the following ruthless and almost invariably
>libelous jillery formula:
>
> Your __________ disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged __________.

Liar[1].

>> Only the delusional mind of the peter persona would imagine a meaning
>> of "freedom of speech" which obliges others to copy his mindless crap.
>
>Only a cunning propagandist like jillery would deliberately "miss the
>point" that the very bringing in of such a concept as "obligation"
>into a ruthless snip-n-deceive operation is to suggest that some forms
>of speech are obligatory rather than free. (Or, as above, "disqualified"
>rather than free.)

Only a liar[1] would blame jillery for bringing in a concept the peter
persona himself brings in, every time he insists that every jot and
tittle of mindless crap needs be duplicated. The peter persona
lies[1] that removing said crap is the same as the snip-and-deceive he
practices. In fact, it's not even remotely similar.

[1] The persona named peter's personal definition of "lie":
***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]

You ripped what I wrote out of context, which was a rejoinder to jillery
[you ripped out all evidence of that too] writing the following:

[repost, with my words preceding jillery's]

> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
>
>
> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
> claimed or required.

[end of repost]

> > They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
> > his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
> > to myself in the last 20 hours.

In reply, you post a *non* *sequitur* that outdoes every one I've
ever seen Dr. Dr. Kleinman:

> Neither Ron nor Jillery likened me to someone named Galen Hekhuis

That has nothing to do with the utterly phony pacifistic spiel
you did to aid, abet, and comfort the two of them. Just as
Jane Fonda's "antiwar" campaign was music to the ears of the
North Vietnam invaders.

Joan Baez learned the hard way just how much Fonda doted on the North
Vietnamese conquerors.

Your spiel took place on the same "Challenge.." thread where I talk
below of the attitude of Erik Simpson.

> who
> posted in talk.abortion at sometime in the past and toward whom you still
> may harbor unresolved animosity.

> Unhealthy?

My animosity for Galen is a thing of the distant past. YOUR ongoing animosity
towards myself, and your almost maniacal hostility towards Glenn is the really unhealthy thing.


>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/PEqLd9o8BAAJ

Readers who bother to click on that link will learn that the context
was that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

> “Here is an analogy.

.... to the way we have to take firm steps against the trend towards
tolerating violence, otherwise things could deteriorate to the point
where civilization descends into a barbarism as bad as any that has
existed in the past.

> When I came to talk.origins in 1995 I had been active
> in talk.abortion since mid-1992, and had learned how to recognize numerous
> dirty debating tactics of the counterparts of Paul Gans (Chris Lyman),
> Hemidactylus (Galen Hekhuis),and others.
>
> Before I returned to talk.origins in 2010 after 9+1/2 years of absence, I
> had returned to talk.abortion two years earlier, and was appalled at how
> badly it had deteriorated. The counterparts of jillery (james keegan,
> Elizabeth Frantes), Mark Isaak (Ray Fischer), as well as the two
> counterparts I mentioned above, were then in almost absolute control of
> talk.abortion along with their henchmen and henchwomen. I managed to stem
> the tide there and even to reverse it to a modest extent.”

And I am doing my best to stem the tide here, because talk.origins
is headed towards the same level of barbarism that I found in talk.abortion
on my return there in 2008.

> So I am a counterpart of someone named Galen Hekhuis?

You are so self-centered, you think this is all about you? It is about
the future of talk.origins, which you seem to give no more of a damn
about than Erik Simpson does:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/eL9vgzQoCgAJ

Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ccdbc80f-ea60-4716...@googlegroups.com>

> Strangest application
> of set theory ever.

You are just cementing your status as the most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins.

> I have myself color coded and your post here is the first spot I am
> mentioned in this thread. Here I am. What color do you think I labeled my
> name as a keyword? I may not have even participated in this thread if I
> wasn’t conjured into it. No I don’t grant wishes.

Your style here is amazingly like that of Galen. I told you about that
style in a post to which you never dared to reply, and posted your
*non* *sequitur* to comfort yourself over having fled from that thread
altogether:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/0Hu1ZD9PAgAJ

Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <24155612-d984-4c30...@googlegroups.com>
Excerpt:
You and Galen have even played very similar roles. He often came across
as the resident good-natured clown, and had me fooled for a long time
into thinking he was a well-meaning clown, but on widely separated occasions
he could be as ruthless as Batman's nemesis, the Joker.

Actually, "treacherous", understood as suddenly showing your true colors
after long stretches of mild behavior, is even more appropriate than
"ruthless"-- which also applies at widely separated occasions.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>
>You ripped what I wrote out of context, which was a rejoinder to jillery
>[you ripped out all evidence of that too] writing the following:
>
>[repost, with my words preceding jillery's]
>> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
>> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
>>
>>
>> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
>> claimed or required.
>[end of repost]
>
>> > They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
>> > his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
>> > to myself in the last 20 hours.

ONCE AGAIN, Hemidactylus posted nothing to either jillery or Ron O at
the time the peter persona posted the above.

>In reply, you post a *non* *sequitur* that outdoes every one I've
>ever seen Dr. Dr. Kleinman:
>
>> Neither Ron nor Jillery likened me to someone named Galen Hekhuis
>
>That has nothing to do with the utterly phony pacifistic spiel
>you did to aid, abet, and comfort the two of them.

Jillery supposes somebody somewhere would be interested to know what
those "utterly phony pacifistic spiels" are which have the peter
persona's KNAPPIES so twisted, if only so they had some idea what he's
talking about.

>Just as
>Jane Fonda's "antiwar" campaign was music to the ears of the
>North Vietnam invaders.
>
>Joan Baez learned the hard way just how much Fonda doted on the North
>Vietnamese conquerors.
>
>Your spiel took place on the same "Challenge.." thread where I talk
>below of the attitude of Erik Simpson.

And ONCE AGAIN the peter persona goes into his delusional rabbit hole.

>> who
>> posted in talk.abortion at sometime in the past and toward whom you still
>> may harbor unresolved animosity.
>
>> Unhealthy?
>
>My animosity for Galen is a thing of the distant past. YOUR ongoing animosity
>towards myself, and your almost maniacal hostility towards Glenn is the really unhealthy thing.
>
>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/PEqLd9o8BAAJ
>
>Readers who bother to click on that link will learn that the context
>was that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

As the peter persona proves in almost every one of his posts.

The peter persona's ever-more-nuanced division of hypocrisy is always
remarkable. It's a wonder how he so easily sees motes in others' eyes
despite the logs in his own.

>> I have myself color coded and your post here is the first spot I am
>> mentioned in this thread. Here I am. What color do you think I labeled my
>> name as a keyword? I may not have even participated in this thread if I
>> wasn’t conjured into it. No I don’t grant wishes.
>
>Your style here is amazingly like that of Galen. I told you about that
>style in a post to which you never dared to reply, and posted your
>*non* *sequitur* to comfort yourself over having fled from that thread
>altogether:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/0Hu1ZD9PAgAJ
>Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
>Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <24155612-d984-4c30...@googlegroups.com>
> Excerpt:
> You and Galen have even played very similar roles. He often came across
> as the resident good-natured clown, and had me fooled for a long time
> into thinking he was a well-meaning clown, but on widely separated occasions
> he could be as ruthless as Batman's nemesis, the Joker.
>
>Actually, "treacherous", understood as suddenly showing your true colors
>after long stretches of mild behavior, is even more appropriate than
>"ruthless"-- which also applies at widely separated occasions.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/7/20 8:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [...]

> And I am doing my best to stem the tide here, because talk.origins
> is headed towards the same level of barbarism that I found in talk.abortion
> on my return there in 2008.

In other words, Peter recognizes that his efforts have been ineffective,
but he continues trying the same thing, expecting different results.

If you do wish to change tactics, Peter, I humbly suggest that, for
peacemaking, Mohandas Gandhi would be a better role model than Bashar
al-Assad.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 4:10:04 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> >You ripped what I wrote out of context, which was a rejoinder to jillery
> >[you ripped out all evidence of that too] writing the following:
> >
> >[repost, with my words preceding jillery's]
> >> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
> >> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
> >>
> >>
> >> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
> >> claimed or required.
> >[end of repost]
> >
> >> > They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
> >> > his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
> >> > to myself in the last 20 hours.
>
>
> ONCE AGAIN, Hemidactylus posted nothing to either jillery or Ron O at
> the time the peter persona posted the above.

You left out the word "about" between "posted" and "the above."

Intentionally, I'm sure. Otherwise you would have been vehemently agreeing
with me.


Here is the relevant passage from which you are clumsily attempting to divert attention:

_____________________ excerpt, Hemi going first_______________________

> Personal issues should be irrelevant.

That wasn't the sound of your little brain toot.
-- Hemidactylus to Glenn, a mere 16 hours ago on this thread.

Who do you think you are fooling, Hemi?

You haven't responded to anyone here except Glenn and myself.

Over the years I've noticed a number of unspoken "talk.origins rules." One of
them seems to be:

You only need to take notice of things said in direct reply to yourself.

Note the word "need". It's totally optional: if X sees something that can
give her/him an edge, they are quite free to wade in, especially if 'e is
in good with one of the parties.

There is a lot of leeway in the other direction, too: even if someone
says something in direct reply to you, you are generally free to ignore that, too.

And you are EXPECTED to ignore it if it is a libelous attack by someone in
good with a number of others, while you are treated as a pariah in the
majority of direct replies to you.

That is, unless you want to cement you pariah status by showing it is
a libel and thereby showing how rude you are and how much you love to
involve yourself in personal attacks.

=========================== end of excerpt ===========================
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/ddNiuLvhBAAJ

Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b550a814-7b52-4e0e...@googlegroups.com>

You played the shill for Hemi on that thread, knowing full well
that his "Personal issues should be irrelevant" was meant only
for me and Glenn, not for you or Ron O or for himself. That's the
point of that unspoken rule.

>
> >In reply, you post a *non* *sequitur* that outdoes every one I've
> >ever seen Dr. Dr. Kleinman:
> >
> >> Neither Ron nor Jillery likened me to someone named Galen Hekhuis
> >
> >That has nothing to do with the utterly phony pacifistic spiel
> >you did to aid, abet, and comfort the two of them.
>
>
> Jillery supposes somebody somewhere would be interested to know what
> those "utterly phony pacifistic spiels" are

NOTE TO READERS: jillery got a one liner of it up there, and I can provide
lots more. However, it is only by reading what motivated Hemidactylus to
don his fraudulent mask that one can see what he and jillery were really
up to. For that, you need to read the lines that may be hidden with
- show hidden text -
The remedy is to click on it and read everything before that phony
"Personal issues..." to see things that jillery and Hemi never tried
to deal directly with, and probably never will.

> which have the peter
> persona's KNAPPIES so twisted,

Such prepubescent talk is a natural reflex reaction of jillery when she
knows how she cannot cope rationally with what she is up against.

> if only so they had some idea what he's
> talking about.

This kind of talk is pure wishful thinking. It is missing the essential
preface, "if only peter really fit the following description"

>
> >Just as
> >Jane Fonda's "antiwar" campaign was music to the ears of the
> >North Vietnam invaders.
> >
> >Joan Baez learned the hard way just how much Fonda doted on the North
> >Vietnamese conquerors.
> >
> >Your spiel took place on the same "Challenge.." thread where I talk
> >below of the attitude of Erik Simpson.
>
>
> And ONCE AGAIN the peter persona goes into his delusional rabbit hole.

And ONCE AGAIN jillery indulges in wishful thinking.

>
>
> >> who
> >> posted in talk.abortion at sometime in the past and toward whom you still
> >> may harbor unresolved animosity.
> >
> >> Unhealthy?
> >
> >My animosity for Galen is a thing of the distant past. YOUR ongoing animosity
> >towards myself, and your almost maniacal hostility towards Glenn is the really unhealthy thing.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/PEqLd9o8BAAJ
> >
> >Readers who bother to click on that link will learn that the context
> >was that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
>
>
> As the peter persona proves in almost every one of his posts.

Typical nihilism-based repartee by the reason-challenged jillery.



Concluded in next reply, to be done at the beginning of next week.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 4:10:04 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >
>> >You ripped what I wrote out of context, which was a rejoinder to jillery
>> >[you ripped out all evidence of that too] writing the following:
>> >
>> >[repost, with my words preceding jillery's]
>> >> >Like Ron O, at least one person behind the jillery persona seems
>> >> >confident that their kind has close to absolute power in talk.origins.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona endows jillery with powers where none is
>> >> claimed or required.
>> >[end of repost]
>> >
>> >> > They are very much required, otherwise Hemidactylus would have done
>> >> > his long pacifistic spiels in reply to jillery and/or Ron O in addition
>> >> > to myself in the last 20 hours.
>>
>>
>> ONCE AGAIN, Hemidactylus posted nothing to either jillery or Ron O at
>> the time the peter persona posted the above.
>
>You left out the word "about" between "posted" and "the above."

You're right. And so did you. Which makes your complaint above a
lie[1].

>Intentionally, I'm sure. Otherwise you would have been vehemently agreeing
>with me.

Liar[1].

>Here is the relevant passage from which you are clumsily attempting to divert attention:

Liar[1].

<snip irrelevant excerpt>

>You played the shill for Hemi on that thread, knowing full well
>that his "Personal issues should be irrelevant" was meant only
>for me and Glenn, not for you or Ron O or for himself. That's the
>point of that unspoken rule.

Liar[1].

>> >In reply, you post a *non* *sequitur* that outdoes every one I've
>> >ever seen Dr. Dr. Kleinman:
>> >
>> >> Neither Ron nor Jillery likened me to someone named Galen Hekhuis
>> >
>> >That has nothing to do with the utterly phony pacifistic spiel
>> >you did to aid, abet, and comfort the two of them.
>>
>>
>> Jillery supposes somebody somewhere would be interested to know what
>> those "utterly phony pacifistic spiels" are
>
>NOTE TO READERS: jillery got a one liner of it up there, and I can provide
>lots more.

NOTE TO READERS: the peter persona has his KNAPPIES in a twist because
jillery noted his delusional fantasies.

>> which have the peter
>> persona's KNAPPIES so twisted,
>
>Such prepubescent talk is a natural reflex reaction of jillery when she
>knows how she cannot cope rationally with what she is up against.

Liar[1].

>> if only so they had some idea what he's
>> talking about.
>
>This kind of talk is pure wishful thinking. It is missing the essential
>preface, "if only peter really fit the following description"

Liar[1].

>> >Just as
>> >Jane Fonda's "antiwar" campaign was music to the ears of the
>> >North Vietnam invaders.
>> >
>> >Joan Baez learned the hard way just how much Fonda doted on the North
>> >Vietnamese conquerors.
>> >
>> >Your spiel took place on the same "Challenge.." thread where I talk
>> >below of the attitude of Erik Simpson.
>>
>>
>> And ONCE AGAIN the peter persona goes into his delusional rabbit hole.
>
>And ONCE AGAIN jillery indulges in wishful thinking.

And ONCE AGAIN the peter persona posts another lie[1].

>> >> who
>> >> posted in talk.abortion at sometime in the past and toward whom you still
>> >> may harbor unresolved animosity.
>> >
>> >> Unhealthy?
>> >
>> >My animosity for Galen is a thing of the distant past. YOUR ongoing animosity
>> >towards myself, and your almost maniacal hostility towards Glenn is the really unhealthy thing.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/PEqLd9o8BAAJ
>> >
>> >Readers who bother to click on that link will learn that the context
>> >was that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
>>
>>
>> As the peter persona proves in almost every one of his posts.
>
>Typical nihilism-based repartee by the reason-challenged jillery.

The peter persona's nihilism-based and reason-challenged repartee
disqualifies him from complaining about alleged same from jillery. Not
sure how even the peter persona *still* doesn't understand this.

>Concluded in next reply, to be done at the beginning of next week.

The peter persona was done before he even started.

[1] The peter persona's explicitly written definition of "lie":

***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************