By their Fruits May 2014

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
this creator is supposed to be like.

The closest he came to overcoming this reticence was the following
exercise in cognitive dissonance, posted by him on March 25.

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

I replied on the same day:

"What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence?
What kind of a God is it that creates without designing
anything it creates?"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/dzwPP7KnRfUJ

He ducked these questions, and all I could get out of him was that
he believed in "the Christian God." But after a few exchanges,
I reminded him how Thomas Aquinas very explicitly believed that
God was an intelligent designer, and quoted the relevant
passage from _Summa Theologica_, in:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/5LF3tOXn60MJ

He refused to talk about that, and so I pressed the issue with:

______________excerpt___________________________________

I have never seen anyone calling himself a Christian, LEAST OF ALL YOU,
deny that Aquinas was referring to the Christian God, or allege that
Aquinas was WRONG when he wrote what he did. In fact, you completely
refrained from commenting on his words.

Thus, the obvious inference from your silence in the wake of
all this is that when you wrote,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

your words can be interpreted as saying,

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

And you need to let readers know what the essential difference
is between the intelligent designer Christians call God,
and the bogus scam intelligent designer to which you referred.

=========================== end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/FTcjKnwdW9AJ

Ron O ignored everything I wrote and went into a long tirade
demanding that I think about personal issues having nothing
to do with any of the above, in:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J


Ron O has been alluding to Matthew 7:15-19 in these "By their
Fruits" thread titles. In the RSV, the last verse reads:

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire."

Nobody here has the power to do anything like this to the "tree"
of Ron O's alleged beliefs, and the best I can do is as follows.

I hereby accuse Ron O of evading the issue of what his "creator"
is like because he never believed in a creator in the first place,
and so would not be able to say anything meaningful about it.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

The last post I did in reply to RonO is worth reposting in full
because his reply to that post repeats a misrepresentation
that I quoted and thoroughly refuted.

On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:19:50 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> You have to go back and self evaluate the posts as if
> someone else wrote them.

It is YOU who have to self evaluate that way, especially
about the following sentence of yours:

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

You are running away from a tightly reasoned analysis of
this sentence in the light of another thing you wrote later, and
something I quoted from Thomas Aquinas, which makes hash
of this sentence of yours.

<snip for focus>

> What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you are
> just making it up.

I did NOT just make up the fact that you wrote:

> >>>>>>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.

I did NOT just make up the fact that you wrote:

> >> What was the context? You know for a fact that I was
> >> talking about the Christian God

I did NOT just make up the fact that Thomas Aquinas wrote:

We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or
nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but DESIGNEDLY,
do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence;
as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
THEREFORE SOME INTELLIGENT BEING EXISTS by whom
all natural things are directed to their end;
and this being we call God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I have never seen anyone calling himself a Christian, LEAST OF ALL YOU,
deny that Aquinas was referring to the Christian God, or allege that
Aquinas was WRONG when he wrote what he did. In fact, you completely
refrained from commenting on his words.

Thus, the obvious inference from your silence in the wake of
all this is that when you wrote,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

your words can be interpreted as saying,

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

And you need to let readers know what the essential difference
is between the intelligent designer Christians call God,
and the bogus scam intelligent designer to which you referred.

WARNING! If you reply with some such statement as

"Where are you coming up with this junk?"

or

"You just made it up, so why should I know what you are talking about?"
or

"Beats me where you get this interpretation"

you will be squawking like a parrot instead of self evaluating what
YOU wrote as though someone else had written it.

Peter Nyikos
================ end of included post archived at:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/FTcjKnwdW9AJ
Subject: Re: By their Fruits March 2014

RonO's only reference to the above in his reply began with him squawking
like a parrot despite the copious warnings at the end of my post:

"You know that you are just making something up,
and it isn't even very clear what you think that you are
doing except to try to denigrate my religious beliefs
for some degenerate reason."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

As anyone can see, what I was ACTUALLY doing was trying to get
Ron O to clarify WHAT those religious beliefs, if any, are.
The above was only the last in a long series of posts where I
gave him ample opportunity to do that, to no avail.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 5/22/2014 12:11 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
> December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
> believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
> subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
> alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
> In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
> this creator is supposed to be like.

Nyikos, you are not self evaluating, you are just removing as much
context as you can and digging yourself a deeper hole for when you have
to run away again. That is how it always is and this case is no
different. How is this different from your made up dirty debating junk?
How is it different from all your other stupid personal attacks where
your delusions got the best of you. Just think back to how deluded your
"running away from one post" thread was. I know that you aren't legally
insane because you have enough on the ball to see through your delusions
eventually and run away. It has been that way for years.

What you need to do is go through just this last series of posts and
self evaluate what you did, how you screwed up and how stupid and
degenerate it is to continue to do what you think that you are doing.
Deal with your problem of projection. When you are caught doing
something stupid and dishonest, that doesn't mean that your victim was
doing something stupid and dishonest, it simply means that you were
being your usual assoholic self. Why you lie about your rellgious
beliefs that doesn't mean that someone else is also lying. You just
have to deal with reality. Really, just self evaluate this post. Look
at how it evolved, and look what you are ending up doing. It is just a
lame and degenerate personal attack because you want to be an asshole.
Snipping out everything isn't going to change reality. You will still
be the same asshole tomorrow and even if you delete the bogus posts you
still wrote them.

Just look at the story that you are telling below. The only reason why
you pressed the issue is because you had to run from all your other
lies. You just picked the issue that I couldn't figure out what you
were talking about because your statements were so out of whack.

Self evaluate the last series of posts. What are you doing below?

You are the asshole in this story, and making up more junk isn't going
to change that. Just ask yourself what you are doing with the By their
Fruits quote. I rest my case.

These are my responses. I don't recall deleting anything so you get
your posts too.

This is my response to you being an ass about me missing a post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/ZimzZj9QgVcJ

This is my response to your response where you did what you claimed that
you did not do and my response to your dishonest stupidity.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/ni3GYbD4WqIJ

This is the first post where I give you the advice that you should self
evaluate what you are doing.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

You refuse to do the sensible thing and the rest is just an escalation
of your assoholic stupidity.

Just face reality, just look at the junk that you are putting up below.
You will just run away again. How can you even try to defend the junk
when you know that you are just making up an issue where there is none?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

SNIP:

The sad thing about Nykosian repitition is he is the one that is always
quoting the Twain quote on the issue, but that is Nyikos.

I will just post my previous response to this post that includes all the
Nykosian bull pucky.

REPOST:

On 5/19/2014 3:15 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:19:50 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> You have to go back and self evaluate the posts as if
>> someone else wrote them.
>
> It is YOU who have to self evaluate that way, especially
> about the following sentence of yours:

What do you think that you are doing? Have you even taken a minute to
reevaluate just what it is that you think that you are doing and how you
are going about it? Why did you snip out what I have written if you are
not the one lying to yourself?

You should take the time to go back through this series of posts and
determine what dirt tricks and lies that you have had to put up in order
to do whatever you think that you are doing. You know why you have to
remove the material before you address the posts, so why not reflect on
the situation as if someone else was the pathetic asshole doing what you
are doing.

Why keep coming back with these types of degenerate posts when all you
end up doing is running away from what you have done?

Isn't it sad that you do the degenerate things that you do? Who has run
all the dirty tricks and told all the lies? You even had to claim that
the truth is slander when the truth is only bad because you are so bad.

What are you going on about below? You know that you are just making

something up, and it isn't even very clear what you think that you are
doing except to try to denigrate my religious beliefs for some

degenerate reason. Just like there was no reason for your stupid racist
bullshit. These are just stupid and assinine personal attacks. You
have to deal with why you think that you have to do junk like this.

You are the one that lied about your religious beliefs, and kept on
lying until you had to make the ridiculous claim that you are an
agnostic. I never did anything like that. I didn't even make it an
issue. You are the one that had to start lying about it again. Just
reflect back, your religious beliefs were never an issue. You were
simply wrong. Religion had nothing to do with it. Once you admitted
that you were wrong and all your degenerate behavior had been for
nothing, you kept up your stupid pestering for your own degenerate
reasons after conceding the issue. It was over after that, but what did
you decide to do? Over a year where you basically lied about the past
and kept claiming that your knockdowns were soon coming. You were
simply wrong about the ID perps and the bait and switch so the issue was
over, but it was you that had to do all your stupid junk in order to do
whatever you thought that you were doing.

I was not responsible for why all your stupid knockdowns blew up in your
face. Just the fact that it took you more than a year to deliver your
pathetic junk should tell any rational being that you shouldn't have
even tried to lie about the past. How sad is it that you will not even
tell me what the last knockdown was and give me a link to the post?
This is how lame it is for you to be claiming to be beating up on me,
and at the same time claiming that I am the one that is striking back at
you. Who is the one that has initiated all the dirty tricks and who
can't stop himself from continuing the stupid personal attacks and
degenerate behavior to harass someone else?

Just go through the last series of posts and evaluate them as if someone
else had written them. Start with this post. What are you trying to
do? I know your projection on the subject. According to you, you feel
that someone has hurt you and due to your sadistic nature you have to do
stupid and dishonest junk to get back at that person, but if you check
out the entire history of this you will find that you are the one that
has repeatedly tried the dirty tricks and have only hurt yourself. Just
name one dirty trick that I have played on you. All I have done is
present the evidence to demonstrate that you are wrong, and, too often,
I have had to demonstrate what a low life scum bag you are.

Heck, I even ignore you on TO and it is you that always has to come back
after running away and do some other degenerate thing so that you have
to run away again. You can't deny that you are the guy that is posting
to me. What is your projection about such a loser? Why does that loser
do the stupid and degenerate things, like lying about the past and
making up new stories? The past isn't going to change. You did all
those degenerate things for stupid reasons and got caught. I can't
change that reality.

Just look at the recent IC threads. The issue that was the basis of
your first dirty trick, finally got a discussion (even though you never
did go back to that post that you ran away from) years after the fact,
and what were the results? You ran by your own definition of running.
What good does it do you to do things like that?

So start with this post. Evaluate it as if some other loser had written
it. Go back through the history of the issue and determine what is
going on and then determine if you want to continue to be that person.

Ron Okimoto
- hide quoted text -

This is what Nyikos had snipped out of the post (of which only a single
sentence remains) so that he could do his usual denial of reality.

QUOTE:
I am going to leave this post intact and give you the advice that you
should have tried to follow years ago with these types of sad and
degenerate posts. You have to go back and self evaluate the posts as if
someone else wrote them. Recall the real history that you are lying
about and determine just what kind of ass you are. Just look at you
snipping the part about Bob. Isn't it just a fact that you have a
problem putting up irrelevant junk about other posters when you are
supposed to be addressing someone else? What kind of ass would do that
consistently in the face of everyone telling him that it isn't a smart
thing to do?

So just go back through your last few posts in this thread and determine
just how you are snipping out the material and lying about it. You are
the one that claims that you do not do that, but just in the posts that
you are making the bogus claim what are you doing? What have you
snipped out and why? What were your claims so that the material had to
be snipped out? They were bogus and degenerate claims that were shown
to be bogus and degenerate. If you aren't the liar, why did it take you
so long to deliver your stupid knockdowns? Why did none of the supposed
knockdowns involve the material that you got caught lying about and
claiming that I am the one that is wrong? You still haven't told me
what the third knockdown is. How sad is that. Anyone with a clue (even
yourself as delusional as you are) would know that if anything that you
were snipping and lying about were not true you would be on it in a
heartbeat. Just the made up junk that you do claim as being so bad
should tell anyone that. Just think about your made up story to Bill
back in the dirty debating thread. Who was the dirty lying debater? If
you were not why wasn't that one of your knockdowns? Why would you have
to make up a story about an out of context quote to generate your first
knockdown. Wasn't it sad that when I tracked down the quote that you
would not give me the source of that it was just what I claimed? Why
did you run for a year after that first knockdown fiasco if any of your
stupid claims are true? Snipping out reality doesn't change it and make
lying about it OK.

What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you are just

making it up. Evaluate how you are trying to justify your made up
stories about my religious beliefs. Evaluate why you have to stoop to
doing something so degenerate instead of addressing your own issues.
Just the fact that you lie about your religious beliefs when it doesn't
matter should be some clue about what an ass you are.

So don't run away. Self evaluate what you have done in the last few
posts in this thread. Just the fact that you were stupid enough to
bring up the fact that I missed a post and then had to snip out all the
material about how stupid and degenerate you are should be some clue.
Who is the one stooping to making playground jibes about someone's IQ
when you are the one whose arguments have always come up short. Your
stupid habit of projection is just sad. If you are caught doing
something stupid, someone else has to be doing something stupid even if
you have to make up some delusional story about it. Just think about
your stupid second knockdown side thread and that stupid Google story
that you had to make up. Just think about what kind of ass would go on
for years with dishonest and degenerate claims about someone else for
the stupid reason that they were wrong about a few things. You are the
one that had to eventually admit that the evidence that the ID perps ran
the bait and switch was convincing. You are the one that had to resort
to dishonest ploys from nearly the very beginning to maintain your
denial. All the stupid and dishonest junk was performed by you
including all your bogus knockdowns.

If you do one thing just clearly state what the third knockdown is
supposed to be and provide the post link. You will not do that because
you will have to self evaluate why you have failed to do something
simple like that for a year. What kind of ass would take so long
(claiming that the knockdowns were delayed but still threatening to
deliver them)) and then when he supposedly delivers the last (how long
did it take you to deliver your knockdowns when they were supposed to
come in a couple weeks?) he fails to tell his intended victim, and
continues to run from his stupid claim. Instead all I get are
degenerate posts like this whenever you feel like being an asshole.

So self evaluate these posts and determine just what kind of asshole
would write these posts in the face of reality. Pretend someone else
wrote the junk and go back and relive the history and determine what you
would think of such a person.

Ron Okimoto
END QUOTE:


So Nyikos self evaluate these posts and determine if you want to
continue to be the degenerate asshole that you are.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,

I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
"self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.

The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.

> you are just removing as much
> context as you can

Liar. I'm not removing anything, I'm just summarizing some of what went
on between us. This lie of yours is designed to make me do 500+
line posts that nobody will read because of their length.

> and digging yourself a deeper hole for when you have
> to run away again.

It is you who kept running away from ALL the relevant context,
and I defy you to try and prove otherwise. This last bit of
yours is the same kind of scam as that "You need to self evaluate,"
and those loaded questions I talked about.

> That is how it always is and this case is no
> different. How is this different from your made up dirty debating junk?

Another loaded question, this time of the "have you stopped beating your
wife yet?" variety. It is you who post dirty debating junk, in enormous
quantities. The features I've written about so far are just the tip
of the iceberg.

> How is it different from all your other stupid personal attacks where
> your delusions got the best of you.

There were none, liar.

> Just think back to how deluded your
> "running away from one post" thread was.

No delusion, just me using your deluded "running away" junk in exactly
the way you've used it hundreds of times. I sometimes apply the adage,
"Turnabout is fair play," and this was one of those times.

And YOU are running away from the CONTENT of the post to which you
are following up, and repeating this pack of lies to disguise that fact.

Continued in next reply, to come no later than some time today.

Peter Nyikos

PS Are you deluded enough to accuse me of "running away" because
I don't go through your entire pile of trash right away?

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:72d5263f-ae89-4622...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,
>
> I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
> encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
> "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
> ""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
> after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.
>
> The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
> torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
> as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
> have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.
>

It's disconcerting to see scientists and those involved in science to think and behave this way. Biased, vain, subjective, sloppy methodology and more undesirable thought processes and behaviors, all make for what it looks to me like some if not much of what is published and reviewed is influenced by. Is there one of the howlers here that you think is not?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 5/22/2014 12:11 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
> > December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
> > believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
> > subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
> > alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
> > In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
> > this creator is supposed to be like.

And this resistance has become total on this thread so far.
Instead, Ron O is acting like a Usenet Treadmill Salesman,
demanding that I "self evaluate" etc.

He is projecting; in fact, I do believe he is
one of the people in this newsgroup LEAST given to self-evaluation,
because he is the most pathologically self-satisfied person
in this whole newsgroup. Others are equally self-satisfied, but
it comes out in other ways than the pathology displayed by Ron O.

And I suspect he was stung a number of times in the past by
people who, showing insight into his true nature, told him he
needed to self-evaluate. If so, then he is probably naive enough to think
that this line is as humiliating to me as it must have been to him.
In fact, I am not the least bit embarrassed to be the target of
this scam of his.

<snip things dealt with in first reply>

> Just think back to how deluded your
> "running away from one post" thread was.

As I explained in my first reply, there was no delusion whatsoever
in it or about it. And by the way, you did NOT provide the url
for that thread-starting post below. What you provided instead
was a reply by you to a post where I rejoiced about a DELAYED
reply by you, but I had no illusions that you would forever ignore
that post. But you spin-doctored that into a claim that I was
talking about you MISSING a post.

> I know that you aren't legally
> insane because you have enough on the ball to see through your delusions
>eventually and run away. It has been that way for years.

Wow, you've really demonstrated your pathological, but at the same time
cunning, dishonesty with this complex lie. You begin
with an deceitful insinuation that the only reasonable excuse I have
against your allegations is insanity. Then you more explicitly imply
that I have delusions, whereas nobody in this newsgroup has been able
to demonstrate that I have any; and you cloak this in a twisted
allegation that I can see through (nonexistent) delusions.

To top it all off, you allege "running away" from certain (crappy false)
allegations without identifying a single alleged example. The "eventually"
gives the game away: I have repeatedly stuck like a burr to your lies,
which you justify by more lies, and so on down the line until, thwarted
at every turn, you post an unsupported allegation and then post some
crud immediately after it that doesn't even bear on the allegation. This is
where I "eventually run away"--from crud that I have identified as "crud"
numerous times.

Many of your lies are this complex, so that to thoroughly refute them
takes FAR longer than it takes you to utter them. That is why
it is such a despicable lie by you to claim "If I lied, Nyikos would
prove it in a heartbeat." It would be a lie even if your lies weren't
so complex that I could refute them in the same amount of time it
takes you to type them, because that is only the first step in a
long running battle as described in brief in my preceding paragraph.

> What you need to do is go through just this last series of posts and
> self evaluate what you did,

I would just affirm that I stand by everything I wrote. You should
strongly suspect that, unless you are insane.

> how you screwed up and how stupid and
> degenerate it is to continue to do what you think that you are doing.

You can't demonstrate a screw-up by me, and I think you know it, because
you aren't documenting anything that even LOOKS like a screw up anywhere
in this thread so far.

> Deal with your problem of projection.

What a laugh! You are projecting below, and anyone who has read the
first two posts of this thread knows that to some extent already.
And you aren't touching the CONTENT of those posts with a ten foot pole.

> When you are caught doing
> something stupid and dishonest, that doesn't mean that your victim was
> doing something stupid and dishonest, it simply means that you were
> being your usual assoholic self.

> Why you lie about your religious beliefs

I don't, and you are already ignoring how you alleged that I had said
that I go to Mass "to worship the God who created your immortal soul"
and I told you the closest thing to it that I could recall, and you
admitted that this was not the same thing, and you kept desperately
looking for the evidence and could not find it.

> that doesn't mean that someone else is also lying. You just
> have to deal with reality.

My evidence for your lying about your belief in "a creator" is
strong, so strong that you are reduced to ignoring it and
running your usual scam:

> Really, just self evaluate this post. Look
> at how it evolved, and look what you are ending up doing. It is just a
> lame and degenerate personal attack because you want to be an asshole.

It is a personal attack, all right, but the degenerate thing is that
you are not denying the thing I accused you of, not directly, but just
indulging in innuendo to that effect.

And if I am correct in my accusation, it would destroy much of your
rationale for the By their Fruits threads that you made regularly.
Instead of a religious Methodist you would be just another atheist
who goes to a Methodist church for social reasons--or just possibly
for more ulterior motives:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing
but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their
fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
--Matthew 7:15-16.

> Snipping out everything isn't going to change reality. You will still
> be the same asshole tomorrow and even if you delete the bogus posts you
> still wrote them.

More projection, except for the "Snipping out everything" part. But
substitute "Completely ignoring everything while leaving it in untouched"
and it fits you like a glove. You just can't help yourself.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

It's about time someone placed Ron on the hot seat. He's been posting for years under a perception of Theism yet, like Peter points out, he slams every notion of Intelligence operating in reality.

Come on Ron, explain the contradiction that Peter has established in the OP. Until you do, you're an Atheist in sheep's clothing.

Ray

[jillery]

"Peter" didn't explain anything in his post. He didn't even identify
a contradiction. At most (worst?), he made an observation (opinion)
that Ron O.'s opinion about a creator has borne no fruit, IOW
mountains from molehills.

I can't recall when Ron O. has made a point about his views of a
Creator, except to counter TbBAs from "peter". Can you?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:38:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> SNIP:

> The sad thing about Nykosian repitition is he is the one that is always
> quoting the Twain quote on the issue, but that is Nyikos.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, Ron O, and I
wonder whether you have any idea yourself.

> I will just post my previous response to this post

Wrong. "this post" included some damning information
about your "previous response", in addition to including the
post to which you earlier responded.
In fact, I quoted from your "previous response" in it!

Here is how "this post" began:

The last post I did in reply to RonO is worth reposting in full
because his reply to that post repeats a misrepresentation
that I quoted and thoroughly refuted.

And here is the original misrepresentation, which most people in possession
of all relevant facts would label a lie:

> What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you
> are just making it up.

I very thoroughly refuted this, and issued a warning that
if you were to again say something to that effect, you would
be squawking like a parrot instead of self evaluating. And
sure enough, you did just that:

_____________excerpt from the post to which you are replying____

RonO's only reference to the above in his reply began with him squawking
like a parrot despite the copious warnings at the end of my post:

"You know that you are just making something up,
and it isn't even very clear what you think that you are
doing except to try to denigrate my religious beliefs
for some degenerate reason."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

As anyone can see, what I was ACTUALLY doing was trying to get
Ron O to clarify WHAT those religious beliefs, if any, are.
The above was only the last in a long series of posts where I
gave him ample opportunity to do that, to no avail.

Peter Nyikos

============= end of excerpt===============================

NONE of that excerpt appeared in the post to which you
made your "previous response".

As for that "previous response," it is simply an attempt
to change the subject from the accumulating evidence
that you have been lying every time you've claimed to
believe in a creator. It is a mountain of undocumented
garbage, most of it so vague that it is impossible to
tell which incidents it could possibly refer to.
And it is shot so full of lies, deceitful innuendo, and
misleading half-truths that it does not deserve a reply.

Nevertheless, I will reply to any part that someone other
than you claims to be true. I will also reply to any
charge that you document with an url that lets people
see whether your charge is true or not. But this latter
offer is only good for the first ten urls. Unless at
least one of those urls verifies a DAMAGING accusation
of yours, only the first offer remains valid from
that point on.

So use those urls wisely. If you document a true
charge that isn't actually damaging, or post an url that
does not demonstrate that the charge is true, you will
have wasted an url. I recommend, then, that you
post a few at a time so that your aim will improve with
feedback from me.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 4:30:28 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 11:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

> "Peter" didn't explain anything in his post.

I see you are still taking childish revenge on me for having put
your name in quotes because it is a pseudonym instead of your real
name. You've even "justified" it with the ridiculous claim
that you are just doing to me what I did to you.

I stopped doing that many months ago, but your thirst for
juvenile revenge probably won't be satisfied until the day
one of us quits talk.origins for good.

> He didn't even identify
> a contradiction.

I identified a statement by Ron O,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

which only makes sense, in the light of his claim that "God"
refers to the Christian God, and in the light of
information about Thomas Aquinas that he never dared to comment on,
if it is taken to mean,

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

> At most (worst?), he made an observation (opinion)
> that Ron O.'s opinion about a creator has borne no fruit,

Stop licking Ron O's boots with garbage like this. First of
all, his repeated running away from the evidence, continued
on this thread, strongly suggests that his "opinion about a creator"
is that it is nonexistent. He has had ample opportunity to
dispute the above "translation" or, if he agrees with it, to explain
what the mysterious "bogus scam designer" is and what makes
it so very different from the Christian God in which he claims
to believe.

Secondly, his silence on these matters is so absolute that it
is reminiscent of the statement of Iago when he has been confronted
with testimony that he has been a malicious liar,

Demand me nothing: what you know, you know:
From this time forth I never will speak word.
--Shakespeare's "Othello," final scene.

> IOW mountains from molehills.

Wishful thinking from someone who has used Ron O before in her
vendetta against me, in the "Turtle genome sequence and analysis"
thread, swapping gossip with him that diverged more and more
from reality as it went on.

Here is what I wrote about that "molehill" in a post to this
thread today:

And if I am correct in my accusation, it would destroy much of your
rationale for the By their Fruits threads that you made regularly.
Instead of a religious Methodist you would be just another atheist
who goes to a Methodist church for social reasons--or just possibly
for more ulterior motives:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing
but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their
fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
--Matthew 7:15-16.

> I can't recall when Ron O. has made a point about his views of a
> Creator, except to counter TbBAs from "peter".

He has called himself a "creationist" many times,
justifying it simply by alleging that he believes in a "creator,"
and not always in reply to me. I'm sure Ray can vouch for this
-- and so could you, I believe.

> Can you?

Like I said, the closest I've ever seen him to making a point about his
"views" [as opposed to just baldly claiming he is a creationist or
that he believes ] is with that statement that I "translated" up
there. Have you ever seen anything more informative than that?

If not, I suggest you get out of this thread lest he drag you
down with him.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:35:37 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

...leaving a bracketed statement incomplete; it is completed below.

> Like I said, the closest I've ever seen him to making a point about his
> "views" [as opposed to just baldly claiming he is a creationist or
> that he believes

in a "creator"]

> is with that statement that I "translated" up
> there. Have you ever seen anything more informative than that?

That statement, again, was:

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

The "translation," made in the light of his claim that "God"

refers to the Christian God, and in the light of
information about Thomas Aquinas that he never dared to comment on,

went like this:

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 14:35:37 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

"peter's" noise deleted without attribution.

>On Friday, May 23, 2014 4:30:28 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 May 2014 11:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>> "Peter" didn't explain anything in his post.

>> He didn't even identify
>> a contradiction.
>
>I identified a statement by Ron O,
>
> "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
>
>which only makes sense, in the light of his claim that "God"
>refers to the Christian God, and in the light of
>information about Thomas Aquinas that he never dared to comment on,
>if it is taken to mean,
>
> "I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
> not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
>
>> At most (worst?), he made an observation (opinion)
>> that Ron O.'s opinion about a creator has borne no fruit,

As I said, you identified no contradiction that Ron O. wrote. Your
interpretations don't count.

>> I can't recall when Ron O. has made a point about his views of a
>> Creator, except to counter TbBAs from "peter".
>
>He has called himself a "creationist" many times,
>justifying it simply by alleging that he believes in a "creator,"
>and not always in reply to me. I'm sure Ray can vouch for this
>-- and so could you, I believe.

ISTM that hardly qualifies as expressing a POV, much less one to make
any noise over. As always YMMV.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:35:37 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>...leaving a bracketed statement incomplete; it is completed below.
>
>> Like I said, the closest I've ever seen him to making a point about his
>> "views" [as opposed to just baldly claiming he is a creationist or
>> that he believes
>in a "creator"]
>
>> is with that statement that I "translated" up
>> there. Have you ever seen anything more informative than that?
>
>That statement, again, was:
>
> "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
>
>The "translation," made in the light of his claim that "God"
>refers to the Christian God, and in the light of
>information about Thomas Aquinas that he never dared to comment on,
>went like this:
>
> "I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
> not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

You're asserting Ron O. wrote a contradiction that he never wrote, but
exists only in your mind. You really should stop doing that. It only
make you sound even more paranoid.

[Ray Martinez]

Ron has referred to himself as a Creationist and a Christian many times, which indicates acceptance of an intelligent Designer; yet Ron, as everyone well knows, vehemently rejects ID. And Ron can be found invoking the Clergy Letter Project quite frequently.

It is perfectly legitimate and fair to confront Ron with this apparent contradiction. He should be eager to clear it up.

Ray

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:19:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:35:37 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>> >...leaving a bracketed statement incomplete; it is completed below.

> >> Like I said, the closest I've ever seen him to making a point about his
> >> "views" [as opposed to just baldly claiming he is a creationist or
> >> that he believes
> >in a "creator"]
> >
> >> is with that statement that I "translated" up
> >> there. Have you ever seen anything more informative than that?
> >
> >That statement, again, was:
> >
> > "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
> >
> >The "translation," made in the light of his claim that "God"
> >refers to the Christian God, and in the light of
> >information about Thomas Aquinas that he never dared to comment on,
> >went like this:
> >
> > "I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
> > not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

> You're asserting Ron O. wrote a contradiction that he never wrote,

Ray made that assertion, not I. You said that I hadn't identified
a contradiction, and instead of confirming or denying that, I went
on to show how ridiculous your NEXT allegation was.

Marxists use the word "contradiction" broadly enough to justify
Ray's statement, but I use it more narrowly, the logical way.

> but
> exists only in your mind. You really should stop doing that. It only
> make you sound even more paranoid.

That "paranoid" dog won't hunt any more. I drew its fangs when I showed
how you repeated Gans's false claims to justify Gans's irrational piggyback
on a post of yours, and made up one or two of your own when his claim
was shown to be false, and Gans told lies to excuse your behavior and
to change his first story into another false one.

People keep calling me "paranoid" for seeing collusions between
others like you and Gans, but they are amply justified by the
way you compromise your integrity for each other. I also have
evidence of you doing that for Ron O elsewhere.

Documentation on request.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ron has referred to himself as a Creationist and a Christian many times, which indicates acceptance of an intelligent Designer; yet Ron, as everyone well knows, vehemently rejects ID. And Ron can be found invoking the Clergy Letter Project quite frequently.
>
>It is perfectly legitimate and fair to confront Ron with this apparent contradiction. He should be eager to clear it up.

You and "peter" share very bad habits of arguing with distinctive and
self-serving definitions, and conflating different meanings of words.
Not all (little-c)reationists and not all Christians are IDiots, at
least not in this Universe.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

deleted "peter's" noise without attribution

>> You're asserting Ron O. wrote a contradiction that he never wrote,
>
>Ray made that assertion, not I.

Then you agree with me, that you identified no contradiction that Ron
O. wrote. So all of your noise about what Ron O. wrote vs your
interpretation of it isn't worth the electrons it took to post it.

[Ray Martinez]

Non-sequitur. All you've done is rephrase the problem without offering explanation or answer.

Peter and I are vehement worldview enemies. Thus any agreement we share in the specifics of this topic can only be viewed as objective.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

>
Ron has referred to himself as a Creationist and a Christian many times, which indicates acceptance of an intelligent Designer; yet Ron, as everyone well knows, vehemently rejects ID. And Ron can be found invoking the Clergy Letter Project quite frequently.

It is perfectly legitimate and fair to confront Ron with this apparent contradiction. He should be eager to clear it up.
>

Jillery: How is the contradiction in anyway murky or ambiguous? Will you or Ron ever address?

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 17:09:53 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 23, 2014 4:02:42 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 May 2014 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Ron has referred to himself as a Creationist and a Christian many times, which indicates acceptance of an intelligent Designer; yet Ron, as everyone well knows, vehemently rejects ID. And Ron can be found invoking the Clergy Letter Project quite frequently.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It is perfectly legitimate and fair to confront Ron with this apparent contradiction. He should be eager to clear it up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You and "peter" share very bad habits of arguing with distinctive and
>>
>> self-serving definitions, and conflating different meanings of words.
>>
>> Not all (little-c)reationists and not all Christians are IDiots, at
>>
>> least not in this Universe.
>
>Non-sequitur.

Very sequitur.

>All you've done is rephrase the problem without offering explanation or answer.

Wrong again. Applying standard definitions, you describe no problem
to explain or answer.

>Peter and I are vehement worldview enemies. Thus any agreement we share in the specifics of this topic can only be viewed as objective.

Since "peter" agreed with me that he identified no contradiction by
Ron O., you disagree with the author of the specifics, and so by your
definition of objective, your interpretation is subjective.

I love to watch petard hoisting.

[jillery]

As I pointed out already, Ron O. refers to himself as a
(little-c)reationist, to explicitly distinguish himself from a
(big-C)reationist like you. IIRC his definition of creationism is
spiritual, and has nothing to do with biological evolution. So your
inference to ID is false.

The Clergy Letter Project is good evidence that, contrary to your
distinctive definition, lots of self-identified Christians, and their
Denominations as a body, accept the fundamentals of evolution,
including Common Descent and natural selection.

These are all old issues, long ago resolved, something that "peter"
raises now just to make noise. You have been on T.O. far longer than
I have, so you have no good reason to not know these things.

[RonO]

On 5/23/2014 7:13 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,
>
> I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
> encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
> "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
> ""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
> after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.

Why lie? What are you snipping out and lying about? What is your whole
pathetic religious argument about? You obviously have not self
evaluated anything.

>
> The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
> torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
> as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
> have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.

No it isn't. Why lie like this. You know that if you could counter
anything that you would, but instead all you are reduced to is a stupid
and pathetic religious argument where you were caught making up stupid
junk again. Where did all that lame junk come from? Just go back
through all the history and what you have tried to manipulate and lie
about for years. You know that I am a Methodist. I was baptized as an
adult, so I entered the church with a full understanding of what I was
doing. I even asked the minister about certain things that I did not
take literally to determine if he had any objections. You aren't
baptized as a baby with no understanding of what you are doing.

I have openly admitted that I likely have similar beliefs in God as you
do. What is my definition of creationist? What were you lying about
when I made that statement? I have admitted that I am a creationist by
my definition so what is your beef from the start? These are just my
religious beliefs. No one can demonstrate that they have a created
soul. That isn't an issue. You have to take some things on faith.
Some people do lie about that, but I have never denied it. Nor have I
ever claimed that my religious beliefs were more than religious beliefs.
My beliefs are not issues because I admit that I can't justify any of
them in any scientific sense. I am just like most other honest
Christians. Likely the type that signed the Clergy letter project.
They are not something that I have to lie about like you do.

You know this because you keep lying about the episode where you claim
that my explanation was inadequate, but in order to tell that lie you
had to snip out most of what I had written and left only a single
sentence. You will not go back and demonstrate that you are not lying
because it would just demonstrate that I am telling the truth. Running
from reality should have made a rational person self evaluate the
situation and quit the delusional and degenerate stupidity because the
only reason that you were doing it was because you lied about your own
religious beliefs and projection is just a stupid way of life for you.
You only compound your stupidity by continuing on.

So you haven't self evaluated the situation. You haven't gone back
through this series of posts and come to grips with what you have done.
You got caught lying about snipping and running and to do it you had
to snip and run. Just go back and check. You are that sad.

>
>
>> you are just removing as much
>> context as you can
>
> Liar. I'm not removing anything, I'm just summarizing some of what went
> on between us. This lie of yours is designed to make me do 500+
> line posts that nobody will read because of their length.

Go back to the post that I am responding to above. The post has been
removed from the original thread. What is left of anything that I
wrote? Where is the context? You basically have one sentence by me and
you don't even link to the post that it was written in, but you link to
a post where you have removed most of what I wrote in the post that the
one sentence comes from. Where is the context? Why do you remove as
much context as you can before you respond to a post? It is your own
stupid rules about lying that make you do it, but you are still lying
because the material does not go away just because you snip it out.

How delustional can you be to try to lie about such an issue when you
can post a post like you did above? You even delete the stupid post
from my response because I left it all intact so that you could self
evaluate it. Even in your second response below you removed the context
for this lie about not removing anything. How sad is that? This is
your post. Where is the context?

Why do you do this? You only look like more of a tragic self deluded
asshole when I have to demonstrate why you should self evaluate a post.

QUOTE:

Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
this creator is supposed to be like.

END QUOTE:

What kind of person would start a side thread to do this and then lie
about what he is doing while removing the context as he is lying about
the issue, and lying about removing context?

You really are that sad and you have to self evaluate the situation and
determine if you want to be the dishonest and degenerate asshole that
you are.

You know that the one sentence refers to the ID scam intelligent
designer with all the religious references removed. That is a scam God.
You know that they have the same Christian God that I do, but they
have to lie about it. What else does that sentence mean when you know
what the issue has been for years?

Why did you have to snip the post from my response? Why am I the one
that has to put it bsck in for the context that you are lying about not
removing?

>
>> and digging yourself a deeper hole for when you have
>> to run away again.
>
> It is you who kept running away from ALL the relevant context,
> and I defy you to try and prove otherwise. This last bit of
> yours is the same kind of scam as that "You need to self evaluate,"
> and those loaded questions I talked about.

You have dug a pretty deep hole in just the first two paragraphs. Two
paragraphs two obvious lies.

You don't defy anything you just lie. I just demonstrated it. You
lied. Deal with it.

>
>> That is how it always is and this case is no
>> different. How is this different from your made up dirty debating junk?
>
> Another loaded question, this time of the "have you stopped beating your
> wife yet?" variety. It is you who post dirty debating junk, in enormous
> quantities. The features I've written about so far are just the tip
> of the iceberg.

If you could demonstrate that this lie is true, it would have been among
your stupid knockdowns, but you run from your bogousity and just do some
other lame and stupid junk. Just face reality. It took you a year and
a half to produce your three knockdowns that were supposed to be
delivered in a couple of weeks because you went back through every
dishonest and delusional episode and found that you were the dirty
debater and general all around lying asshole. Those are just facts that
you can't deny. Self evaluate the knockdowns. How pathetic and
dishonest were all of them when you can't even tell me what the last one
is supposed to be and give me a link to the post? You know who the
dirty debater has always been. You know that it is you that have run
all the stupid and dishonest dirty tricks. When it became apparent that
you had lied to Bill and just made up the stupid story, you did not
apologize, but started another dirty trick misdirection thread. In the
same Dirty debating thread you lied about never running misdirection
ploys and what did you end up doing? You are that sad.

>
>> How is it different from all your other stupid personal attacks where
>> your delusions got the best of you.
>
> There were none, liar.

Just go back to the dirty debating thread and demonstrate that. Why lie?

>
>> Just think back to how deluded your
>> "running away from one post" thread was.
>
> No delusion, just me using your deluded "running away" junk in exactly
> the way you've used it hundreds of times. I sometimes apply the adage,
> "Turnabout is fair play," and this was one of those times.

It was your definition of running away. What an ass.

My definition is a pretty definite one. If you are told that the post
exists, or you obviously know that it exists because you posted to it,
but you ran from the contents and repeatedly will not address the
contents that you are running from, that is running away. You know that
you do it all the time. Your own definition is just a subset.

>
> And YOU are running away from the CONTENT of the post to which you
> are following up, and repeating this pack of lies to disguise that fact.

Demonstrate that using what I have written about it above without
removing anything. Go for it. You are obviously just making up junk
that you can't defend or you wouldn't have snipped it out of your responses.

>
> Continued in next reply, to come no later than some time today.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Are you deluded enough to accuse me of "running away" because
> I don't go through your entire pile of trash right away?
>

That is what you do. Projection is just sad. It brings back memories
of how I laughed when you made such a big deal about me saying that I
had to go to a movie so I'd have to get back to the post later. Not
many people are as delusional and stupidly degenerate as you are. It
should remind you of your delusional second knockdown and the made up
Google story. You really are this sad and degenerate. Just self
evaluate this last PS. Projection is just a way of life for you and
what is this religious argument except more projection? Have I lied
about my religious beliefs like you do?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/23/2014 9:22 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/22/2014 12:11 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
>>> December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
>>> believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
>>> subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
>>> alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
>>> In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
>>> this creator is supposed to be like.
>
> And this resistance has become total on this thread so far.
> Instead, Ron O is acting like a Usenet Treadmill Salesman,
> demanding that I "self evaluate" etc.

It is no resistance. It is just reality. We have gone over this issue
before and you know where you have had to run and lie about it. There
was nothing for me to resist. Just deal with my response to your first
half. Was there anything to resist? You were obviously making a big
deal about nothing, and all I was trying to do was to get you to
determine that for yourself. It worked in a way. You did snip it out
and run from what you had done. Where is that post? I left it in my
response, but it is missing.

That is just how you deal with your own stupidity. Running away from it
and trying to hide it is just stupid.

>
> He is projecting; in fact, I do believe he is
> one of the people in this newsgroup LEAST given to self-evaluation,
> because he is the most pathologically self-satisfied person
> in this whole newsgroup. Others are equally self-satisfied, but
> it comes out in other ways than the pathology displayed by Ron O.

As my first response indicates, projection is just a way of life for
you. That you have to project in a series of posts that are basically
all projection on your part is pretty sad.

Just take a look at the post that I just responded to above. What
wasn't projection in the whole degenerate post from you?

>
> And I suspect he was stung a number of times in the past by
> people who, showing insight into his true nature, told him he
> needed to self-evaluate. If so, then he is probably naive enough to think
> that this line is as humiliating to me as it must have been to him.
> In fact, I am not the least bit embarrassed to be the target of
> this scam of his.

Actually, you know where I got the idea. We had the Dunning Kruger
effect thread. I learned that the delusional people could be trained to
better self evaluate their misconceptions about themselves. It hasn't
worked for you, likely because there is a point where delusion rules and
takes over.

>
> <snip things dealt with in first reply>

Pretty sad how you dealt with the junk in your first reply isn't it?

>
>> Just think back to how deluded your
>> "running away from one post" thread was.
>
> As I explained in my first reply, there was no delusion whatsoever
> in it or about it. And by the way, you did NOT provide the url
> for that thread-starting post below. What you provided instead
> was a reply by you to a post where I rejoiced about a DELAYED
> reply by you, but I had no illusions that you would forever ignore
> that post. But you spin-doctored that into a claim that I was
> talking about you MISSING a post.

Because I did not remove your post, so I didn't have to put up two
links. You know, I don't do the junk like you do to snip and run.

>
>> I know that you aren't legally
>> insane because you have enough on the ball to see through your delusions
>> eventually and run away. It has been that way for years.
>
> Wow, you've really demonstrated your pathological, but at the same time
> cunning, dishonesty with this complex lie. You begin
> with an deceitful insinuation that the only reasonable excuse I have
> against your allegations is insanity. Then you more explicitly imply
> that I have delusions, whereas nobody in this newsgroup has been able
> to demonstrate that I have any; and you cloak this in a twisted
> allegation that I can see through (nonexistent) delusions.

There is no doubt that you are delusional. You have your stupid one
post rule, your running away from a post rule, etc. It is how you
maintain your delusions of adequacy. You have lied on the internet.
You just got caught in a couple bogus lies in your response in the post
above. You have lost exchanges on the internet because you finally
admitted that the evidence was convincing and that issue was dropped.
You run from so many issues and do stupid junk to maintain your denial.
Just think back to the first thing that you were wrong about when you
came back to TO. You ran from your Ohio fiasco denial. You know that
you were wrong. You started a misdirection ploy and how did that
eventually turn out years later? You were wrong, and you were wrong in
your misdirection thread. There is no doubt that you are delusional.
Just your few responses in this thread demonstrate that. If you could
self evaluate what you have done and deal with your delusions, would you
have started this thread?

>
> To top it all off, you allege "running away" from certain (crappy false)
> allegations without identifying a single alleged example. The "eventually"
> gives the game away: I have repeatedly stuck like a burr to your lies,
> which you justify by more lies, and so on down the line until, thwarted
> at every turn, you post an unsupported allegation and then post some
> crud immediately after it that doesn't even bear on the allegation. This is
> where I "eventually run away"--from crud that I have identified as "crud"
> numerous times.

If they were false they would have made much better knockdowns than the
pathetic delusional junk that you put up. That is a fact. The first
knockdown was based on a dishonest quote mine and how did you deal with
that? The second knockdown was the result of you getting caught making
up a delusional Google story that could have never happened because
Google doesn't work that way. You can't even bring yourself to tell me
what the third knockdown is and give me a link to the post. You know
that you are the one that lies and runs away. It is just a stupid fact
that you have to learn to deal with.

>
> Many of your lies are this complex, so that to thoroughly refute them
> takes FAR longer than it takes you to utter them. That is why
> it is such a despicable lie by you to claim "If I lied, Nyikos would
> prove it in a heartbeat." It would be a lie even if your lies weren't
> so complex that I could refute them in the same amount of time it
> takes you to type them, because that is only the first step in a
> long running battle as described in brief in my preceding paragraph.

What is complex about them. Go back to the Dirty debating thread. Who
started that thread? Who would not defend their initial allegations
about dirty debating? Who lied to Bill? Who was the dirty debater?
Who could not deal with reality and ran another misdirection ploy in a
thread where he claimed that he had never run misdirection ploys, but it
was one of his standard tactics?

You just get caught lying. There is a lack of complexity. Just look at
what you got caught lying about in my response above?

>
>> What you need to do is go through just this last series of posts and
>> self evaluate what you did,
>
> I would just affirm that I stand by everything I wrote. You should
> strongly suspect that, unless you are insane.

You also have to stand by what you removed so that you could lie to
yourself about what you wrote. The material does exist even if you have
removed it. Just go back and look, you had to snip out the the material
so that you could continue to lie about it when you were lying about
having the problem about snipping and lying. What did you consistently do?

>
>> how you screwed up and how stupid and
>> degenerate it is to continue to do what you think that you are doing.
>
> You can't demonstrate a screw-up by me, and I think you know it, because
> you aren't documenting anything that even LOOKS like a screw up anywhere
> in this thread so far.

Just read the posts by me in this thread and compare them to yours. Who
consistently gets caught lying, and who makes the false accusations that
they can't back up.

>
>> Deal with your problem of projection.
>
> What a laugh! You are projecting below, and anyone who has read the
> first two posts of this thread knows that to some extent already.
> And you aren't touching the CONTENT of those posts with a ten foot pole.

What about your first response was not projection? You even projected
your own behavior in your PS at the end of the post. How sad is that?
You can't deny it, you can only lie about it.

>
>
>> When you are caught doing
>> something stupid and dishonest, that doesn't mean that your victim was
>> doing something stupid and dishonest, it simply means that you were
>> being your usual assoholic self.
>
>
>> Why you lie about your religious beliefs
>
> I don't, and you are already ignoring how you alleged that I had said
> that I go to Mass "to worship the God who created your immortal soul"
> and I told you the closest thing to it that I could recall, and you
> admitted that this was not the same thing, and you kept desperately
> looking for the evidence and could not find it.

You admitted to going to mass because of the soul that you hoped would
go on after you died. You just have to couple this with the part of the
definition that you snipped out and ran from to know what type of
creationist you are. You were very specific about what you removed, and
you never went back and addressed the issue like you said. You did just
about everything but address the issue. When the position became
untenable and you started babbling about beileve in and believe that
mattering you lied about being an agnostic.

>
>> that doesn't mean that someone else is also lying. You just
>> have to deal with reality.
>
> My evidence for your lying about your belief in "a creator" is
> strong, so strong that you are reduced to ignoring it and
> running your usual scam:
>
>> Really, just self evaluate this post. Look
>> at how it evolved, and look what you are ending up doing. It is just a
>> lame and degenerate personal attack because you want to be an asshole.

What is there to run from? Unlike you I have made no denials. Just
check out my response above where I demonstrate how bogus you are. You
have known these things for years and what are you doing?

Shouldn't you have taken my advice and self evaluated before lying about
stupid and senseless things?

>
> It is a personal attack, all right, but the degenerate thing is that
> you are not denying the thing I accused you of, not directly, but just
> indulging in innuendo to that effect.

It is only a personal attack. It is as degenerate and assoholic as your
racist junk. You are that low of a scum bag. I can't change that fact
and I will not sugar coat it.

>
> And if I am correct in my accusation, it would destroy much of your
> rationale for the By their Fruits threads that you made regularly.
> Instead of a religious Methodist you would be just another atheist
> who goes to a Methodist church for social reasons--or just possibly
> for more ulterior motives:

How will it destroy the by their fruits rational? Why make these
accusations? Is this just more projection about why you go to church?
That would be pretty sad.

>
> Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing
> but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their
> fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
> --Matthew 7:15-16.

You know for a fact that you are just making up another issue. It is a
simple quote that never had anything to do with what you are claiming.
The posters are just the fruit of creationism and intelligent design
creationism. I just contend that you can tell something about the
political scam by the fruit of the political scam. Why make up more
stories. These are just degenerate personal attacks and are just
evidence that you are the asshole that you are.

>
>> Snipping out everything isn't going to change reality. You will still
>> be the same asshole tomorrow and even if you delete the bogus posts you
>> still wrote them.
>
> More projection, except for the "Snipping out everything" part. But
> substitute "Completely ignoring everything while leaving it in untouched"
> and it fits you like a glove. You just can't help yourself.

Go back to the posts under discussion. Keeping one sentence is nothing
to brag about. Not only that, but in the past you have removed
everything that I have written in a post from multiple locations in the
post before responding to the post. It is a joke by now. You can't
deny it.

>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Are you going to do any self evaluation before continuing or are you too
far gone to be trained to better evaluate what a loser you are.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/23/2014 3:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:38:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> SNIP:
>
>> The sad thing about Nykosian repitition is he is the one that is always
>> quoting the Twain quote on the issue, but that is Nyikos.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about here, Ron O, and I
> wonder whether you have any idea yourself.

Just recall you stupid rants during the time you claim that your third
knockdown was delivered. Who could not accept reality, and kept
repeating himself while making the quote claim about insanity and
repetition? You should go back to that episode and tell me what the
third knockdown was so that you can confirm that it was you with the
insanity quote.

>
>> I will just post my previous response to this post
>
> Wrong. "this post" included some damning information
> about your "previous response", in addition to including the
> post to which you earlier responded.
> In fact, I quoted from your "previous response" in it!
>
> Here is how "this post" began:
>
> The last post I did in reply to RonO is worth reposting in full
> because his reply to that post repeats a misrepresentation
> that I quoted and thoroughly refuted.

What does it matter?

Why not deal with the response that I have already given?

>
> And here is the original misrepresentation, which most people in possession
> of all relevant facts would label a lie:
>
> > What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you
> > are just making it up.
>
> I very thoroughly refuted this, and issued a warning that
> if you were to again say something to that effect, you would
> be squawking like a parrot instead of self evaluating. And
> sure enough, you did just that:

This is getting ridiculous.

If you want to discuss the religious non issue go to my previous
response today.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/b-iHNFjgFEkJ

It summarizes the religious issue to date and demonstrates that there is
no issue and that you should have self evaluated this series of bogus
posts before continuing in your degenerate and delusional fashion.
There is no mystery. You are making it all up. There literally is
nothing that you can justify discussing on the issue. If there ever was
you wouldn't have been lying about it for so long. Why make up more
junk that you will have to run from? Just think about why you are stuck
with this religious issue. What happened to all your other lies?

>
> _____________excerpt from the post to which you are replying____
>
>
> RonO's only reference to the above in his reply began with him squawking
> like a parrot despite the copious warnings at the end of my post:
>
> "You know that you are just making something up,
> and it isn't even very clear what you think that you are
> doing except to try to denigrate my religious beliefs
> for some degenerate reason."
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J
>
> As anyone can see, what I was ACTUALLY doing was trying to get
> Ron O to clarify WHAT those religious beliefs, if any, are.
> The above was only the last in a long series of posts where I
> gave him ample opportunity to do that, to no avail.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> ============= end of excerpt===============================
>
> NONE of that excerpt appeared in the post to which you
> made your "previous response".

So I missed that you had added something to the post. I admit that I
didn't read the post because it looked like just another of your stupid
reposts. So what of the addition? It doesn't change what you refuse to
self evaluate, and it doesn't amount to jack. You are just making up
more stories. There is absolutely no reason why I have to cater to your
made up delusions all the time.

>
> As for that "previous response," it is simply an attempt
> to change the subject from the accumulating evidence
> that you have been lying every time you've claimed to
> believe in a creator. It is a mountain of undocumented
> garbage, most of it so vague that it is impossible to
> tell which incidents it could possibly refer to.
> And it is shot so full of lies, deceitful innuendo, and
> misleading half-truths that it does not deserve a reply.

That is why you consistently snip and lie. Just go to the response that
I link to above. What are you doing? You should have self evaluated
the issues before making a fool of yourself, but in your current
delusional state you couldn't do that and had to make yourself into the
delusional asshole we all know. Sanity will eventually prevail and you
will run away, and in a few weeks or months come back with more
delusions. At this point all your assoholic delusional self can do is
harass me. It has been that way for years. I don't know why you keep
doing it because you always end up on the short end and have to run in
denial (If this were not true why wasn't any instance one of your
knockdowns?). Even when I made the stupid mistake that you are claiming
has something to do with your third knockdown, that you can't bring
yourself to tell me about. I resolved the issue in an honest and
straight forward manner once I realized my mistake and it was you that
tried to bloat it out of proportion and kept up your delusional rants
and stupidity making yourself look like a drooling idiot. Why not tell
me what the third knockdown is and why it is a knockdown and give me a
link to the post? I am not like you. You can project your stupid and
dishonest behavior onto me all that you want, but you end up looking
like the liar that you are whenever you do it. Just think of all the
stories that you have been caught making up?

>
> Nevertheless, I will reply to any part that someone other
> than you claims to be true. I will also reply to any
> charge that you document with an url that lets people
> see whether your charge is true or not. But this latter
> offer is only good for the first ten urls. Unless at
> least one of those urls verifies a DAMAGING accusation
> of yours, only the first offer remains valid from
> that point on.

The thing about self evaluation is that no one should have to point out
to you how delusional and stupid you are. just go to the link provided
and don't snip and run away, but deal with how your arguments turn out
to be lies. You get caught lying about junk that you are doing so that
you can lie about lying. Self evaluate and start dealing with reality.

>
> So use those urls wisely. If you document a true
> charge that isn't actually damaging, or post an url that
> does not demonstrate that the charge is true, you will
> have wasted an url. I recommend, then, that you
> post a few at a time so that your aim will improve with
> feedback from me.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

This is stupid. It is plainly evident from the series of posts that you
are lying about why you are snipping, and lying about not having that
problem. It is a point that you can't deny because of what you removed
each time. You are even snipping and lying when you make the denials
that you have a problem snipping and lying. That is how sad that series
of posts are. Just look at what you did. I couldn't make up the crap.
You are just that degenerate of an asshole.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 8:09:53 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Peter and I are vehement worldview enemies. Thus any agreement we share in the specifics of this topic can only be viewed as objective.

Since Peter is the founder of this topic, everything he says with regard to it is objective. Your views are objective if they line up with his. Otherwise they are subjective. See, that's what I've learned from your definition of objective and subjective in the other threads.

>
>
>
> Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 09:48:25 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, May 23, 2014 8:09:53 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> Peter and I are vehement worldview enemies. Thus any agreement we share in the specifics of this topic can only be viewed as objective.
>
>Since Peter is the founder of this topic, everything he says with regard to it is objective. Your views are objective if they line up with his. Otherwise they are subjective. See, that's what I've learned from your definition of objective and subjective in the other threads.

I love petard hoisting repeats!

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 7:13 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,

> > I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
> > encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
> > "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
> > ""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
> > after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.

> Why lie?

You need to ask yourself that question, since you are the only one
of us lying.

> What are you snipping out and lying about?

I am snipping out diversionary tactics by you, who are the liar,
not I.

> What is your whole
> pathetic religious argument about?

Clearly, it is about the fact that you have given no evidence that your
claim to believe in a creator is anything but a lie.

>You obviously have not self
> evaluated anything.

You can't even lie convincingly. The things you allegedly wanted me to self
evaluate about have nothing to do with your claim to believe in a creator,
which is all I have been talking about here.

Perhaps you are stupid enough to be also referring to your
"making it all up" parroting, but I refuted that many times over and you have
done your version of running away: completely ignoring what I wrote,
while leaving it in and not even heeding the warning not to go on
parroting.


It is only NOW, in the post to which I am replying, and not before,
that you finally tried, far below, to get me to "self-evaluate" on what
you only wrote a few out of hundreds of lines about in the earlier
posts to this thread, including your repost from the other thread:
you left everything I wrote in at the end while treating it as I
indicated above. And the following description also applies:

> > The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
> > torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
> > as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
> > have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.
>
> No it isn't. Why lie like this.

Your second sentence is a perfect description of the first.

> You know that if you could counter
> anything that you would,

Again a clumsy lie. Some of it HAS been countered many times before,
and ALL of it on this thread is undocumented, and much of it is so vague
it is impossible to guess which specific incident you are referring to.

> but instead all you are reduced to is a stupid
> and pathetic religious argument where you were caught making up stupid
> junk again.

You have been squeezed into a corner from which there is no escape, and
are only painting yourself further into the corner with
this despicable claim of victory where defeat by forfeit is much
closer to the the truth. But, given the fact that you have chosen
to side with the dominant clique in talk.origins, the pragmatic
truth is that we are in a state like perpetual check in chess, where
I keep shoving the logical consequences of your statements in your
face, and you keep running away from them as described above and below

> Where did all that lame junk come from?

Your keyboard, and I only took it to the logical conclusions.

It started with the line I keep telling people about,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

> Just go back
> through all the history

The relevant part of the history began with that statement, and for a while
I took the natural attitude that you didn't believe in an
intelligent designer, but your minimal comments, as pathetic as
this "making it up" parroting, finally convinced me that you were
just posting empty phrases without there being any real thought
behind them.

______________excerpt from reply to you___________________________

> > But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> > intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.
>
> I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.

Can't you recognize when your own words are flung back at you? Compare:

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

and
"you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam."

> > Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
> > in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
> > Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
> > reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
> > an infinite spider.
> >
> > Rest snipped, same offer as above.
>

Reason. If your "God" cannot intelligently design or intelligently create,
then It might as well be doing it unconsciously, by blind instinct,
like a spider spinning a web.

When was your IQ last tested? It looks like it has dropped well below
the 100 level.

> Are you thinking about someone
> else? You are responding to my post and named me by name, but where is
> this junk coming from? It sounds like you have had some other
> discussion with someone else.

In fact, it may be below the 75 level.
======================end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/nN_deAEI9JUJ
Subject: Re: By their Fruits March 2014

> You know that I am a Methodist. I was baptized as an
> adult, so I entered the church with a full understanding of what I was
> doing. I even asked the minister about certain things that I did not
> take literally to determine if he had any objections. You aren't
> baptized as a baby with no understanding of what you are doing.

You are saying nothing about the actual contents of that understanding,
so that what you are saying is fully compatible with you deciding to
become a Methodist for purely social reasons, or even for the purpose
of convincing other Methodists to abandon all rational foundation for having
faith in the supernatural and to fall back on pure Fideism, which is another
name for blind faith that makes the believer ripe for plucking by atheists.

Your maniacal hatred of everyone and everything associated with Intelligent
Design, such as the Discovery Institute, makes this last possibility
quite plausible.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 5/26/2014 11:34 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/23/2014 7:13 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,
>
>>> I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
>>> encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
>>> "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
>>> ""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
>>> after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.
>
>> Why lie?
>
> You need to ask yourself that question, since you are the only one
> of us lying.

Why even try to maintain the delusion? What kind of person would have
posted your self emolation if he had self evaluated the post where you
had to demonstrate that you were lying in order to continue to lie.
Look at how you had to remove the context to lie about not removing the
context. You can't get any worse than that.

>
>> What are you snipping out and lying about?
>
> I am snipping out diversionary tactics by you, who are the liar,
> not I.

The material that demonstrated that you are lying is missing. You did
snip it out. You don't deny that do you?

>
>> What is your whole
>> pathetic religious argument about?
>
> Clearly, it is about the fact that you have given no evidence that your
> claim to believe in a creator is anything but a lie.

There is this one problem, nothing that I say seems to matter and you
ignore it all to make this claim, so how am I supposed to convince you
when you would have to believe what I have told you in the past?

>
>> You obviously have not self
>> evaluated anything.
>
> You can't even lie convincingly. The things you allegedly wanted me to self
> evaluate about have nothing to do with your claim to believe in a creator,
> which is all I have been talking about here.

It is no lie. Your current stupidity and denial are evidence of that.
What a loser. How am I supposed to convince you of my religious beliefs
when you have denegrated and denied everything that I have told you
about it? You are simply delusional to the point where reality will
likely be taking hold in a few posts and you will end up running away
again. Just like all the other times.

>
> Perhaps you are stupid enough to be also referring to your
> "making it all up" parroting, but I refuted that many times over and you have
> done your version of running away: completely ignoring what I wrote,
> while leaving it in and not even heeding the warning not to go on
> parroting.

What about my religious beliefs are you not making up in what you
snipped out? why would you know any of that junk that you were making up?

>
>
> It is only NOW, in the post to which I am replying, and not before,
> that you finally tried, far below, to get me to "self-evaluate" on what
> you only wrote a few out of hundreds of lines about in the earlier
> posts to this thread, including your repost from the other thread:
> you left everything I wrote in at the end while treating it as I
> indicated above. And the following description also applies:

This is just another lie. What does self evaluate mean? How many posts
have you refused to do it and just snipped and lied while claiming that
you do not have the problem of snipping and lying.

You were supposed to self evaluate what you had written, but you never
did. You ran in denial each time. What is there not to understand?
You even did what you were denying that you do when you did it. That is
how lame and senseless it was. Just go back and self evaluate the mess.

>
>>> The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
>>> torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
>>> as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
>>> have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.
>>
>> No it isn't. Why lie like this.
>
> Your second sentence is a perfect description of the first.

It is a simple question, that you have to answer. Why lie like this?
If you had self evaluated the posts would a sane and rational person
have done the things that he was lying about not doing?

>
>> You know that if you could counter
>> anything that you would,
>
> Again a clumsy lie. Some of it HAS been countered many times before,
> and ALL of it on this thread is undocumented, and much of it is so vague
> it is impossible to guess which specific incident you are referring to.

This is no lie. Just look at your made up stories that you call
knockdowns. If you could demonstrate that I was lying about anything
you obviously would in a heartbeat. That is just the kind of asshole
that you are. Why lie about it? Wouldn't a real lie from me count as
more of a knockdown than what you have managed to come up with? You
can't even tell me what the third knockdown was supposed to be and give
me a link to the post. That is how sad and tragic you are. You are
quick to lie about someone else to make them look bad, you obviously
would want to demonstrate something real if you could, but it never
happens. You have mentioned pathological lying, so you may just not
want to tell the truth. What kind of option is that?

>
>> but instead all you are reduced to is a stupid
>> and pathetic religious argument where you were caught making up stupid
>> junk again.
>
> You have been squeezed into a corner from which there is no escape, and
> are only painting yourself further into the corner with
> this despicable claim of victory where defeat by forfeit is much
> closer to the the truth. But, given the fact that you have chosen
> to side with the dominant clique in talk.origins, the pragmatic
> truth is that we are in a state like perpetual check in chess, where
> I keep shoving the logical consequences of your statements in your
> face, and you keep running away from them as described above and below

There is no doubt that this is just stupid delusional projection. Who
was just caught in this thread doing what he was lying about not doing?
What did you remove from your post? What did I put back in for context?

>
>> Where did all that lame junk come from?
>
> Your keyboard, and I only took it to the logical conclusions.
>
> It started with the line I keep telling people about,
>
> "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

This is so sad. You have known what this meant since I wrote it, and
you know that it has never meant anything like you seem to be trying to
claim. What is the intelligent designer of the ID scam? It is a scam
intelligent designer where they have to remove any clue as to who or
what it is for dishonest political purposes, but you know for a fact
that their intelligent designer really is the same Christian God that
all Christians worship.

Why are you not able to self evaluate the situation and determine what
you have to do in order to maintain your stupidity? What did you remove
from your first post in this thread in order to keep denying reality?

>
>> Just go back
>> through all the history
>
> The relevant part of the history began with that statement, and for a while
> I took the natural attitude that you didn't believe in an
> intelligent designer, but your minimal comments, as pathetic as
> this "making it up" parroting, finally convinced me that you were
> just posting empty phrases without there being any real thought
> behind them.

No it doesn't because you know what the issue has been for years, and
you know what a scam it is, so you know that what you are claiming is so
out of whack that you had to delete it from your response.

>
> ______________excerpt from reply to you___________________________
>
>>> But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
>>> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.
>>
>> I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.
>
> Can't you recognize when your own words are flung back at you? Compare:
>
> "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
> and
> "you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam."

This is obviously not in context, and the context actualliy is years of
discussion with you. So why make this more than it is. What type of
scam designer do you think that I was talking about when we have been
discussing the ID scam for years? You obviously should have self
evaluated before you had to create this bogus thread and further
demonstrate what a delusional liar that you are.

>
>>> Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
>>> in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
>>> Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
>>> reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
>>> an infinite spider.
>>>
>>> Rest snipped, same offer as above.
>>
>
> Reason. If your "God" cannot intelligently design or intelligently create,
> then It might as well be doing it unconsciously, by blind instinct,
> like a spider spinning a web.

Where did this come from? Aren't you just making it up? This is more
like the ID scam designer than anything that I have described. You are
supposed to be a practicing Catholic unless you lied about that, and
what does this have to do with the Christian faith? Don't Catholics
have to accept Jesus Christ as their savior? Are we worshiping a
mindless God? What do you think that you accept when you get baptized
into the Methodist Church? That is the main thing that matters. The
minister made that point clearly.

>
> When was your IQ last tested? It looks like it has dropped well below
> the 100 level.

Stupid and lame personal attacks when you get caught lying make your IQ
seem less than it likely is. Your delusions obviously drop your IQ to
about zero. Just go back and reflect on this whole episode and
determine who the asshole is that would try to denegrate someone elses
religious beliefs just because they got caught lying about their own.

>
>> Are you thinking about someone
>> else? You are responding to my post and named me by name, but where is
>> this junk coming from? It sounds like you have had some other
>> discussion with someone else.
>
> In fact, it may be below the 75 level.

Poor guy. Who is so into projection that they were caught projecting
about projection in a post that was mostly projection? What else are
these school yard taunts except acknowledgement as to how much of a
stupid ass you have made of yourself?

> ======================end of excerpt from
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/nN_deAEI9JUJ
> Subject: Re: By their Fruits March 2014

You should go back and self evaluate the post linked to above and the
subsequent posts to determine just how delusional you are. Why did you
put it up again? It just shows you being an ass about one post that I
missed because you post to old threads and Thunderbird does not put the
active threads at the top, but posts them where they are back in the
past. Did you self evaluate like I said? Would you be making such a
big deal about what you are lying about if you had self evaluated and
sanity had prevailed?

Look at you below. You have again deleted your first post in this
thread because it demonstrates just what you are lying about. How sad
is that? You know what that one line means and it doesn't mean anything
like you want it to, so why keep lying about the issue?

>
>> You know that I am a Methodist. I was baptized as an
>> adult, so I entered the church with a full understanding of what I was
>> doing. I even asked the minister about certain things that I did not
>> take literally to determine if he had any objections. You aren't
>> baptized as a baby with no understanding of what you are doing.
>
> You are saying nothing about the actual contents of that understanding,
> so that what you are saying is fully compatible with you deciding to
> become a Methodist for purely social reasons, or even for the purpose
> of convincing other Methodists to abandon all rational foundation for having
> faith in the supernatural and to fall back on pure Fideism, which is another
> name for blind faith that makes the believer ripe for plucking by atheists.
>
> Your maniacal hatred of everyone and everything associated with Intelligent
> Design, such as the Discovery Institute, makes this last possibility
> quite plausible.
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

What is not common knowledge about what I have claimed? Just self
evaluate before you continue. What have you snipped out? What
degenerate claims are you making just to be an asshole? Isn't your
continuation just insane? What did you have to remove from the post to
maintain your delusions? Is it worth it?

Just think about your projection about maniacal hatred for intelligent
design. My guess is that it is you that has the maniacal hatred for
intelligent design at this point because it was all a scam that made you
look like an assoholic fool. These types of posts are just the result
of that expressed in the only way that you can and continue to maintain
your delusions. Isn't that much more plausible in light of what you
just did above? Who is the asshole that keeps pestering me for years
after the issues were settled and you were found to be wrong about the
ID scam? It has been years where you have kept up your relentless
harassment about knockdowns that were still coming and other stupidity.
That has all been you. You wouldn't have even had to start lying
about your religious beliefs if you hadn't made it an issue. It hadn't
been an issue had it? You were wrong about the ID scam because you were
wrong, not because you were a creationist. Just think about how sad
this whole thing is at this time. You are that degenerate of an
asshole. You simply have to face reality because it isn't going to
change. You did all those things and you are responsible for it.

Ron Okimoto

[deadrat]

On 5/27/14 6:56 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/26/2014 11:34 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2014 7:13 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>>> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,
>>
>>>> I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone
>>>> else I've
>>>> encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
>>>> "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
>>>> ""You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
>>>> after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.
>>
>>> Why lie?
>>
>> You need to ask yourself that question, since you are the only one
>> of us lying.
>
> Why even try to maintain the delusion? What kind of person would have

> posted your self emolation <snip/>

I like it. Emotional self-destruction (i.e, immolation)?

<snip/>

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

Picking up where I left off:

> I have openly admitted that I likely have similar beliefs in God as you
> do.

"admitted" is a dishonest substitute for "asserted", and the whole
sentence is illogical. You know nothing about my beliefs, because you
refuse to believe anything I tell you about them. And I know
nothing about YOUR beliefs, because all you have alleged about them
comes out in the course of this reply by me to you, and amounts
to nothing tangible.

> What is my definition of creationist? What were you lying about
> when I made that statement?

You are so addicted to the word "lying" that you put it in this last
question even though it makes the question barely intelligible.

I've known since a few days after your first reply to me in December
2010 that your definition of a creationist is "one who believes
in the existence of a creator." When did I ever "lie" otherwise?

> I have admitted that I am a creationist by
> my definition so what is your beef from the start?

No, my beef is that you have repeatedly ALLEGED that you are
a creationist by that definition and yet you avoid every
opportunity to tell us what your concept of this creator
is like. Even when confronted with logical deductions from
that one benighted sentence "I believe in God, not a bogus scam
intelligent designer," you have taken refuge in not thinking about
the logic.

And so, I don't even know the answer to the following question:

Q: Do you believe that your "creator" designed the world intelligently?

The post to which I am replying features at least your THIRD chance on this
thread to answer this question by giving a reaction to the "translation,"

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

but your reactions at first were nonexistent, and your latest, below,
still does not answer question Q.

> These are just my
> religious beliefs.

Your *alleged* religious beliefs.

> No one can demonstrate that they have a created
> soul. That isn't an issue. You have to take some things on faith.

In fact, you give every indication of wanting Methodists to take EVERYTHING to
do with God, soul, afterlife, etc. on faith, and not try to find any reason
for believing that they could explain to an atheist. I gave you a chance
to say something that would refute or even deny this, but you completely
ignored the chance:

[QUOTE:]

You are saying nothing about the actual contents of that understanding,
so that what you are saying is fully compatible with you deciding to
become a Methodist for purely social reasons, or even for the purpose
of convincing other Methodists to abandon all rational foundation for having
faith in the supernatural and to fall back on pure Fideism, which is another
name for blind faith that makes the believer ripe for plucking by atheists.

Your maniacal hatred of everyone and everything associated with Intelligent
Design, such as the Discovery Institute, makes this last possibility
quite plausible.

[END OF QUOTE]

You didn't try to deny this, let alone refute it. You left it in and
only alluded to it with a Pee Wee Hermanism only a deranged
person could take seriously:

"Just think about your projection about maniacal hatred for intelligent
design. My guess is that it is you that has the maniacal hatred for
intelligent design at this point because it was all a scam that made you
look like an assoholic fool. "

Irrational, baseless accusations of "projection" are a way of life for you,
as I've discovered. It is you who are projecting, because your
maniacal hatred is evident from the way:

1. You ranted about a "bait and switch scam" for months and months, claiming
that a DI quote (much more recent than 2005) supported its existence, and

2. When I pointed out that even Robert Camp acknowledged that nothing,
let alone this quote, proved the "bait" you alleged [that the DI has
ID in a form ready for use on the high school level as a viable alternative
to modern evolutionary theory], you changed the subject to how Camp
criticized the DI on other grounds, as if that fact didn't STRENGTHEN
my case against the quote doing what you irrationally claimed it did;

3. After Camp was no longer part of our debate, you libeled me by
saying that I lied, and showed my insanity, by not agreeing with
your unsupported allegation that the quote was the "bait" you
claimed it was.

I could go on and on about your manaical hatred, but now for the
flip side: you have NOTHING to support your libelous suggestion
that I know I've been fooled by the DI, when the truth is that
you cannot point to a single thing I have ever written that
fits the description "fooled by a scam," nor that of having
"a hatred for intelligent design."

> Some people do lie about that, but I have never denied it. Nor have I
> ever claimed that my religious beliefs were more than religious beliefs.

You never claimed to HAVE any religious beliefs except the few bare
bones that are being talked about above.

> My beliefs are not issues because I admit that I can't justify any of
> them in any scientific sense.

You can't justify them in ANY sense, and more importantly, you avoid
even answering natural questions about what they ARE. This kind of
behavior is natural for an atheist, motivated in the way described
in my [QUOTE]. Do you have any other explanation for why you are
behaving in this way?

I don't expect a plausible answer to this last question. That would be
completely out of character for you.

> I am just like most other honest
> Christians.

It would be nice if there are no other Christians in the world with your
dishonest, hateful, hypocritical brand of "honesty" -- as honest as
the honesty of "Honest, honest Iago" in Shakespeare's _Othello_.

> Likely the type that signed the Clergy letter project.

Would all of them duck questions about how a creator can create
our universe without any design or intelligence? I hope not.

> They are not something that I have to lie about like you do.

You avoid lying about your beliefs by the simple expedient of treating
them like Iago treated his exposure as a malicious liar:

Demand me nothing: what you know, you know:
From this time forth I never will speak word.
--Shakespeare's "Othello," final scene.

Indeed, if you were to elaborate on your beliefs, you might
only make it apparent that you are an atheist pretending
to be a believer.

I on the other hand have never lied about my beliefs,
and the "beliefs" you have tried to pin on me are not
my beliefs. In fact, you fell flat on your face when you tried
to dig up a nonexistent quote to support those "beliefs"
you are trying to pin on me.

<huge snip of things to be dealt with later if appropriate>

> You know that the one sentence refers to the ID scam intelligent
> designer with all the religious references removed.

Anyone reading your sentence can see that you composed your sentence
that way, just as you referred to God with all attributes of God
removed. Specifically, you made no statement one way or the other
about intelligence or design where "God" is concerned.

> That is a scam God.

And God, as talked about in your sentence, is not a God with any qualities.

> You know that they have the same Christian God that I do, but they
> have to lie about it.

This is the first time I have seen anyone claim that Behe, Meyer, or any
DI members lie ABOUT GOD.

And, of course, you make NO hint of what even one of these alleged
lies might be. This is typical of a great many of your lies about
me, but you routinely accuse me of "running away" even when all I
am doing is snipping vague charges like this.

Were a person incarcerated on charges of "crimial activity,"
with no hint of what that activity could have been, it
would be in violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and of
the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. But the
philosophy which is responsible for these rights is
alien to your way of thinking.

[RonO]

On 5/27/2014 8:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> Picking up where I left off:

Just give up. Your lies always just compound and blow up in your face.

>
>> I have openly admitted that I likely have similar beliefs in God as you
>> do.
>
> "admitted" is a dishonest substitute for "asserted", and the whole
> sentence is illogical. You know nothing about my beliefs, because you
> refuse to believe anything I tell you about them. And I know
> nothing about YOUR beliefs, because all you have alleged about them
> comes out in the course of this reply by me to you, and amounts
> to nothing tangible.

Didn't I make that claim. Why call it asserted when that is all that I
can do. What should I have done? Lie like you do? Isn't this just
delusional? You will not believe what I write, so what is the point?
Do you have any way to confirm anyone's personal beliefs?

>
>> What is my definition of creationist? What were you lying about
>> when I made that statement?
>
> You are so addicted to the word "lying" that you put it in this last
> question even though it makes the question barely intelligible.

Only because you are such a consistent liar. You don't see me calling
everyone a liar on TO do you? It only comes up when you demonstrate
that you are a liar. Look at the post that you started this thread
with. Why did you have to delete it from my response in order to keep
lying? Why is it not in this post? You obviously lied about not having
the problem of removing context and then had to snip and lie while lying
about having that problem.

>
> I've known since a few days after your first reply to me in December
> 2010 that your definition of a creationist is "one who believes
> in the existence of a creator." When did I ever "lie" otherwise?

The good old days when you manipulated what I said about my definition
and tried to divert the issue by claiming that creationist meant young
earth creationist. My definition was never that limited and my
definition is the one that matters for the current creationist ID scam.
You were already manipulating posts and removing material so that you
could make your dishonest arguments.

So it was you that was being bogus from the start. I was very clear
about what I meant and you were the one that tried to make it into
something that it wasn't. You have been this delusional since the
beginning. There is no doubt about that.

>
>> I have admitted that I am a creationist by
>> my definition so what is your beef from the start?
>
> No, my beef is that you have repeatedly ALLEGED that you are
> a creationist by that definition and yet you avoid every
> opportunity to tell us what your concept of this creator
> is like. Even when confronted with logical deductions from
> that one benighted sentence "I believe in God, not a bogus scam
> intelligent designer," you have taken refuge in not thinking about
> the logic.

Delusion has to be becoming apparent even to yourself. At this point
God himself could come down onto my side and you would still find some
way to lie about it.

They are my beliefs. How can you claim that I am lying about them?
Unlike you I have been consistent. I have never resorted to stupidity
like "believe in" or "believe that" meaning anything. Get a clue.

>
> And so, I don't even know the answer to the following question:
>
> Q: Do you believe that your "creator" designed the world intelligently?
>
> The post to which I am replying features at least your THIRD chance on this
> thread to answer this question by giving a reaction to the "translation,"
>
> "I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
> not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
>
> but your reactions at first were nonexistent, and your latest, below,
> still does not answer question Q.

What is this? You know what I meant, and you have what I have written
that you have snipped out of multiple posts, so what is your beef?
Shouldn't you deal with what I have already written instead of snipping
and running? You know exactly what I meant because it has been the
issue under discussion for years. You can't deny what the ID scam is
because they are still running it. What is the scam god that I was
talking about? What is the intelligent designer of the public dishonest
ID scam? Just self evaluate all the posts that you have run from even
the first post in this thread. Why did you have to do that? You
started a new thread to make this an issue and you are the one that had
to remove that post from the discussion. How utterly sad is that. I am
not making any of this stuff up. You are making it up and it doesn't
amount to jack when viewed in light if all the history of your current
delusional fiasco.

Really, just self evaluate why you had to snip and run from the first
post that you posted in this thread. A thread that you started to
harass me and ended up running away from what you had done. If you had
listened to me would any sane person have done something so stupid?

>
>> These are just my
>> religious beliefs.
>
> Your *alleged* religious beliefs.

My personal religious beliefs. Just self evaluate this line of
"reasoning" that you are plowing down into oblivion. It is only going
to lead to the conclusion that you are an utter asshole that is only
doing this to denigrate someone elses religious beliefs because you were
caught lying about your own. Projection is a way of life for you. Just
accept that fact and deal with it. Try to deal with it in a way that
doesn't make you look like such an asshole.

My suggestion is that you write out a post and save it. After a few
days or even more than a week, read the post as if some other asshole
had written it and determine if you want to be that asshole.

At this point all you are is some delusional whiner that can't seem to
develop any type of sensible argument.

>
>> No one can demonstrate that they have a created
>> soul. That isn't an issue. You have to take some things on faith.
>
> In fact, you give every indication of wanting Methodists to take EVERYTHING to
> do with God, soul, afterlife, etc. on faith, and not try to find any reason
> for believing that they could explain to an atheist. I gave you a chance
> to say something that would refute or even deny this, but you completely
> ignored the chance:

When? The fact is that religious people have to take all that on faith.
These are not things that you can rationally demonstrate. Science
obviously does not work and has never worked in settling these issues.
Delusions may prevail, but they are delusions. Why are you a
creationist? You lie about it because that is what they do for the
political scam, but it is only a scam. In the end it is faith. Even
you know that.

>
> [QUOTE:]
> You are saying nothing about the actual contents of that understanding,
> so that what you are saying is fully compatible with you deciding to
> become a Methodist for purely social reasons, or even for the purpose
> of convincing other Methodists to abandon all rational foundation for having
> faith in the supernatural and to fall back on pure Fideism, which is another
> name for blind faith that makes the believer ripe for plucking by atheists.

>
> Your maniacal hatred of everyone and everything associated with Intelligent
> Design, such as the Discovery Institute, makes this last possibility
> quite plausible.
> [END OF QUOTE]

Why even make up junk like this? Does it make you feel better in making
your personal attacks? Look at yourself. Has lying about your beliefs
made you any less ripe for plucking by atheists? Does overstating your
case come out better than accepting reality as it is?

My advice has always been to go with the science and not make more of
your beliefs than they are. You let the Atheists make fools of
themselves trying to demonstrate that there is no God. They end up with
the same stupid types of arguments that creationists are restricted to.
The reality is that science can't answer those types of questions. So
if they want to demonstrate that their arguments are as bad as what they
are calling not good enough let them do that.

>
> You didn't try to deny this, let alone refute it. You left it in and
> only alluded to it with a Pee Wee Hermanism only a deranged
> person could take seriously:
>
> "Just think about your projection about maniacal hatred for intelligent
> design. My guess is that it is you that has the maniacal hatred for
> intelligent design at this point because it was all a scam that made you
> look like an assoholic fool. "
>
> Irrational, baseless accusations of "projection" are a way of life for you,
> as I've discovered. It is you who are projecting, because your
> maniacal hatred is evident from the way:

Projection is a way of life for you. You can't deny it. Look at the
stupid projection in your PS. There is often no other rational reason
for what you do. Why make up this religious nonsense when you have had
to run and lie about it for years? Who got caught lying about their
religious beliefs?

>
> 1. You ranted about a "bait and switch scam" for months and months, claiming
> that a DI quote (much more recent than 2005) supported its existence, and

You ran from the evidence. You did everything that you could to deny
the evidence, and what happened?

I reminded you what the scam was when you were still posting to TO, and
you diverted the argument to what they were currently doing so I put up
a more current example than the turn of the century. You did your
standard dirty tricks, but in the end reality won out. Just recall back
how stupid your denials about that pamphlet were when it was about how
wrong the Dover decision was and claimed that teachers outside of Dover
could still legally teach ID in the public schools.

>
> 2. When I pointed out that even Robert Camp acknowledged that nothing,
> let alone this quote, proved the "bait" you alleged [that the DI has
> ID in a form ready for use on the high school level as a viable alternative
> to modern evolutionary theory], you changed the subject to how Camp
> criticized the DI on other grounds, as if that fact didn't STRENGTHEN
> my case against the quote doing what you irrationally claimed it did;

Is this about the Camp quote mine? It is pretty sad that you stand by
yourself around TO as a quote mining creationist. What delusions do you
have to have in order to try to quote mine when the quote is readily
available? Usually the creationists quote mine when the reference is in
some library somewhere else. You did try to quote mine the quote you
based your first knockdown argument on, and would not tell me the post
that it came from. It turned out to be from a post several months old,
but I did find it and what happened?

All this is history and it ended up with you on the short end. You
looked like the asshole that you are because you were the one that
played all the dirty tricks. In the end the dirty tricks did not do you
any good because reality is just what it is and it hasn't changed has it?

>
> 3. After Camp was no longer part of our debate, you libeled me by
> saying that I lied, and showed my insanity, by not agreeing with
> your unsupported allegation that the quote was the "bait" you
> claimed it was.

Where is this "bait" coming from in reference to Camp. Camp only
claimed that ID was a scam more like a covert CIA operation.

I was the one that clearly demonstrated that they would putting up the
nonexistent ID science as the bait and only giving the rubes a switch
scam that did not even mention that ID had ever existed.

>
> I could go on and on about your manaical hatred, but now for the
> flip side: you have NOTHING to support your libelous suggestion
> that I know I've been fooled by the DI, when the truth is that
> you cannot point to a single thing I have ever written that
> fits the description "fooled by a scam," nor that of having
> "a hatred for intelligent design."

You could go on, but it would just be more lies and made up stories.

>
>> Some people do lie about that, but I have never denied it. Nor have I
>> ever claimed that my religious beliefs were more than religious beliefs.
>
> You never claimed to HAVE any religious beliefs except the few bare
> bones that are being talked about above.

Another lie. What did you have to snip and run from repeatedly?

>
>> My beliefs are not issues because I admit that I can't justify any of
>> them in any scientific sense.
>
> You can't justify them in ANY sense, and more importantly, you avoid
> even answering natural questions about what they ARE. This kind of
> behavior is natural for an atheist, motivated in the way described
> in my [QUOTE]. Do you have any other explanation for why you are
> behaving in this way?

If you agree that I can't justify them in any sense, what good has it
ever been to explain them to you when you just snip and run and then lie
about the episodes?

Just go back to the post that you are currently responding to and tell
me what is wrong with my explanations.

Just claiming that you can't believe what I write is stupid. How am I
not addressing the issue?

>
> I don't expect a plausible answer to this last question. That would be
> completely out of character for you.

You obviously are in such a delusional state that you can't read for
comprehension and will not even try to address what was actually written.

>
>> I am just like most other honest
>> Christians.
>
> It would be nice if there are no other Christians in the world with your
> dishonest, hateful, hypocritical brand of "honesty" -- as honest as
> the honesty of "Honest, honest Iago" in Shakespeare's _Othello_.

The usual asshole. More projection. What were you just denying about
projection? Who is the one that had to remove his initial post of this
thread from the discussion? What is the whole purpose of this thread?

>
>> Likely the type that signed the Clergy letter project.
>
> Would all of them duck questions about how a creator can create
> our universe without any design or intelligence? I hope not.

You duck and run. Just reevaluate what I actually wrote and determine
if I ducked anything. What do you think that accepting Jesus Christ as
your savior means? How could I not have been clearer about
unintelligent designers when you combine it with what you know about the
ID scam designer?

You are just a pathetic asshole. You should have self evaluated the
first time that I told you to do it, but now you have just demonstrated
what a delusional ass you are again.

>
>> They are not something that I have to lie about like you do.
>
> You avoid lying about your beliefs by the simple expedient of treating
> them like Iago treated his exposure as a malicious liar:
>
>
> Demand me nothing: what you know, you know:
> From this time forth I never will speak word.
> --Shakespeare's "Othello," final scene.

Poor guy. Do you really think that crap like this matters? Why lie
about stupid things and get caught? Wouldn't it be better to just stop
lying?

>
> Indeed, if you were to elaborate on your beliefs, you might
> only make it apparent that you are an atheist pretending
> to be a believer.
>
> I on the other hand have never lied about my beliefs,
> and the "beliefs" you have tried to pin on me are not
> my beliefs. In fact, you fell flat on your face when you tried
> to dig up a nonexistent quote to support those "beliefs"
> you are trying to pin on me.

More projection and personal attacks. What else do you have? Why not
read and understand what I actually wrote?

>
> <huge snip of things to be dealt with later if appropriate>

Run it is what you do best. Why not deal with what I actually write
instead of making junk up about it?

>
>> You know that the one sentence refers to the ID scam intelligent
>> designer with all the religious references removed.
>
> Anyone reading your sentence can see that you composed your sentence
> that way, just as you referred to God with all attributes of God
> removed. Specifically, you made no statement one way or the other
> about intelligence or design where "God" is concerned.

Those delusions are yours because you know what the discussion has been
about for years, and all you can do is lie about it.

>
>> That is a scam God.
>
> And God, as talked about in your sentence, is not a God with any qualities.

That is because that is the ID scam god. You seem to understand this,
so what is your beef?

>
>
>> You know that they have the same Christian God that I do, but they
>> have to lie about it.
>
> This is the first time I have seen anyone claim that Behe, Meyer, or any
> DI members lie ABOUT GOD.

I doubt that. What are they doing with their scam representation of god
when they know what god that they are talking about? Why even come up
with a statement like this?

>
> And, of course, you make NO hint of what even one of these alleged
> lies might be. This is typical of a great many of your lies about
> me, but you routinely accuse me of "running away" even when all I
> am doing is snipping vague charges like this.

You run. You have run since the beginning. Just think back to the Ohio
fiasco running away incident. You never went back to that post and all
you had to do was acknowledge that you were wrong about the Ohio fiasco
and the Discovery Institutes involvement. Instead we had midirection
ploys and personal attacks just because you were stupidly wrong about
something. That is how it consistently is.

Look at this junk. Why did you have to remove your first post in this
thread from the discussion. Why did you remove it again when I put it
back in? Delusion is one thing, but this is so deluded that you have to
be getting some glimmer of reality.

>
> Were a person incarcerated on charges of "crimial activity,"
> with no hint of what that activity could have been, it
> would be in violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and of
> the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. But the
> philosophy which is responsible for these rights is
> alien to your way of thinking.
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
> Peter Nyikos

What is sad is for the last couple of years all you have been doing is
harassing me, and how has it turned out for you? You just started this
thread and already have had to run from the first post in this thread
(twice). Instead of sticking to your first harassing attack you have to
make up more junk. You are just one sad asshole.

Once you realize how delusional, stupid and assoholic you are you will
run away for weeks up to your 2 month limit for "running" without
posting to me, but then you come back with your stupid harassment. It
has been that way for several years and only you can change that fact.

Really, self evaluate this last series of posts starting with your
stupid assoholic claims about my missing your post. Do you want to
continue to be that asshole?

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

And a classic case of projection by Ron O. His latest reply to me,
done about 5 hours ago, is a masterpiece of emotional self-destruction,
all 434 (!!!) lines of it, more thorough than Captain Queeg's notorious
self-incrimination on the witness stand in "The Caine Mutiny".

Look at how amazingly repetitious it is, and how he repeatedly fails
to come to grips with the issues, degenerating into a mass of Truth
by Blatant Assertion about matters irrelevant to the issue of whether
he is an atheist who is occasionally given to mouthing a few --
a VERY few -- phrases about his alleged Christian/Methodist religious
beliefs.

The sum total of all those phrases is about as long as, and less
committal than, the prayer recommended at the end of a Jack Chick tract,
whose message is that you go to hell if you are merely a good man
but have not accepted Jesus Christ. The tract ends with a cheap formula for
doing that: just get down on your knees and mouth a prayer saying you accept
Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Oh, you are supposed to have sincere emotions while doing it -- but
with the alternative an eternity of suffering, who can't call up those
emotions? But they are only temporary and are a worthless substitute
for actual faith.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Poor guy. You might as well run so that you can come back in a couple
of weeks to harass me again. What a lying loser of an asshole. Just
think if you had more than your own sad projection? Who got caught
lying about their religious beliefs? Who does your above post refer to?
Isn't it just projection on your part?

If you are too delusional to accept what I write on the subject you
shouldn't snip and lie about what I write, but confront it. Don't make
up more delusional stories, but demonstrate that the statements are
inadequate.

Just look at how you had to snip out your stupid post that you started
this bogus thread with. I was the one that had to put it back in for
context when you had removed it so that you could lie about not removing
context. Your behavior is so tragic and delusional at this time that if
you can't see that something is wrong, you may really be too far gone to
just call delusional. What was the point of this thread? Why did you
have to remove your post from your response? Not once, but twice
because I put it back in, but you snipped it out again. You wrote the
post so why not self evaluate it when you can't stand to look at it and
have to remove it from your sight in order to keep lying?

Just self evaluate this thread and the last series of posts leading up
to this thread. Do it for yourself. You are the one that is making
yourself look like such a loser. Just think of all your lame
projection. What is such a person that would snip and lie like that and
be so obvious about it? You wrote the junk and you are the one that is
lying. Do you have someone that you trust that can read the junk and
tell you how far off base you are? In your more rational moments you
obviously understand how stupid and dishonest you are because you snip
the junk out and run. You have to come to grips with why you are
running away from the junk that you write. You have to come to grips
with why you are projecting your own foibles onto me. You really are
the bogus and dishonest lying asshole of this whole story. At some
level you know this for a fact because all your stupid delusional
knockdowns only made you look like more of a lying dishonest asshole.
What is your explanation for why you can't even bring yourself to tell
me what your third knockdown is and give me a link to the post? You
harassed me for a year and a half threatening to deliver the knockdowns
that never came.

You really need to self evaluate your posts. You aren't just a poster
child for the Dunning-Kruger effect with your delusions of adequacy.
You are such an extreme case that They'd likely have a different
category for you.

It has been years of just your stupid harassment and what do you have to
show for it except a long series of times where you just run away from
what you have done?

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:27:57 PM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

[....]

>
> Were a person incarcerated on charges of "crimial activity,"
>
> with no hint of what that activity could have been, it
>
> would be in violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and of
>
> the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. But the
>
> philosophy which is responsible for these rights is
>
> alien to your way of thinking.
>
>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

Yet Ron Okimoto, like yourself, is a full blooded Evolutionist. Both of you accept the entire theory without any reservations. Concerning topic, both of you think exactly alike.

Ron is a wolf in sheep's clothing while Peter hides behind the thin veil of Agnosticism.

So whatever beef you have with Ron, and vice versa, is actually meaningless, a petty squabble between two "closet" Atheists.

Ray

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:56:10 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:27:57 PM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > Were a person incarcerated on charges of "crimial activity,"
> > with no hint of what that activity could have been, it
> > would be in violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and of
> > the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. But the
> > philosophy which is responsible for these rights is
> > alien to your way of thinking.

> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

> Yet Ron Okimoto, like yourself, is a full blooded Evolutionist.

We both believe in common descent, yes, and in abiogenesis, although
I am inclined to believe it took place elsewhere and was exported here,
while Ron O firmly believes what every (other?) atheist here believes,
that all earth life evolved as an outcome of abiogenesis that took place
here on earth.

> Both of you accept the entire theory without any reservations.

The fact of evolution, yes. The theories that try to explain it, no.
Ron O doesn't realize that these are still in their infancy; I do.

> Concerning topic, both of you think exactly alike.

You are looking at us through the wrong end of a powerful telescope.

> Ron is a wolf in sheep's clothing while Peter hides behind the thin
> veil of Agnosticism.

> So whatever beef you have with Ron, and vice versa, is actually
> meaningless, a petty squabble between two "closet" Atheists.

You claim to believe everyone who believes in speciation is an atheist,
don't you?

Do you also think like a stentorian fundie who produced noise pollution
in the U. of Illinois quad?

One day, when a crowd of hecklers had gathered, he shouted the following:

"My friends, there is only one sin that can damn your soul to hell!"

"Fornication!" yelled one heckler.

"Fornication will be forgiven," came the stentorian answer.

"Murder!" yelled another heckler.

"Murder will be forgiven"

"Child molesting!" yelled another.

"Child molesting will be forgiven." After a short pause:

"No, my friends, there is only one sin that can damn your soul
to hell forever, and that is the sin of UNBELIEF!"

I also wonder where Ron O stands on this issue, but it's a near sure
bet he won't tell, but will rant and rave as usual, slapping on some
crud which is superficially on the same topic but leaves everyone
in the dark about his own attitude. Typical comments include:

"What are you doing here?" "You aren't self evaluating" and
that perennial standby, "You are running away from..."

The height of the ridiculous came when he accused me of HAVING TO run away
from the first post I did to this thread, when I replied to a post some
280 lines long, which included him quoting my first post in full and slapping
on some noncommittal crud in reply. I marked that place and much else by:

"<huge snip of things to be dealt with later if appropriate>"

And from this, Ron O concludes that I *had* to run away from a post from which
HE ran away for several posts!! It took about three posts before he realized I
was not to be distracted from the accusation at the end of my OP, and started
the slapping-on of superficial crud while never adding anything
meaningful to what I've already acknowledged him as saying before I
even began this thread.

Ron O is seriously in need of psychiatric help.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/14, 6:11 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

I'd just like to note:

Just when I get Darwin's Doubt from the library, you lose all interest
in the Cambrian.

Just when I get Riddle of the Feathered Dragons from the library, you
lose all interest in dinosaurs.

The only subject you never lose interest in is yourself, especially all
the wrongs people do to you. You haven't had an on-topic post in weeks.

[Mitchell Coffey]

I'm now doing my part to allow him the time to re-engage with you.

I was hoping he would take you up on your offer to describe the reasons
Alan Feduccia is widely considered a crank. I'd be interested if you'd
do this regardless of Peter's engagement.

Mitchell Coffey

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:KbidnanR1d9UGxXO...@giganews.com...

Did Peter agree to wait until you got books from the library to debate?
Did you argue about subjects that relate to these books before you got
them from the library?
Is the subject of your post here not based on personal interest?
Is this post of yours on-topic?
Does the claim "The only subject you never lose interest in is yourself" not apply to yourself, or anyone for that matter?
Have you never had personal interest in the wrongs people do to you?

[John Harshman]

Well, you could do worse than to read this:

Prum R. O. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds
science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). Auk 120:550-561.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:esCdnbL4iLiBJRXO...@giganews.com...

That's hilarious. Prum is essentially questioning the Journal Auk's credibility concerning an article published in that Journal, in an article published in that same Journal.

Was there a response by Feduccia to Prum's rebuttal, something along the lines of "Is Prum's rebuttal to Feduccia science?"?

From 2003 talk.origins:

"gen2rev
8/14/03


An article by Richard Prum entitled "Are current critiques of the
theropod origin of birds science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002)" in the
most recent issue of "The Auk" responds to a rant by Alan Feduccia
(2002) that attempted to gainsay a previous article by Prum (2002) on
the dinosaurian ancestry of birds.
For those without access to the journal, a nice summary (by Tom Holtz)
of Prum's most recent article can be found at
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2003Aug/msg00301.html


Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex
Problem. The Auk 119(4):1187-1201.

Prum, R. 2002. Perspectives in ornithology: Why ornithologists should
care about the theropod origin of birds. The Auk 119(1):1-17.

Prum, R. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds
science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). The Auk 120(2):550-561."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/th5lL21W5-I

[Roger Shrubber]

Maybe, maybe not regards "questioning credibility".
It is reasonable to allow a strong voice to present their viewed
even if you don't agree with them. The fact that a paper is
published is not necessarily an endorsement of those views. At
times journals explicitly include editorial comments that they
are publishing an article or review that they specifically do
not endorse, sometimes because it nevertheless met their requirements
for publication (which again are not that the editors agree)
or even just to get a particular camp's position recorded in
black and white (color may cost extra).

But even if Awk did support Feduccia, there's nothing particularly
odd about someone publishing a critique in the same journal. Such
"debates" are to be expected. So that you find it hilarious is
rather puzzling.

> Was there a response by Feduccia to Prum's rebuttal, something along
> the lines of "Is Prum's rebuttal to Feduccia science?"?

Given your apparent unfamiliarity with how science publications
work, I'll point out that one can look forward from Prum's
article with many publicly available tools.
I'll suggest this result might help you.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1

Of course I meant "you" in a very generic way, somewhat rhetorically.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 9:25:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/30/14, 6:11 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> I'd just like to note:

> Just when I get Darwin's Doubt from the library, you lose all interest
> in the Cambrian.

I got onto Feduccia and feathers, and never saw a notification from you
that you had checked DD out of the library AGAIN.

> Just when I get Riddle of the Feathered Dragons from the library, you
> lose all interest in dinosaurs.

I thought you lost it, when you ended your last reply on bird ancestry
to me with something to the following effect:

What a useless book! Feduccia won't stick his neck out far
enough for me to chop his head off.

> The only subject you never lose interest in is yourself,

Baloney. I am interested in all kinds of things, always, and I was
quite happy to see that you didn't barge into the following threads
with your stereotyped stalling tactics and refusal to stick YOUR
neck out on anything.

Subject: Re: "Darwinism" and materialism as religions
cf.:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/Pv8etmAeevQ/g7czdQu0IYYJ

Subject: Re: eridanus thinks the design of god is antibiblical
cf.:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/U7jS2fR6vvc/G9UMo43lWygJ

On these threads, we are discussing the ultimate questions of God and life
after death. You and I tangled on these topics on a thread where
you had locked horns with AlwaysAskingQuestions. If you can remember
the title of that thread, we could continue that discussion there despite
your penchant for stalling tactics.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/14, 11:57 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 30, 2014 9:25:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/30/14, 6:11 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> I'd just like to note:
>
>> Just when I get Darwin's Doubt from the library, you lose all interest
>> in the Cambrian.
>
> I got onto Feduccia and feathers, and never saw a notification from you
> that you had checked DD out of the library AGAIN.

No, you just stopped replying in that thread.

>> Just when I get Riddle of the Feathered Dragons from the library, you
>> lose all interest in dinosaurs.
>
> I thought you lost it, when you ended your last reply on bird ancestry
> to me with something to the following effect:
>
> What a useless book! Feduccia won't stick his neck out far
> enough for me to chop his head off.

Again, you just stopped replying in that thread.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:72d5263f-ae89-4622...@googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,

> > I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
> > encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
> > "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
> > "You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
> > after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.

> > The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
> > torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
> > as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
> > have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.

> It's disconcerting to see scientists and those involved in science
> to think and behave this way. Biased, vain, subjective, sloppy methodology
> and more undesirable thought processes and behaviors, all make for what it
> looks to me like some if not much of what is published and reviewed is
> influenced by.

I sure hope there are no scientific papers as bad as Ron O's replies
on this thread or the thread to which my OP refers, and which my second
post is from.

Ron O is trapped in a hell of his own making, two features of which
are described above, but the worst of which is his obsessive-compulsive
concept of what it means to "run away." He has lately made it so
that any snip of anything in a reply to a post is "running away" from the
snipped part.

And so, he has this compulsion to include everything from the post to
which he is replying, even if he ignores it completely (like in his
first two posts to this thread). And we also get monstrosities like
his 434 line reply to me, about which I talked to deadrat,
where he slapped on a lot of crud (most of it blather like his
"self-evaluate" scam) which doesn't address the points of mine that
it follows, just so he gets in the last word.

Thus, he is either insane enough to think that snipping out text is
a necessary condition for "running away"
[in addition to being a sufficient one]
or deceitful enough to act as though it were.

The height of ridiculousness came when he claimed I was running away
from my own OP! See my reply today to Ray for details on that.

To top it all off, he is now blathering about how he expects me
to "harass" him after a few weeks have passed, as though he didn't
realize that all his taunts about "running away" are harassment
to get me to reply to everything he writes, and how all these
taunts about me "obviously not self evaluating" are harassment
to get me to break down and confess that he is right and I am wrong.

Watch how well I "predicted" his behavior already near the start
of this thread:

> > And YOU are running away from the CONTENT of the post to which you
> > are following up, and repeating this pack of lies to disguise that fact.

> > Continued in next reply, to come no later than some time today.

> > PS Are you deluded enough to accuse me of "running away" because
> > I don't go through your entire pile of trash right away?

See my reply to Ray about how the answer to that turned out
to be YES, at least where a later and bigger pile of trash was
concerned.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I for one would like to read the impressions you might get from Feduccia's
book, if you still have the intention to read it. I was impressed that you
read through Meyer's tome enough to give a chapter-by chapter critique. I
couldn't have managed it, even if I had the credentials to do so, which I
don't.

[John Harshman]

Meyer's book is at least fairly easy to read. Feduccia's isn't. There's
so much whining about the injustices visited on him and self-serving
accusations against his opponents that it's actually painful. And now
that I write that, it sounds familiar somehow.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

And now you know why.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 5/30/2014 4:16 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:72d5263f-ae89-4622...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:52 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>> Nyikos, you are not self evaluating,
>
>>> I self evaluate all the time, you idiot, probably more than anyone else I've
>>> encountered in talk.origins. You've been parroting this
>>> "self evaluating" business just like you've been parroting this
>>> "You know that you are just making something up" idiocy, even
>>> after I THOROUGHLY refuted it -- see my second post to this thread.
>
>>> The "self-evaluate" demand is a scam of yours, designed to make the
>>> torrent of lies and half-truths that keep following it sound sincere,
>>> as is the scam of asking leading questions that sound like they should
>>> have one answer despite the fact that the true answer is the opposite.
>
>> It's disconcerting to see scientists and those involved in science
>> to think and behave this way. Biased, vain, subjective, sloppy methodology
>> and more undesirable thought processes and behaviors, all make for what it
>> looks to me like some if not much of what is published and reviewed is
>> influenced by.
>
> I sure hope there are no scientific papers as bad as Ron O's replies
> on this thread or the thread to which my OP refers, and which my second
> post is from.

I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again, and
probably will not post to me for several weeks, so before you come back
with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam all you have basically
done is post to me to harass me. There has been more than two years of
that type of stupid behavior. You just keep getting shown what an ass
you are because you have to be such a delusional ass about it and can't
keep from lying about the past.

So take my advice before you post your next post to me. Write it out
and leave it somewhere for a week or two. Read it after that time as if
some other asshole had written it considering how stupid and assoholic
you have been for the last several years, and ask yourself if you want
to make more of an ass of yourself again.

This thread demonstrates how assinine you can be. Why do you have to
snip and run from the first post you posted in this thread to harass me?
Why can't you stand to leave it in and justify your stupidity? Why
must you snip it out and run from what you have done? How assinine is
it to lie about having the problem of removing context when you have to
remove your entire post before you can respond to your delusions? I am
the one that had to put your stupid post back in for context and you are
the delusional fool that had to snip it out again and run from what you
had done. How utterly sad is that when you were lying about not having
the problem of removing context when you snipped the junk out?

Try to get a clue and self evaluate your junk so that you might avoid
being such an ass in the future.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:10:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> Meyer's book is at least fairly easy to read.

Of course. He is writing for a much wider audience than Feduccia.

> Feduccia's isn't. There's
> so much whining about the injustices visited on him and self-serving
> accusations against his opponents

I don't think you can put together the equivalent of four pages, total,
in which he whines about injustices visited on any and all people, and
accusations of any kind against anybody's opponents. There are descriptions
of wild jumpings to conclusions and other shoddy scholarship, but
can you show his descriptions are wrong?

> that it's actually painful.

to exaggerate to the extent you do? If so, there is hope for you yet.

By the way, I admit I was exaggerating for effect in describing your
last post to that other thread, but you are so used to exaggerating
for effect that you didn't even take note of the fact.

There is a tremendous amount of scientific information in the book,
e.g. about the Chinese bird fossils, and about "protofeathers", including
Lingham-Soliar's experiments and analyses, and I think you are making your
exaggeration to avoid telling erik simpson about the meaty parts of the book.

> And now
> that I write that, it sounds familiar somehow.

Yes, you personalize general complaints about the dishonesty and
hypocrisy of various people in this way. Even when it is your
hypocrisy that is being described, it's all supposed to be about me
even when it is more about your treatment of Meyer, Feduccia,
Glenn, AlwaysAskingQuestions, etc.

By the way, do you use these personalizations to reassure yourself that
the accusations against you are without merit?

One particularly odious related thing is the way you use "Mommie! he hit
me first!" to let attackers off the hook by thus characterizing their
counterattackers.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

So, now that you know I'm still interested, how about replying in that
thread?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again,

A lie.

> and
> probably will not post to me for several weeks,

Wishful thinking.

> so before you come back
> with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
> admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam

I never made any such admission, you pathological liar.

> all you have basically
> done is post to me to harass me.

You've done the same to me, in far greater measure, and you also harassed me
when I posted a completely on-topic reply to your OP on the Turtle genome
and analysis thread. And you never posted on that topic in the thread
again, devoting your time there to posting false off-topic charges
against me, and turning on everyone who criticized you for doing it.

You are a hate-driven lunatic, and a pathological liar.

> There has been more than two years of
> that type of stupid behavior. You just keep getting shown what an ass
> you are

A lie.

> because you have to be such a delusional ass about it and can't
> keep from lying about the past.

It is you who are lying about the past, with your lie about a
nonexistent admission from me.

> So take my advice before you post your next post to me. Write it out
> and leave it somewhere for a week or two.

Been there, done that. This is just your "self-evaluation" scam
paraphrased.

> Read it after that time as if
> some other asshole had written it considering how stupid and assoholic
> you have been for the last several years, and ask yourself if you want
> to make more of an ass of yourself again.

You are so self-righteous, I think that if a policeman stopped you
for speeding, you would think he was being an assoholic.

> This thread demonstrates how assinine you can be. Why do you have to
> snip and run from the first post you posted in this thread to harass me?

You really need to read what I wrote to Ray about this lie of yours
wrapped in a "Why" question. I stand by
everything I wrote in that post, and if you think I'm running away
from it, you need to see a psychiatrist.

> Why can't you stand to leave it in

Because I don't like making 400+ line posts, idiot.

> and justify your stupidity?

Because you never tried to demonstrate its stupidity.

> Why
> must you snip it out

Read what you left in below. You are trying to force me to share
your obsessive compulsion not to snip out anything.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:a0274250-2cb9-44cc...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, May 30, 2014 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again,
>
> A lie.
>
>> and
>> probably will not post to me for several weeks,
>
> Wishful thinking.
>
>> so before you come back
>> with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
>> admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam
>
> I never made any such admission, you pathological liar.
>
>> all you have basically
>> done is post to me to harass me.
>
> You've done the same to me, in far greater measure, and you also harassed me
> when I posted a completely on-topic reply to your OP on the Turtle genome
> and analysis thread. And you never posted on that topic in the thread
> again, devoting your time there to posting false off-topic charges
> against me, and turning on everyone who criticized you for doing it.
>
> You are a hate-driven lunatic, and a pathological liar.
>

He's delusional as well. There is no reasoning with him. And he hasn't changed in over a decade. All in all, he fits right in here with the rest of the lunatics. Right now I'm considering Shrubber's behavior. He thinks himself as cunning and disarming, but seems to play the same games as his fellows. At least some of them should be able to see through it, but if so that would be worse than if they were totally delusional.


snip

[RonO]

On 5/30/2014 10:42 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 30, 2014 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again,
>
> A lie.

Why lie? You have reached your stupid limit for doing something stupid
and dishonest. You will deliberately do the stupid and dishonest junk
twice, but you avoid making the Nykosian mistake three times. Just deal
with the first post in this thread without snipping it out and running
from what you have done a third time.

You know that your two shots at pretending have been used up, so what
are you going to do now? Start another misdirection thread?

Repost QUOTE:
Ever since a few days after I returned to talk.origins in
December 2010, I have known that Ron Okimoto claims to
believe in some sort of "creator." But, in line with the
subject line of this thread, I ask: what fruit has this
alleged belief borne here in t.o.? The short answer is NONE.
In fact, he has been incredibly resistant to saying just what
this creator is supposed to be like.

The closest he came to overcoming this reticence was the following
exercise in cognitive dissonance, posted by him on March 25.

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

I replied on the same day:

"What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence?
What kind of a God is it that creates without designing
anything it creates?"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/dzwPP7KnRfUJ

He ducked these questions, and all I could get out of him was that
he believed in "the Christian God." But after a few exchanges,
I reminded him how Thomas Aquinas very explicitly believed that
God was an intelligent designer, and quoted the relevant
passage from _Summa Theologica_, in:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/5LF3tOXn60MJ

He refused to talk about that, and so I pressed the issue with:

______________excerpt___________________________________

I have never seen anyone calling himself a Christian, LEAST OF ALL YOU,
deny that Aquinas was referring to the Christian God, or allege that
Aquinas was WRONG when he wrote what he did. In fact, you completely
refrained from commenting on his words.

Thus, the obvious inference from your silence in the wake of
all this is that when you wrote,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

your words can be interpreted as saying,

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,
not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

And you need to let readers know what the essential difference
is between the intelligent designer Christians call God,
and the bogus scam intelligent designer to which you referred.

=========================== end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/FTcjKnwdW9AJ

Ron O ignored everything I wrote and went into a long tirade
demanding that I think about personal issues having nothing
to do with any of the above, in:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J


Ron O has been alluding to Matthew 7:15-19 in these "By their
Fruits" thread titles. In the RSV, the last verse reads:

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire."

Nobody here has the power to do anything like this to the "tree"
of Ron O's alleged beliefs, and the best I can do is as follows.

I hereby accuse Ron O of evading the issue of what his "creator"
is like because he never believed in a creator in the first place,
and so would not be able to say anything meaningful about it.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Just address this post in the light of what has already been discussed.
Don't pretend that the other posts in this thread have not been written.

Who was caught lying about removing context as they were removing
context so that they could continue to lie by the Nykosian standards?

I don't know why removing the material makes it OK in your view to lie
about it, but that is your delusion.

Why not take a few seconds to self evaluate what you have done in this
thread and the bogus things that you have done in order to continue to
do it.

>
>> and
>> probably will not post to me for several weeks,
>
> Wishful thinking.

No just repetitive reality. I have had to live with your pathetic
behavior for years.

What are your options? Are you going to violate your three post
dishonest stupidity rule or run? It must be a very hard choice, but you
have done worse such as flat out lie about your religious beliefs when
all your dishonest polys backed you into a corner. So are you willing
to violate your stupid three stupidly dishonest post rule. For some
reason doing something stupid and dishonest is OK to do twice in the
Nykosian delusion, but three times is very bad. I don't make up the
rules that you live by.

>
>> so before you come back
>> with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
>> admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam
>
> I never made any such admission, you pathological liar.

You admitted that the evidence was convincing and that was the end of
it. What do you think that was admitting to? Are you going to start
lying about the evidence being convincing? You lied multiple times
about not getting the additional evidence, before acknowledging it, so
you could start lying about just about anything. Who keeps lying about
who was demonstrated to be the dirty debater? You should be kinder to
yourself than your projection about pathological lying. In your less
harsh moments you claim that it is just habitual.

>
>> all you have basically
>> done is post to me to harass me.
>
> You've done the same to me, in far greater measure, and you also harassed me
> when I posted a completely on-topic reply to your OP on the Turtle genome
> and analysis thread. And you never posted on that topic in the thread
> again, devoting your time there to posting false off-topic charges
> against me, and turning on everyone who criticized you for doing it.

Who is the stupid jerk that runs all the degenerate assoholic dirty
tricks? I don't follow you around TO with a pooper scooper. Just think
what your life would be like if I demonstrated what a bogus liar you are
every time you mentioned my name? Why live in your delutional world.
You are pretty much always attacking me for one thing or another, and
since I don't read much of what you write you get away with most of it,
so what is your beef? When you respond to one of my posts you obviously
deserve what you get.

>
> You are a hate-driven lunatic, and a pathological liar.

More projection. Who started this side thread and has to run from the
first post he wrote to create it? You really do need to self evaluate
what you are doing when you do it.

>
>
>> There has been more than two years of
>> that type of stupid behavior. You just keep getting shown what an ass
>> you are
>
> A lie.

How long ago did you start your stupid knockdown campaign. The other
issues were basically over by that time. You had been caught lying
about not getting the additional evidence, and it was only a few weeks
after that, that you had to admit that the evidence was convincing and
that issue was dropped. Since then what have you been doing? Just
lying about the past and harassing me when you get the chance. Do you
realize that you have been running from your third knockdown for more
than a year, and did not deliver it until around a year and a half after
you claimed that it would be delivered? Get a grip on reality. What
have you been doing since you admitted that the evidence was convincing?
Why lie?

>
>> because you have to be such a delusional ass about it and can't
>> keep from lying about the past.
>
> It is you who are lying about the past, with your lie about a
> nonexistent admission from me.

Why don't you demonstrate it? Start with this religious nonsense. Go
back and demonstrate that you did not manipulate what I wrote.
Demonstrate that you did not try to make my definition of creationist
something that it was not. The later was from the beginning early after
your return. So why not do those things? Isn't it sad to understand
what you have done, so that you can't go back and demonstrate that I am
the one lying about the issues? Who has been caught lying? Who will
not defend their first post in this pathetic harassment thread?

>
>> So take my advice before you post your next post to me. Write it out
>> and leave it somewhere for a week or two.
>
> Been there, done that. This is just your "self-evaluation" scam
> paraphrased.

Which of your posts have you done it on. I'd like to compare it to your
first post in this thread, or did reality take hold and you never posted
the post? If it works why not try it more often. You obviously take
weeks and months before taking up a bogus issue again, so that much
delay can't mean much.

>
>> Read it after that time as if
>> some other asshole had written it considering how stupid and assoholic
>> you have been for the last several years, and ask yourself if you want
>> to make more of an ass of yourself again.
>
> You are so self-righteous, I think that if a policeman stopped you
> for speeding, you would think he was being an assoholic.

You are what you are, and I refuse to sugar coat it at this time. How
can the guy that does what you do, and is the person responsible for his
three pathetic knock down attempts (the last of which he can't even
bring himself to acknowledge and demonstrate that it was actually
delivered) not understand what they are? What kind of person would be
responsible for the first post in this side thread and run from what he
had done twice already?

You do, do stupid and dishonest things more than twice and they become
your delusional lies like your stupid lie about never getting a
description of the bait and switch. How sad was that lie? It didn't
get any better the more you used it when you snipped out or ran from any
description given to you.

Wouldn't it be sad if your first post in this thread nonsense stretched
out for months just because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge what
a mistake it was? You will always have run from what you have done
twice already, so how many more times will you have to relive the
stupidity? You do this to yourself.

>
>> This thread demonstrates how assinine you can be. Why do you have to
>> snip and run from the first post you posted in this thread to harass me?
>
> You really need to read what I wrote to Ray about this lie of yours
> wrapped in a "Why" question. I stand by
> everything I wrote in that post, and if you think I'm running away
> from it, you need to see a psychiatrist.

I don't have to read any junk that you post to another poster. Just
reading the little that I do in addition to your posts to me are pretty
sickening. Just look at this stupid post. Address the issues you have
with me and not with some other poster. Isn't that just common sense
and decency?

>
>> Why can't you stand to leave it in
>
> Because I don't like making 400+ line posts, idiot.

Because you are the lying asshole and can't stand to have your face
rubbed in that fact.

>
>> and justify your stupidity?
>
> Because you never tried to demonstrate its stupidity.

What do you call your running from what you had done in the first post.
Didn't I demonstrate the missing context? Why did you snip it all out
and run? Why not demonstrate that you did not do what I claimed? Why
did you have to snip out the post in order to continue to lie about
removing context as you were obviously removing context.

The long history is simply that I demonstrate reality and you run and
lie about it.

>
>> Why
>> must you snip it out
>
> Read what you left in below. You are trying to force me to share
> your obsessive compulsion not to snip out anything.

No. I am just trying to get you to face what you have done without
resorting to your stupid one post rule. Just because you remove the
material does not mean that you did not write it or that the material
does not exist. It does not mean that you can lie about the missing
material. Face the facts. You know why you had to remove your own post
from the discussion while continuing to lie about the subject. I put
the post back in and what did you do again? It was your own post and
you can't deny that you wrote it and posted it.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:08:27 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:a0274250-2cb9-44cc...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, May 30, 2014 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >> I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again,

> > A lie.

Ron O has made up a pure fantasy about there being some rule of three
posts ("you avoid making the Nyikosian mistake three times") in order
to justify this lie. If he hadn't put "obviously" in there he could
pass the lie off as "just an opinion" -- except that his monumental
pride might not allow him to do that much, even to save face.

> >> and
> >> probably will not post to me for several weeks,

> > Wishful thinking.

> >> so before you come back
> >> with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
> >> admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam

> > I never made any such admission, you pathological liar.

As usual, he made no attempt to justify this lie, but asked another one
of those loaded questions that is designed to give readers the impression
that he was telling the truth, whereas the whole thing is a lie.

To begin with, "admitted" is nonsense because I never claimed the
ID was not running a scam, I only pointed out that his evidence
for a scam is so weak, even Robert Camp acknowledged [a much more appropriate
word than "admitted" in such contexts] that the evidence for there
having been any BAIT (for the alleged bait-and-switch scam)
since the Dover trial is weak.

And even Ron O has practically dropped the "bait" part and is
almost always using the nonsensical term "switch scam". Perhaps
even he realizes its nonsensical nature now, accounting for his
just using the word "scam" in his false allegation.

> >> all you have basically
> >> done is post to me to harass me.

> > You've done the same to me, in far greater measure, and you also harassed me
> > when I posted a completely on-topic reply to your OP on the Turtle genome
> > and analysis thread. And you never posted on that topic in the thread
> > again, devoting your time there to posting false off-topic charges
> > against me, and turning on everyone who criticized you for doing it.

> > You are a hate-driven lunatic, and a pathological liar.

> He's delusional as well. There is no reasoning with him.
> And he hasn't changed in over a decade. All in all, he fits right
> in here with the rest of the lunatics.

Except for Ray Martinez and Thrinaxodon, and occasional religious nuts,
I don't know of anyone who even seems to be as seriously deranged as Ron O.

> Right now I'm considering Shrubber's behavior. He thinks himself as
> cunning and disarming, but seems to play the same games as his fellows.

His behavior is highly erratic, all right, and perhaps he would
show clear signs of insanity if he were squeezed into a corner
as tightly as I've squeezed Ron O, but I can't be sure of that
until it happens.

There are a few other long-time regulars among Shrubber's fellows that
might fit that description. Hemidactylus has shown a few signs of coming
unhinged, as has Gans from time to time, and jillery is displaying signs of
insanity right on this thread, and I could add three or four more
people to that list, but none of them is as obviously deranged as Ron O.

> At least some of them should be able to see through it,
> but if so that would be worse than if they were totally delusional.

They wouldn't see it that way, since they are amoral to a serious
extent.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

The answer should be obvious from what was written above, and from
my reply to you on this thread to which you haven't replied yet.
You seem only interested in nailing Feduccia on something, anything,
and not interested at all in learning something from him about
birds, or feathers, or dinosaurs.

That kind of attitude towards topics causes me to put them
on the back burner.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

OK. I'll take the book back to the library. Let me know if you ever want
to discuss anything on-topic.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:oM6dnehL7r7eGRHO...@giganews.com...

Bring me back a cheeseburger, honey.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

I wonder whether he approaches any on-topic discussion
without such personal motives in mind, at least here
in talk.origins where there are so many perpetrators
of injustice in palsy-walsy relationship with him,
and he doesn't want to let his fans down.

In sci.bio.paleontology he is a different person, except
when unpopular hypotheses like Feduccia's, or undeservedly
popular policies like his own cladophile dogmatism, are being debated.
He really is a font of disinterested information in s.b.p. otherwise.
For that, I still respect him. But I'm getting really fed up
with the destructive games he plays here in talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:3ad4f77c-3818-4e1a...@googlegroups.com...

I ran across an interesting comment by John in a reference used in another topic.Enjoy:

"So, essentially, you're saying you want all those kids to get off your lawn."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/many-prominent-scientists-get-it-right.html

[John Harshman]

On 6/2/14, 12:47 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:oM6dnehL7r7eGRHO...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> On 6/2/14, 4:39 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 8:23:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>> So, now that you know I'm still interested, how about replying in that
>>>>> thread?
>
>>>> The answer should be obvious from what was written above, and from
>>>> my reply to you on this thread to which you haven't replied yet.
>>>> You seem only interested in nailing Feduccia on something, anything,
>>>> and not interested at all in learning something from him about
>>>> birds, or feathers, or dinosaurs.
>
>>>> That kind of attitude towards topics causes me to put them
>>>> on the back burner.
>
>>> OK. I'll take the book back to the library. Let me know if you ever want
>>> to discuss anything on-topic.
>
>> Bring me back a cheeseburger, honey.
>
> Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
> really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
> than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.
>
> I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
> resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
> care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
> teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

I had no idea. But OK: I am interested in really on-topic discussion

rather than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

[snip further clueless speculation on my motives and practices]

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:03:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> I ran across an interesting comment by John in a reference used in
> another topic.Enjoy:

> "So, essentially, you're saying you want all those kids to get off your lawn."
>
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/many-prominent-scientists-get-it-right.html

Thank you for that reference! Harshman acted like an idiot there, popping
in with flamebait and then popping back out when corrected by the person
he was addressing, "The Thought Criminal" (TTC).

But what especially interests me is that TTC looks like a kindred
spirit of mine, and of AlwaysAskingQuestions, from what I've read so far
[I don't have the time now to read more than a small fraction],
while this comment of his makes SLC look like another Ron O:

"SLC, you have spent all day here pretending I didn't say what I said
yesterday - as I pointed it out that's what I'd said, over and over
again - only to have you paraphrase what I said as a refutation of
me pointing out, again, that I had said it. And you expect me to be
bothered by your insults after that. "Unglued" was the politest term
I could think of for the behavior you're exhibiting."

One thing is for sure, SLC is one of those idiots who confuse
the quantum vacuum with "something that exists and doesn't exist at
the same time". It comes as no surprise that he confuses the quantum
vacuum with the "false vacuum" which TTC was talking about. That
"false vacuum" is a playground of charlatans who make it out to be
something utterly different than what it is, so it's no wonder SLC
is confused.

If you find TTC posting somewhere currently, I'd be grateful if you
could pass the info on as to where.

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
> really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
> than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.
>
> I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
> resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
> care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
> teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

For what little it is worth, don't ever suppose that my
not responding to accusations you make about me are any
sort of concession. Frankly, life is far to short to
bother responding to your imaginative accusations. It's
unlikely a reasonable person would take them seriously,
and there's no real point in retorting for the sake of
unreasonable people. The desire to defend one's honor
also fades when the accusations come without credibility.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:44:03 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
> > really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
> > than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

> > I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
> > resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
> > care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
> > teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

> For what little it is worth, don't ever suppose that my
> not responding to accusations you make about me are any
> sort of concession.

Perish the thought. I know you too well for that.
And I know Harshman too well to think that your
description also applies to his overall behavior
in this particular instance.

[snip generalizations having no bearing on the foregoing
paragraph]

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

Your "knowing" is in sharp contrast to my perception of
his and just about everybody's response to your accusations
and insinuations. Nobody takes you as seriously as you
take yourself. In fact, your vainglorious commentary about
how you have scored various victories against the myriad
windmills you tilt upon inform everybody exactly how to
respond to your many accusations. Except that derisive laughter
is rapidly exhausted and converts to simply shaking one's
head in disgust.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8adnVuSjMX4shDO...@giganews.com...

Fantasy.

[*Hemidactylus*]

OK Great Enabler, I think this has long shifted into codependency
territory here and your efforts and subsequent disappointment are the
perfect exemplar. How many more times are you going to let that happen?
Are you driving him to his fixes now? You are lending him social capital
he uses to bankroll his attacks on the rest of us.

If someone gets their assholic fixes by driving though our neighborhood
and dissing us (Gans, jillery, Ron O, me etc.) and you give him the
social capital to do so because he massages your ego via your interests
in birds or whatever what does that make you? Who else is really fueling
his behavior to that extent? You giving him a pass because of bird
discussions enables him to call me unhinged, a label I totally embrace
considering the source. I mean really, who is unhinged here? I *love*
it. The more he calls me that, the more I smile. I am unhinged! I own
it. Totally! Hell yeah!

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:13:57 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:44:03 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
> >> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>> Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
> >>> really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
> >>> than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

> >>> I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
> >>> resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
> >>> care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
> >>> teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

> >> For what little it is worth, don't ever suppose that my
> >> not responding to accusations you make about me are any
> >> sort of concession.

> > Perish the thought. I know you too well for that.
> > And I know Harshman too well to think that your
> > description also applies to his overall behavior
> > in this particular instance.

> Your "knowing" is in sharp contrast to my perception of
> his and just about everybody's response to your accusations
> and insinuations.

"Just about everybody" means a tiny handful of people
who pay a highly disproportionate amount of attention to me.

And among them, you are unique in the amount of attention you
pay to my interactions with Harshman, in thread after
thread after thread.

That is in stunning contrast to the amount of attention you are
paying to Ron O and other participants on this thread.

And, in case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of talk.origins
participants hardly comment on me, if at all.

You need to develop a sense of proportion.

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 10:03 AM, John Harshman wrote:


>> OK. I'll take the book back to the library. Let me know if you ever want
>> to discuss anything on-topic.
>
> OK Great Enabler, I think this has long shifted into codependency
> territory here and your efforts and subsequent disappointment are the
> perfect exemplar. How many more times are you going to let that happen?
> Are you driving him to his fixes now? You are lending him social capital
> he uses to bankroll his attacks on the rest of us.

One must ask, do you really think that somebody gains social capital
in this situation or are they revealed as a buffoon? If you advocate
for the former I suggest you seek out an optometrist. If anything,
there's a sadistic cruelty in enabling somebody to self-immolate
with such predictable and reproducible flagrancy. But I've come
to believe that said behavior is its own self-actualizing form of
justice. We are likely well beyond sufficiency but perhaps there's still
value in reproducing the obvious. There's simply no trivial formula
for deciding how much is enough.

[Roger Shrubber]

Indeed. I must take your suggestion under advisement.
One might guess something about why the majority of talk.origins
participants have chosen to ignore your contributions. I certainly
have guessed something. My guess is based on their reactions to
what you have posted. Your guess is based on how others have
responded to your posts. I give people credit for going to the
primary source. But I'm biased to consider many of the contributors
to talk.origins as rational human beings.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k4SdnRWuAczoyRDO...@giganews.com...

Fantasy.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 11:51:16 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> If someone gets their assholic fixes by driving though our neighborhood
> and dissing us (Gans, jillery, Ron O, me etc.)

Are you the same Hemidactylus who I thought was genuinely approving
of the way I did not succumb to counterattacking Ron O and jillery
and Gans on the thread, "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" last year?

Was that only because you enjoyed watching them diss me and were not at
all interested in the on-topic discussion I was having with Harshman?

It certainly seems that way from what you told Harshman next:

> and you give him the
> social capital to do so because he massages your ego via your interests
> in birds or whatever what does that make you? Who else is really fueling
> his behavior to that extent?

Which behavior are you talking about? Do you only want people to diss
me and not discuss on-topic things with me at all?

> You giving him a pass because of bird
> discussions

Giving me what kind of pass? A pass to go on doing on-topic posts?

> enables him to call me unhinged,

No, just showing "a few signs of becoming unhinged."

Besides, I did give you the benefit of the doubt by asking whether your
bizarre response to a post I did in reply to Dai Monie was just an
April Fool joke, but you didn't hang around long enough to confirm
or deny that.

Then came a strange post in which you said you had been a Swiss-style
neutral wrt the long antagonism between Ron O and me. I explained
in reply to you why you were really more of a Sukarno-style neutralist,
and how it looked like you were making yourself an ally of Ron O.
[since you called your neutrality a mistake], and again you made
no reply.

Then came the "hold his feet to the fire and make it fucking burn!"
bit in reply to Mitchell Coffey. No reply to my mild reaction there
either.

And what part did Harshman's behavior play in any of this, pray tell?

> a label I totally embrace
> considering the source. I mean really, who is unhinged here?

If either of us is, it is you, by default. You haven't analyzed a single
action of mine here.

> I *love*
> it. The more he calls me that, the more I smile. I am unhinged! I own
> it. Totally! Hell yeah!

Maybe you should take another look at Thrinaxodon's posts. You are still
a long way from that degree of looniness, but the trajectory is definitely
in that direction. The contrast between your behavior here and what I saw
from you in 2010-2013 is extremely disturbing.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/03/2014 12:36 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 06/02/2014 10:03 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>> OK. I'll take the book back to the library. Let me know if you ever want
>>> to discuss anything on-topic.
>>
>> OK Great Enabler, I think this has long shifted into codependency
>> territory here and your efforts and subsequent disappointment are the
>> perfect exemplar. How many more times are you going to let that happen?
>> Are you driving him to his fixes now? You are lending him social capital
>> he uses to bankroll his attacks on the rest of us.
>
> One must ask, do you really think that somebody gains social capital
> in this situation or are they revealed as a buffoon? If you advocate
> for the former I suggest you seek out an optometrist. If anything,
> there's a sadistic cruelty in enabling somebody to self-immolate
> with such predictable and reproducible flagrancy. But I've come
> to believe that said behavior is its own self-actualizing form of
> justice. We are likely well beyond sufficiency but perhaps there's still
> value in reproducing the obvious. There's simply no trivial formula
> for deciding how much is enough.

I have a high regard for Harshman and that's why I have been hitting him
so hard. His respectability as an opinion leader is akin to a ratings
agency and when he replies to the unmentionable in various threads he is
inadvertently stamping the unmentionable as a AAA rating regardless of
the hidden toxic *ass*ets that are bundled within. And Harshman thus
creates a bubble effect whereby said unmentionable evaluates himself
more favorably than warranted...a "wealth effect" of assumed *ass*ets
that create nasty polluting externalities in the local economy. That's
perhaps the worst of it. More than lending him respectability, Harshman
creates an inaccurate self-perception. We suffer the consequences.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:kuydna7A3cKGxBDO...@giganews.com...

You only suffer what you allow yourself to suffer. Are you on drugs?

[RonO]

On 6/2/2014 6:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:08:27 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:a0274250-2cb9-44cc...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>> I will just say this. You are obviously about to run again,
>
>>> A lie.
>
> Ron O has made up a pure fantasy about there being some rule of three
> posts ("you avoid making the Nyikosian mistake three times") in order
> to justify this lie. If he hadn't put "obviously" in there he could
> pass the lie off as "just an opinion" -- except that his monumental
> pride might not allow him to do that much, even to save face.

This is pathetic even by Nykosian standards. You have obviously read
the post, but instead of addressing the issue where it is an issue you
have to lie to someone else that probably doesn't have a clue as to what
you are talking about because you do not give him a link to the post,
and where is the material that you are lying about? It isn't here is
it? Why do you have to lie where the context for the lie is missing?
Your one post lying rule has no basis in reality. When you lie and the
evidence is in another post it is still a lie.

Here is the link, it is the post just below this one in the Thunderbird
thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/vR_UjFMyXnsJ

Why do you have to lie to Glenn instead of addressing the issue where
you would have to confront what you have done without snipping it out a
third time? These are your bogus and delusional rules and you are the
one that has to deal with them and assiduously maintain them.

>
>>>> and
>>>> probably will not post to me for several weeks,
>
>>> Wishful thinking.
>
>>>> so before you come back
>>>> with your assoholic stupidity, just reflect on the fact that since you
>>>> admitted that you were wrong about the ID scam
>
>>> I never made any such admission, you pathological liar.
>
> As usual, he made no attempt to justify this lie, but asked another one
> of those loaded questions that is designed to give readers the impression
> that he was telling the truth, whereas the whole thing is a lie.

Another bogus lie. Why haven't you dealt with the fact that you finally
found the evidence convincing and the issue was dropped? What is there
not to get? Why is that fact not a justification? You can't just lie
about these things and think that you are accomplishing anything. What
have you done since that admission? Have you come up with any counter
evidence? Anything to say that things just are not what I have claimed
from the beginning? Why lie?

>
> To begin with, "admitted" is nonsense because I never claimed the
> ID was not running a scam, I only pointed out that his evidence
> for a scam is so weak, even Robert Camp acknowledged [a much more appropriate
> word than "admitted" in such contexts] that the evidence for there
> having been any BAIT (for the alleged bait-and-switch scam)
> since the Dover trial is weak.

Go back and demonstrate anything. Why not address this issue where you
brought it back up? Why run and repeat the same lame lies? You should
go through all your posts to me in this bogus thread and self evaluate
just what a loser you are.

What are you doing regurgitating the same bogus lies to yourself
pretending that you are posting to Glenn?

Why did you not respond to the post that you obviously read and had to
run from or break your stupid three post lying stupidity rule?

Why do you have to go back over your own stupidity where the responses
that I have already given to the stupidity are not in evidence? Didn't
I respond to this junk? Why can't you deal with my responses instead of
reliving your stupidity again?

>
> And even Ron O has practically dropped the "bait" part and is
> almost always using the nonsensical term "switch scam". Perhaps
> even he realizes its nonsensical nature now, accounting for his
> just using the word "scam" in his false allegation.

This is so lame that I really want to know what is your point? Do you
even know?

Self evaluate the posts that you had to run from just in this thread.
Try to get a grip on reality before you do your next lame harassment.
Try to think up something where you don't have to delete the whole
harassment post and run away like you have had to do this time. You
have deleted and run from your initial harassment post twice in this
thread, and you shouldn't have had to snip and run even once, let alone
twice in such a lame and obvious fashion. Get a grip and deal with what
a dishonest asshole you are. How can you justify the fact that you had
to remove your entire post from the discussion not just once, but twice
already?

Just because you are pretending to post to Glenn doesn't mean that you
haven't run from the context again. The context isn't here is it?

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

For some time now, Ron O has been making the bizarre claim that I am
"running away" from my own OP to this thread. The first such
alleged time was when he left the whole OP in it without saying
anything about its contents. Naturally I left it out of my reply--why
talk about something from whose CONTENTS Ron O obviously ran away
by any sane definition of the term "running away?

As I told Glenn, Ron O is trapped in a hell of his own making
by concocting a ridiculous meaning for the term "running away from A,"
for which the necessary and sufficient condition
is snipping the text where A appears from one's post.
So he evidently assures himself that he has never run away from
anything I've posted to this thread, but he pays a steep price even
for this childish delusion; one of his posts to this thread ran to
over 430 lines.

This is my third reply to Ron O's third post to this thread; and
this time, I leave in my OP just the way he reposted it,
despite the fact that it will appear with only
one > in the margin, because of the way Ron O quoted it.

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:35:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 7:13 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> You only look like more of a tragic self deluded
> asshole when I have to demonstrate why you should self evaluate a post.

No such demonstration was made by you below.

> What kind of person would start a side thread to do this and then lie
> about what he is doing

Where am I supposed to be lying about what I am doing?
Is the lie supposed to be in the quoted OP?
Why don't you have the backbone to say WHERE it appears?

> while removing the context as he is lying about
> the issue, and lying about removing context?

Where is the context I am charged with removing?
Are you referring to the fact I did not post an OP over 1000 lines
long, showing everything relevant that went on between us
in that March "By their Fruits" thread?

> You really are that sad and you have to self evaluate the situation and
> determine if you want to be the dishonest and degenerate asshole that
> you are.

Is this what you think is a demonstration about having to self evaluate?

How about this: could you compose a statement which, were I to post it,
would be accepted by you as evidence that I am self evaluating?

Even though I am self evaluating my posts all the time (especially the OP,
which I trimmed and polished over the course of a whole week), it seems
that the only thing that you would accept is something resembling a
confession which a political prisoner, under interrogation by the
North Korean secret police, would sign so as to be free of the relentless
interrogation. Am I correct?

At this point, you wrote something to which I already replied,
but I am quoting it here, because you were most evasive in
dealing with my reply:

[QUOTE:]

> You know that the one sentence refers to the ID scam intelligent
> designer with all the religious references removed.

Anyone reading your sentence can see that you composed your sentence
that way, just as you referred to God with all attributes of God
removed. Specifically, you made no statement one way or the other
about intelligence or design where "God" is concerned.

> That is a scam God.

And God, as talked about in your sentence, is not a God with any qualities.

> You know that they have the same Christian God that I do, but they
> have to lie about it.

This is the first time I have seen anyone claim that Behe, Meyer, or any
DI members lie ABOUT GOD.

And, of course, you make NO hint of what even one of these alleged
lies might be. This is typical of a great many of your lies about
me, but you routinely accuse me of "running away" even when all I
am doing is snipping vague charges like this.

[END OF QUOTE]

> Why did you have to snip the post from my response?

I did not have to do it, but it made no sense to leave my OP in
because you didn't try to deny or explain anything in it; you completely
ignored it while leaving it in.

> Why am I the one
> that has to put it bsck in for the context that you are lying about not
> removing?

Is the context supposed to be the OP? It obviously is not relevant
to anything you wrote in your first post to this thread, nor the second.
And I am here replying to your THIRD post to this thread.

This time, you *are* saying something (barely coherent) about
the contents of the OP, at the beginning and end of the OP.
You just barely acknowledged something in the "context" by including
a weasel worded equivocation about "bogus scam designer" that I
interpreted in the only legitimate way it COULD be interpreted.
See the part between [QUOTE] and [END OF QUOTE] above.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

...AND his deep, irrational animosity towards me, which causes Shrubber
to jump to inexplicably weird conclusions. See the reply I did to him
today:

Subject: Re: Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/XBtzf2VIhMs/HOaI0W-xoOEJ

> > Your guess is based on how others have
> > responded to your posts.

When I said "hardly comment on me, if at all," I meant it.
Shrubber seems not to have absorbed the meaning of that.

> > I give people credit for going to the
> > primary source. But I'm biased to consider many of the contributors
> > to talk.origins as rational human beings.

> Fantasy.

Indeed it is. The post I reference up there shows fantasy from Shrubber
that is even more irrational than what he displays here. Read it--it's
priceless!

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>Harshman could easily have said that I was wrong, he
>really was interested in really on-topic discussion rather
>than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

>I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and
>resumed the on-topic discussion. But he doesn't even
>care that readers now know that this "on-topic discussion"
>teaser of his was done with ulterior motives in mind.

>I wonder whether he approaches any on-topic discussion
>without such personal motives in mind, at least here
>in talk.origins where there are so many perpetrators
>of injustice in palsy-walsy relationship with him,
>and he doesn't want to let his fans down.

>In sci.bio.paleontology he is a different person, except
>when unpopular hypotheses like Feduccia's, or undeservedly
>popular policies like his own cladophile dogmatism, are being debated.
>He really is a font of disinterested information in s.b.p. otherwise.
>For that, I still respect him. But I'm getting really fed up
>with the destructive games he plays here in talk.origins.

YOU are getting fed up with the games HE plays?

Oh my.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

A fact that can be taken as rejection instead of approval.

>You need to develop a sense of proportion.

[RonO]

On 6/3/2014 12:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

What would be this type of delusional behavior be called? Psychotic?
This looks like a total loss of understanding of reality, but it likely
is just a case of just how pathetically dishonest some people can be.

I am going to leave this post intact. Nyikos needs to put up the post
that he is manipulating and this one side by side in order to get the
full impact of his delusional state of mind. This post is a tour de
force of a delusional asshole trying to maintain his delusions in the
face of reality. It is so ridiculously insane in its execution that it
took me totally by surprise. It is something that is really
unimaginable. I never considered this to be an option for maintaining
the Nyikosian three post rule delusion.

Here is the post that Nyikos is supposed to be responding to:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/b-iHNFjgFEkJ

This is the post that Nyikos is manipulating in order to lie about what
he got caught lying about. His current post is a sordid and complex bit
of delusional post manipulation, but it is so Nykosian that Nyikos is
possibly the only person I have ever met that needed to do something
this dishonest and stupid. It is so twisted in the Nyikosian attempt to
keep to his stupid lying rules intact that it is pretty much
unbelievable that anyone would even try to do it and think that they
were doing anything reasonable.

The post from the link that Nyikos is manipulating below is actually a
response to Nyikos' lies about the post quoted below. Yes. Nyikos
removed the lies that I was talking about. Is anything left in the post
that would indicate that this was a response to Nyikos' lies in defense
of starting this thread with the post quoted below?

Nyikos has assiduously removed all the evidence that he lied and is
trying to make believe that the lies that I was talking about were in
this post that is left. Where are the indications that he removed the
material? You do have to have the original post to compare in order to
understand the depths of the dishonesty. The Nyikosian lies that I was
talking about were about this post quoted below, not in this post.
Nyikos had to remove the post quoted below twice in order to keep
telling the lies. He could not stand to have the evidence that he was
lying remain in his responses because of his one post lying rule (that
he lies about having). Now in order to keep the quoted post in and not
delete it for a third time (Another stupid Nyikosian rule about lying
and doing dishonest junk is that he can openly lie twice, but three
times telling the lie or doing the same dishonest deed is bad). So to
keep the post in he has had to remove all the context that he lied about
the post. Really, in order to keep the quote in he has to remove all
the material pertaining to the quote indicating how hie lied.

Yes, Nyikos is being consistent in his delusion, but it is so insane
because of what he was caught lying about. Who would believe that he
got caught lying about removing context, and to continue to lie about
the issue he has to remove all the context of him telling the lies that
he got caught telling.

When I reposted the quoted post a third time in response to the Nykosian
lies about having his three post rule I told Nyikos that he had to
address the post in the context of what had already been written in this
thread, but what has he done?

I really could not make this up if I wanted to. In order to lie to
himself about violating his three post rule he has to do what he got
caught lying about and is the reason that he had to snip out the quoted
material and run twice before. Even someone as deluded as Nyikos should
be able to determine what is missing from this post in order for him to
keep the quoted material in and pretend that he is addressing it in context.

Just to be clear. Nyikos, only a deluded asshole would not understand
that you are not addressing the quoted material in context, because you
removed the context.

This post should be a classic in just how delusional Nyikos can be, but
my guess is that it can only get worse.

Just to be doubly clear. Nyikos, you started this thread to harass me
and have only demonstrated who the low life lying scum bag really is.
Being called a lying asshole is the least of your worries after this post.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:lmlp0d$k58$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/3/2014 12:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> What would be this type of delusional behavior be called? Psychotic?
> This looks like a total loss of understanding of reality, but it likely
> is just a case of just how pathetically dishonest some people can be.
>

Yep.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:01:40 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:

> YOU are getting fed up with the games HE plays?

Granted, they aren't as openly dishonest and insincere and playing-for-keeps
as the games YOU play, but they are games just the same. He has indulged
in one destructive game after another against AlwaysAskingQuestions (AAQ)
on the thread,

Subject: Re: Kenneth Miller Laetare Address

> Oh my.

You have a lot of catching up to do. Both AAQ and I have called attention
repeatedly to the games Harshman plays on that thread.

As for us, I am a straight-as-arrow person, no games, and AAQ shows no
sign of playing games either. If you think otherwise, I'd love to see
what your far-past-its-prime brain has by way of what it thinks to be
evidence.

> --- Paul J. Gans

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Had you written this INSTEAD OF what you did, I would have given
you the benefit of the doubt, but now I need to see some
demonstration of sincerity from you before doing so.

One way you could demonstrate sincerity is by dealing with the reply
I gave Hemidactylus, by either getting him to reply to it directly,
in detail, or replying to it directly in detail, yourself.

> [snip further clueless speculation on my motives and practices]

Another way would be for you to justify, in detail, this
bracketed parting shot of yours, with special emphasis on
"clueless speculation."

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

If this is the kind of crap that has to go down before anybody talks about
Feduccia's ideas, I hereby disclaim any further interest in the subject. Carry
on.

[John Harshman]

So you're saying that in order to prove I'm interested in on-topic posts
rather than off-topic bullshit, I have to respond to off-topic bullshit?
Thanks, but no.

Do let me know if you ever want to discuss anything. But if you don't,
never mind.

[RonO]

Probably stinks to get used by an asshole like Nyikos. When he starts
blabbing about other posters in his posts to me I usually tell him to go
and address the issue with them because I don't have the foggiest notion
of what he is talking about most of those times.

The Nykosian delusion is sort of "out of sight, out of mind." He thinks
that if he removes the material from a post it never existed. Neil
Shubin's recent inner fish series compared an 18 month old toddler to an
18 month old monkey, and when the bobble disappeared from sight it was
like it never existed for the toddler, but the monkey understood the
situation. Nyikos chooses to be like the toddler.

Literally in a nutshell, Nyikos got caught lying about having the
problem of removing context and lying about it as he had in the posts
leading up to his stupid harassment thread (in the original By their
fruits thread) so what did he do? He removed as much context as he
could and even divested the post from the context of the original
thread. In his response to my response to this first post in this
thread he lied about having the problem of removing context and to
continue to lie he had to remove his entire post. When confronted by
his stupidity he again removed the context a second time. He started
lying about having his stupid 3 post stupidity rule that he assiduously
adheres to even to the point of putting back in the material after
violating the three post rule in the past.

To deny his three post problem he has to lie to another poster (Glenn)
where again the context is missing, instead of just addressing the issue
where it is an issue.

Now he comes back and pretends to address the issue, but in order to do
it he has to remove all the context that forced him to delete the
material in the first place.

It is a consistent delusion, but probably could be classified as
psychotic at this time.

It is probably a good thing that psychotic does not equal dangerously
insane. There is just some weird disconnect with reality driving
Nyikos' behavior. For some reason he has to pretend that he is 18
months old.

Ron Okimoto

[Mitchell Coffey]

"Nobody around here seems to realize that there is generally more to
what I write than meets the eye."

Peter Nyikos, 6 Feb 2013

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/vhRgq268CJY/8vfmr55h3EcJ

Mitchell Coffey

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:09:09 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/3/14, 7:40 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:29:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> >> I had no idea. But OK: I am interested in really on-topic discussion
> >> rather than off-topic dirt on Feduccia.

Instead of composing a comment in your own words, you simply parrotted
what I had written to Glenn here. And while this exchange (of which
this was only the latest step) between you and me was going on,
you were indulging in one insincere piece of bullshit after another

against AlwaysAskingQuestions in another thread. So I wrote:

> > Had you written this INSTEAD OF what you did, I would have given
> > you the benefit of the doubt, but now I need to see some
> > demonstration of sincerity from you before doing so.

> > One way you could demonstrate sincerity is by dealing with the reply
> > I gave Hemidactylus, by either getting him to reply to it directly,
> > in detail, or replying to it directly in detail, yourself.

> So you're saying that in order to prove I'm interested in on-topic posts
> rather than off-topic bullshit, I have to respond to off-topic bullshit?

No, and you've flunked your first test of sincerity, since anyone can
see that I was giving you SAMPLES of how you might show sincerity,
and you snipped the second sample, which had to do with showing that
your off-topic parting shot,

"[snip further clueless speculation on my motives and practices]"

was NOT insincere bullshit. If it WAS insincere bullshit, then its
juxtaposition with your parroting sent a very different message
than the parroting alone would have.

> Thanks, but no.

> Do let me know if you ever want to discuss anything. But if you don't,
> never mind.

For over three years I've discussed one on-topic issue after another with you,
and if you can't see how this parting shot of yours sounds insincere in
the light of this, you need counseling.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:26:09 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> deleted

...the attribution line to yourself, plus something that you
identified as due a person designated only as "peter".

> >> You're asserting Ron O. wrote a contradiction that he never wrote,

> >Ray made that assertion, not I.

Where's the apology for the false accusation and the defamatory
conclusion you drew from it? [Of course, you snipped it this
time around.]

> Then you agree with me, that you identified no contradiction that Ron
> O. wrote.

True, but now you posted something completely illogical:

> So all of your noise about what Ron O. wrote vs your
> interpretation of it isn't worth the electrons it took to post it.

I warned you to leave lest Ron O pull you down to his level,
and here you are posting at a level of craziness matched by only
Ron O and very few other people.

Do you seriously think that the only way someone can be proven
to be posting idiotic or dishonest things is to contradict himself?

What if some idiot came along and alleged the following:

After seeing the Disney film "Finding Nemo", jillery
built a giant toilet and flushed herself down it.

Just because this doesn't involve an internal contradiction,
does that make any disparaging statement one could make about
the utterer invalid? You can probably think of several valid ones.

Warning: the indented sentence is for illustrative purposes and
does not state any allegation by me. Anyone who depicts me as making
the allegation is dishonest/crazy/illiterate.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 12:12:39 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/30/2014 9:25 AM, John Harshman wrote:

> > You haven't had an on-topic post in weeks.

I wonder whether Harshman was counting his massive participation
in "Kenneth Miller Laetare Address" as being on-topic. If so,
he is mistaken above, because I was talking about the same topics
he was. If not, then he is again in "do as I say, not as I do"
mode here.

> I'm now doing my part to allow him the time to re-engage with you.

Does this refer to your minimal involvement with me in the two explosive
topics, homophobia and anti-semitism, in the last two weeks? If you
are willing to continue it, I just may reconsider my refusal,
despite Harshman's massive displays of insincerity, and resume the
discussion on birds in another week or so.

> I was hoping he would take you up on your offer to describe the reasons
> Alan Feduccia is widely considered a crank. I'd be interested if you'd
> do this regardless of Peter's engagement.

Has he taken you up on this offer? If not, I'm not surprised, because
he kept fishing for evidence that Feduccia is a crank, and invariably
showed disappointment over my failure to provide it. This in turn
was due to fact that no such evidence is to be found in
_Riddle of the Feathered Dragons_, the book I had been informing
him about, and which he took out of the library after his fishing
expedition had gone on fruitlessly for several weeks.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Friday, June 6, 2014 10:30:19 AM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 30, 2014 12:12:39 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> > On 5/30/2014 9:25 AM, John Harshman wrote:

> <...>

>
> > I'm now doing my part to allow him the time to re-engage with you.
>
>
>
> Does this refer to your minimal involvement with me in the two explosive
>
> topics, homophobia and anti-semitism, in the last two weeks? If you
>
> are willing to continue it, I just may reconsider my refusal,
>
> despite Harshman's massive displays of insincerity, and resume the
>
> discussion on birds in another week or so.
>
>
>
> > I was hoping he would take you up on your offer to describe the reasons
>
> > Alan Feduccia is widely considered a crank. I'd be interested if you'd
>
> > do this regardless of Peter's engagement.
>

><...>
Let me get this straight: if Coffey goes to the mat with Nyikos about
homophobia and anti-semitism, then Nyikos will resume squabbling over
Feduccia's birds? (But only after a suitable timeout.) What a deal.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 6/6/2014 1:30 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 30, 2014 12:12:39 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 5/30/2014 9:25 AM, John Harshman wrote:

[Nyikos replying to a third party, snipped.]

>> I'm now doing my part to allow him the time to re-engage with you.
>
> Does this refer to your minimal involvement with me in the two explosive
> topics, homophobia and anti-semitism, in the last two weeks?

Yes.

> If you
> are willing to continue it, I just may reconsider my refusal,
> despite Harshman's massive displays of insincerity, and resume the
> discussion on birds in another week or so.

Fine with me.

>> I was hoping he would take you up on your offer to describe the reasons
>> Alan Feduccia is widely considered a crank. I'd be interested if you'd
>> do this regardless of Peter's engagement.
>
> Has he taken you up on this offer? If not, I'm not surprised, because
> he kept fishing for evidence that Feduccia is a crank, and invariably
> showed disappointment over my failure to provide it. This in turn
> was due to fact that no such evidence is to be found in
> _Riddle of the Feathered Dragons_, the book I had been informing
> him about, and which he took out of the library after his fishing
> expedition had gone on fruitlessly for several weeks.
>
> Peter Nyikos

He directed me to: Prum, R. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod
origin of birds science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). The Auk
120(2):550�561.

This can be found, here:
http://prumlab.yale.edu/publications/are-current-critiques-theropod-origin-birds-science-rebuttal-feduccia-2002

It's full of evidence. Feduccia has long been considered cranky by many
of his colleagues. I was aware of that before I encountered Harshman,
and before John discuss Feduccia's crankiness in T.O. ten years ago.

Harshman did ask if you wanted evidence of Feduccia's crankiness, and
did prove some, but you wandered away.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

I interpreted it oppositely: if I continued to respond minimally to his
posts on homophobia and anti-semitism, two off-topic issues close to my
heart, he wouldn't feel obligated to respond to me, hence he might have
time to respond to Harshman on Feduccia, an on-topic issue I don't give
a shit about. I've agreed to not to respond to Nyikos so as to promote
on-topic discussion.

Mitchell Coffey

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, June 6, 2014 2:16:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

> Let me get this straight: if Coffey goes to the mat with Nyikos about
> homophobia and anti-semitism, then Nyikos will resume squabbling over
> Feduccia's birds?

You got it backwards: if he continues to refrain from going to the
mat...

It's an issue of what I can spare the time for, and priorities.

> (But only after a suitable timeout.) What a deal.

I'm plannning to resume discussing directed panspermia (DP) next week.
I don't want to resume talking about birds until the DP discussion
has ripened somewhat.

Off topic discussion is generally a no-brainer: there is a set of
about ten people who love to make derogatory claims about me,
and it is easy to rebut them (unless they bring up old things about
which my memory is rusty) when they are distortions because I KNOW
why they are distortions, and I generally know where to look up
what needs to be looked up [often nothing].

It isn't that way with on-topic discussion, which thus goes more
slowly.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

My misunderstanding. I am still interested in bird phylogeny.

[Paul J Gans]

He's a topologist. He gets the twists that we miss.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, June 6, 2014 3:34:38 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> He directed me to: Prum, R. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod
> origin of birds science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). The Auk

> 120(2):550-561.

> This can be found, here:
>
> http://prumlab.yale.edu/publications/are-current-critiques-theropod-origin-birds-science-rebuttal-feduccia-2002

Thank you very much for this url!! When I tried to look up the article,
I ran into a $15 paywall. Now I can say for sure, banking also on your
promise of a 'moratorium' on heavy discussion of those explosive off-topic
issues: I will get back to discussing bird ancestry no later than
June 18. Directed panspermia takes precedence next week, and a teaser
can already be found in the thread,

Subject: Re: Mega-Earth identified
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/zebS6B25Ztc/3jjVWvQ2dJAJ

The only question in my mind is whether it is best to have
the discussion on bird ancestry here or in sci.bio.paleontology.

> It's full of evidence.

The first two pages are full of polemic.

I will get around to looking at his evidence this weekend, though.
The twice-a-week UNC Charlotte topology seminar will eat up a lot
of my time, also the visit of my oldest daughter for the weekend,
but I'm pretty sure I can find the time to read most of it.

> Feduccia has long been considered cranky by many
> of his colleagues. I was aware of that before I encountered Harshman,
> and before John discuss Feduccia's crankiness in T.O. ten years ago.

> Harshman did ask if you wanted evidence of Feduccia's crankiness, and
> did prove some, but you wandered away.

Prum's "evidence" of Feduccia's crankiness backfires on Prum on the
first two pages. He makes it sound like feathers are the ONLY
feature of dromaesaurs that Feduccia considered when abandoning
his earlier hypothesis that they weren't closely related to birds,
but it was the overall combination of traits that did it.

But far worse than this, we get the following illogical passage:

"Feduccia (2002) offers an alternative to the theropod
hypothesis of bird origins that is so vague
as to be literally untestable."

Prum mentions the alternative, which is very falsifiable,
in the very next sentence: they are basal archosaurs.

That was all that could be said about pterosaur ancestry back
then too, and even now the early evolution of pterosaurs is as
enigmatic as Feduccia believes that of birds to be.

What did Prum mean, anyway? Did he want Feduccia to stick
his neck out and give ONE hypothesis about the phylogenetic
tree of the following taxa?

{Birds, pterosaurs, crocodiles, dinosaurs, phytosaurs}?

He seems to say that unless Feduccia does this, he
is not doing science.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Nope. Consider: all the other traits were known from previously
discovered fossils long before Feduccia decided that dromaeosaurs were
birds. What changed? Microraptor, a dromaeosaur with clear, preserved
feathers. Similarly, all the other traits were known from previously
discovered fossils long before Feduccia decided that oviraptorosaurs
were birds. What changed? Caudipteryx, an oviraptorosaur with clear,
preserved feathers. Or is that just a coincidence?

> But far worse than this, we get the following illogical passage:
>
> "Feduccia (2002) offers an alternative to the theropod
> hypothesis of bird origins that is so vague
> as to be literally untestable."
>
> Prum mentions the alternative, which is very falsifiable,
> in the very next sentence: they are basal archosaurs.

That's pretty vague.

> That was all that could be said about pterosaur ancestry back
> then too, and even now the early evolution of pterosaurs is as
> enigmatic as Feduccia believes that of birds to be.
>
> What did Prum mean, anyway? Did he want Feduccia to stick
> his neck out and give ONE hypothesis about the phylogenetic
> tree of the following taxa?

No, several might be OK, as long as it's not just all possible
hypotheses or, as he does, none at all.

> {Birds, pterosaurs, crocodiles, dinosaurs, phytosaurs}?
>
> He seems to say that unless Feduccia does this, he
> is not doing science.

Feduccia needs to offer some kind of hypothesis of phylogeny. It doesn't
have to be fully resolved, but it does have to include all the relevant
characters for all the relevant taxa. In particular, we need some
hypothesis of which theropods are birds and which are dinosaurs, along
with some evidence on which to base such a claim.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lmtogg$r5s$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

There's no theory like knot theory like no theory I know.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Paul J Gans]

Anne was knot a sharp shooter?