OT: Homophobia and Related Concepts and Memes ATTN: Burkhard

[Peter Nyikos]

As so often happens, the thread on NASA claiming to "recreate" the origins of
life got into themes unrelated to it. In particular, there have been
confrontations on incendiary issues, such as same-sex marriage
and homophobia. I'm starting a new thread for them here, beginning
with my first reply to a post by Burkhard:


On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> 2. installment
>
> > On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 5/16/19 9:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >>>> Your homophobia is demonstrated by your own statements of opposition to
> >>>> same-sex marriage,
> >>>
> >>> Highly misleading half-truth. Unlike most conservatives who want
> >>> to deprive gays in same-sex marriages of real rights, my only
> >>> beef is the use of the word "marriage" on licenses of civil unions.

By the way, I'm not even a conservative. For instance, my views on the
degradation of our environment are fairly radical, although I think for
myself and outside the box about it, and so I am not easily
pigeonholed as a "greenie".


> >>> You have been using the classic connotations of the word "marriage" for
> >>> something that lost many of them long ago. Quickie divorce, Reno-style,
> >>> and especially no-fault divorce have made a mockery of the idea
> >>> of marriage being a covenant. Leftists beginning (?) with Marx
> >>> and Engels have denounced marriage as an oppressive institution.
> >>> A particularly scathing attack was in "Refugees from Amerika:
> >>> A Gay Manifesto", by Carl Wittman.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman
> >>>
> >>> This entry does not quote that directly, but it does quote the following,
> >>> which gives some idea of how the direct attack runs:
> >>>
> >>> Exclusive heterosexuality is fucked up. It reflects a fear of
> >>> people of the same sex, it's anti-homosexual, and it is fraught
> >>> with frustration. Heterosexual sex is fucked up too; ask women's
> >>> liberation about what straight guys are like in bed. Sex is aggression
> >>> for the male chauvinist; sex is obligation for the traditional woman.
> >>> -- Amerika: A Gay Manifesto I.3[6]
> >>>
> >>> Your radical leftist reaction to the 2016 election, and to the
> >>> Charlottesville clashes, suggest that you are tuned in to radical leftist
> >>> sources. You are obviously tuned into LBGTQ sources, and so I ask you: how
> >>> thoroughly has this essay been repudiated by these two movements?
> >
> > Your animosity towards me is so great that you not only ducked
> > this question, you seem to accuse me of homophobia below for daring
> > to ask it.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> both by that point alone and by your bizarre attempts
> >>>> to justify it.
> >>>
> >>> None of which you dare to describe; and so readers are left with
> >>> the connotations and denotations of the word "bizarre".
> >>
> >> You just provided an example above.
> >
> > I take it that you think it is homophobic to ask to what
> > extent a blatantly heterophobic screed has been repudiated
> > by people who are most strongly pushing for special treatment
> > for gays.
>
>
>
> Yes it is, in the same way it is "anti-American" if the first thing I
> asked/requested from a US citizen when they reveal their nationality is
> to repudiate and apologize for John Kirkpatrick's advocacy and support
> of US state sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua, or ask of a present-day
> catholic to repudiate and apologize for Bishop Hudal's memories where he
> justifies his support for the Nazis.

Can't you see how fallacious this analogy is? I didn't ask Mark
whether HE repudiated Wittman's essay; I asked him if he knew whether the
movers and shakers of the LBGTQ and leftist movements have repudiated it.


A much better analogy would be for someone who knows I've kept
my membership in the Roman Catholic Church to ask me whether the Catholic
Church had fixed the shocking loophole it left in its 2002 reaction
to the priestly sex scandal: failure to punish or even censure the
bishops and other members of the hierarchy who covered up the
criminal activities of priests in their charge.

And my answer would be that Pope Francis has taken some promising
steps in that direction, but it's just a beginning, and I'll be
watching very closely to see what further steps the whole
hierarchy makes -- and soon!

And I would NOT call such a person anti-Catholic.


<snip of something to be addressed in a separate post>


> What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
> mischaracterisation of Wittman,

Hold it right there. I called his *screed* blatantly heterophobic.

And why not? Suppose I were to say such things about gays and gay sex
as Wittman wrote about heterosexuals and their sexual behavior.

I think the reaction here would be so intense that I would
suffer the same fate as "prawnster", who was universally shunned
because of bigoted things he wrote that went far, far beyond
anything I have written so far. I doubt, for instance, that
you would want to talk about the Scottish verdict "not proven,"
or about free will. Or if you did, you would probably be sure
to put a disclaimer in every reply to me about not condoning my
"gay-bashing."

Why on earth do you use words like "hyperbolic mischaracterization"?
Is it because you have been conditioned to keep stretching the
word "homophobic" far beyond its original meaning, but when you
see the word "heterophobic" you suddenly take the "phobic" very
literally?


<another snip, same reason as above>


> it is that you put an obligation on people to defend or justify
> themselves for the actions of someone else, by the mere fact that they
> share his sexual orientation.

I can't figure out what this refers to. Your fallacious analogy
would seem to indicate that "they" refers to Mark Isaak; but
are you actually suggesting that Mark is gay?


> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> rejection of the opposite sex".

He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
And I wholeheartedly agree with THAT! Please re-read what he wrote,
in context:

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm

Also, it seems like you are taking the word "heterophobic" with excruciating
literalness here too. That is utterly unlike the free and loose way you
-- and everyone else here -- treats the word "homophobic." It has become
a meme that has taken on a life of its own, to the point where it would take
an essay just to give a feel for what the word means to each of a variety
of people who use it.


I see this one post of yours calls for several replies; this reply
has already gotten much longer than I'd like for an OP.

Though perhaps not as long as the essay I envisioned just now. :-)


TO BE CONTINUED


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Advice #1:

Write up the reasons for your discomfort with the word "marriage" appearing on
licenses for same-sex civil unions. For extra credit, include your views on
platonic incest in whatever situations you think call for it (I've forgotten).
Get your manifesto published in your college newspaper.

Advice #2:

Don't take advice #1. If you must, wait until you're ready to retire anyway.

Advice #3:

Drop this subject. It's an embarrassment.

[Oxyaena]

On 5/29/2019 5:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> As so often happens, the thread on NASA claiming to "recreate" the origins of
> life got into themes unrelated to it. In particular, there have been
> confrontations on incendiary issues, such as same-sex marriage
> and homophobia. I'm starting a new thread for them here, beginning
> with my first reply to a post by Burkhard:

You were the one who derailed that thread, asshole.


[snip diatribe]

--
"I'd rather be the son of an ape than be descended from a man afraid to
face the truth." - TH Huxley

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[Mark Isaak]

I just read Wittman's essay, and no, I do not repudiate it. I don't
know what any in the LBGT community say about it because I don't know
that any of them have even heard of it. I had not, until you brought it up.

The paragraph you quote is the *only* section that could be considered
heterophobic. I see it as grossly uninformed, but based on his personal
experience combined with his certain knowledge that he had been lied to
his whole life about sex.

Nothing in the rest of his manifesto is heterophobic. Wittman is
against people unjustly attacking him, some of whom would try to kill
him; he is not against heterosexuality per se. Is that so wrong?

I encourage others to read the whole essay to get the context. And note
that it was written in 1970; that is part of the context, too.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 5:40:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> As so often happens, the thread on NASA claiming to "recreate" the origins of
> life got into themes unrelated to it.

This is a staple of talk.origins, and it is one of the features
that makes talk.origins great, WHEN the change helps to clarify
some issues on which our society is polarized far to excess.
I hope that this will be the case with this thread.

> On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >> On 5/16/19 9:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > >>>> Your homophobia is demonstrated by your own statements of opposition to
> > >>>> same-sex marriage,
> > >>>
> > >>> Highly misleading half-truth. Unlike most conservatives who want
> > >>> to deprive gays in same-sex marriages of real rights, my only
> > >>> beef is the use of the word "marriage" on licenses of civil unions.

I've snipped some text from my first reply here to Burkhard.
The following is my reaction to Mark Isaak's charge of "homophobia"
concerning a natural question by me about "A Gay Manifesto":

> > > I take it that you think it is homophobic to ask to what
> > > extent a blatantly heterophobic screed has been repudiated
> > > by people who are most strongly pushing for special treatment
> > > for gays.
> >
> >

Now we come again to your analogy, Burkhard:

> > Yes it is, in the same way it is "anti-American" if the first thing I
> > asked/requested from a US citizen when they reveal their nationality is
> > to repudiate and apologize for John Kirkpatrick's advocacy and support
> > of US state sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua, or ask of a present-day
> > catholic to repudiate and apologize for Bishop Hudal's memories where he
> > justifies his support for the Nazis.

I'm waiting to see how you respond to my criticism of this analogy.
Here is how you continued after yet another example of the same
identical sort:

> In all of these cases, the response of
> the person would rightly be "who's that, and "what does this have to do
> with me"

That kind of answer almost never ends the matter in heated conversations
like the one we are having. The following example is from 1977, but I
believe it has several lessons of importance for today and for the
foreseeable future.

I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at Auburn University, and I was
walking towards my car from a picnic to which one of the professors
had invited the whole department and some visitors. I was accosted
by an African-American [an unheard of term in those days, the *de rigeur* word being "Black" back then] with an obvious chip on his shoulder
about Southern whites, whom he dissed at some length. I told him I
had just come down from Pennsylvania and had nothing to do with the racist
whites that he was talking about.

He actually demanded to see my PA license and fussed about how it didn't
have my photo on it. I kept telling him how I despised the racists
he was describing, and about my respect for people of all races.
But at one point I made the mistake of saying, "Why, I've even been
at parties where I was the only white person there!" It was true, but
it set him off: he angrily told me to "stop that kind of talk."

Then he demanded to know whether there were any "Blacks" at the
picnic I had come from. At that time, the Auburn Mathematics Department
had only white faculty, but I was able to tell him, "Yes, there was.
He was visiting from Tuskegee." That didn't help at all: he angrily
said, "I know all about THOSE kinds of Blacks!"


Hovering over this conversation was one of the most defamation-friendly
memes of our time: "Some of my best friends are black" as it went
back then. Its modern version is at least as conducive to branding
people as racist as it was then, and it works because the most
natural ways of defending oneself against racism become so many
indictments against one instead.

The 1977 incident also illustrates how normal conversations about race,
gender, etc. have become a minefield full of booby traps. It has gotten
steadily worse, too, because of a greatly heightened sensitivity to
"microaggression," real or imagined. The net result may well be for
people in general to increasingly avoid contact with people whom it is
dangerous to offend, and thus to decrease understanding rather than to
increase it.


Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip>

>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
>> rejection of the opposite sex".
>
> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!

Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.

Wittman is attacking contemporaneous institutions, including politics,
cultural norms, and yes, marriage. In doing so he is clearly influenced
by anger - in the main probably born of persecution, discrimination and,
if reading between the lines is any indication, personal experience with
violent attacks. He is also, to some extent, motivated by militant
activist tropes of the time.

There are indications that his approach sometimes strays into shallow
absolutes and petty attacks: such as his need to apply silly labels
("Amerika") that purport to make a point but mostly serve to feed a need
for rhetorical dominance (a childish habit which you and others here
employ entirely too often).

But for those few moments of anger-inflected absolutism he nearly always
returns to measured counsel and deeper consideration. Sure, he writes,
"Exclusive heterosexuality is fucked up." But what follows reveals the
historical context of chauvinism that defined pitfalls he hoped
homosexuality might avoid. Though he says, "Traditional marriage is a
rotten, oppressive institution," he later asserts, "Liberation for gay
people is defining for ourselves how and with whom we live," clearly
leaving open even traditional marriage as an option. After he says
"Closet queenery must end," he offers a nuanced and compassionate set of
observations on how difficult such a transition is.

Not only is Wittman's piece *not* "blatantly heterophobic," it is, once
you look past the pain, rather empathetic, reasoned, and even somewhat
hopeful.

Some of your trees have twisted roots. And as usual, they're preventing
you from seeing the forest.


<snip>

[Burkhard]

I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>>
[snip]

>>
>> Some of your trees have twisted roots. And as usual, they're preventing
>> you from seeing the forest.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.
>

I wonder if that was a deliberate hybrid metaphor, adding an allusion to
Kantian crooked timber atop the well worn trees vs. forest cliche.

[Robert Camp]

Would that I were that clever.

[Peter Nyikos]

I think you are falling under the same spell Burkhard fell under:
you go along with the very broadest reaches of the "homophobia"
meme while taking the "phobia" part of "heterophobia" only
a little less literally than he has. Keep reading to see why
I say this.

> I see it as grossly uninformed,

In what way?

> but based on his personal
> experience combined with his certain knowledge that he had been lied to
> his whole life about sex.

You sure are reading a lot into a line that you aren't even
paraphrasing. What I get out of it is his claim that he had
been lied to all his life about homosexuals. Period.

I too had had that experience, and part of it was that,
since I didn't date girls in high school, I was subjected to
a barrage of homophobic jokes about myself year in and year out.
But I just shrugged them off as pure bullshit, and it never
occurred to me that the "jokers" might have suspected that I was gay.

Anyway, what I got from my father about homosexuality
[my mother was a lot more laid back about it] had nothing
to do with what he told me about "straight" sex, which was decades in
advance of the Catholic Church. Only with JP II's "theology
of the body" did it catch up with and surpass what my father
taught me about it.

> Nothing in the rest of his manifesto is heterophobic.

Readers may be amazed to see you say this about the
following excerpt on marriage:

Those of us who have been in heterosexual marriages
too often have blamed our gayness on the breakup of the marriage.
No. They broke up because marriage is a contract which smothers
both people, denies needs, and places impossible demands
on both people. And we had the strength, again,
to refuse to capitulate to the roles which were demanded of us.

Gay people must stop gauging their self-respect by how well they
mimic straight marriages. Gay marriages will have the same problems
as straight ones except in burlesque. For the usual legitimacy and
pressures which keep straight marriages together are absent, e.g.,
kids, what parents think, what neighbors say.

To accept that happiness comes through finding a groovy spouse
and settling down, showing the world that "we're just the same as you"
is avoiding the real issues, and is an expression of self-hatred.

--http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm

If you didn't know that Wittman wrote this, and ESPECIALLY
if you thought that I had characterized gay attitudes towards
marriage in the way depicted in the last paragraph, I believe
you would be on my tail as frequently as jillery or Oxyaena,
hounding me about my "gay bashing".

> Wittman is
> against people unjustly attacking him, some of whom would try to kill
> him; he is not against heterosexuality per se. Is that so wrong?

What makes you so all-fired reasonable all of a sudden?

Could it be because Burkhard said something which naturally
led to my asking him whether he was suggesting that you were gay?
And you wanted to spare him the embarrassment of having
to answer the question?


Let me tell you something. Back in the mid-1990's, when being gay
was far more dangerous than it is now, there was a talk.abortion
regular and occasional visitor to talk.origins named
Keith Cochran, who nicknamed himself "Justified and Ancient."

He made no secret of being gay. In fact, he regularly made
fisting offers to pro-lifers in talk.abortion, telling them
that he would see to it that some woman contemplating abortion
would change her mind, if the pro-lifer were to allow him
(Keith) to fist him for at least five months, so that he
could experience firsthand "what it is like to be pregnant".

There were at least two other openly gay people in talk.abortion
back then. One of them, Scott Safier, was an insufferable jerk, but
I got along very well with another, Mike Loomis, even though
he was in favor of legalized infanticide. On our first
encounter I told him,

I would find it difficult to think kind thoughts about
anyone, gay or straight, who has your attitude about
newborn babies. After all, aren't they human beings like yourself?

Difficult, I said, not impossible. ...

And in fact, I did think kind thoughts about him later on.
He even asked me one time in e-mail why I didn't flame him,
like I did many others, including Safier and the Cochran brothers.
I answered him thus:

Although you and I are diametrically opposed on the
issue of infanticide, I respect the intellectual
integrity behind your position, and will not flame you for it.

That's the real me, and no amount of wishful thinking about
me being a person who attacks everyone who disagrees with me
can overcome that. A select few, including yourself,
have tried to demonize me every year they and I have been here,
but that is exactly why I come down hard on you and the others.
I named all of you in one reply to you about a month ago.
Seven (7) people, all told.

And, as usual, you tried to make it seem like you 7 scoundrels,
and three "camp followers" [no pun on the excluded Robert Camp
intended] were just the tip of the iceberg. All seven
of you love to play a game of "Le talk.origins, c'est nous."

>
> I encourage others to read the whole essay to get the context. And note
> that it was written in 1970; that is part of the context, too.

Ah, you sure know how to don the mask of reasonableness when it
suits you, Dr. Mark Jekyll Isaak. How much longer will you be
able to keep Mr. Mark Hyde Issak from posting to this thread?


Peter Nyikos

PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?

[Oxyaena]

On 5/30/2019 6:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip shrieking]

>
> He made no secret of being gay. In fact, he regularly made
> fisting offers to pro-lifers in talk.abortion, telling them
> that he would see to it that some woman contemplating abortion
> would change her mind, if the pro-lifer were to allow him
> (Keith) to fist him for at least five months, so that he
> could experience firsthand "what it is like to be pregnant".

I`m sure this is a fair, unbiased summation of events that took place
over twenty years ago.

>
> There were at least two other openly gay people in talk.abortion
> back then. One of them, Scott Safier, was an insufferable jerk, but
> I got along very well with another, Mike Loomis, even though
> he was in favor of legalized infanticide. On our first
> encounter I told him >

> I would find it difficult to think kind thoughts about
> anyone, gay or straight, who has your attitude about
> newborn babies. After all, aren't they human beings like yourself?
>
> Difficult, I said, not impossible. ...
>
> And in fact, I did think kind thoughts about him later on.
> He even asked me one time in e-mail why I didn't flame him,
> like I did many others, including Safier and the Cochran brothers.
> I answered him thus:
>
> Although you and I are diametrically opposed on the
> issue of infanticide, I respect the intellectual
> integrity behind your position, and will not flame you for it.

No one cares.

>
> That's the real me, and no amount of wishful thinking about
> me being a person who attacks everyone who disagrees with me
> can overcome that. A select few, including yourself,
> have tried to demonize me every year they and I have been here,
> but that is exactly why I come down hard on you and the others.
> I named all of you in one reply to you about a month ago.
> Seven (7) people, all told.

We don't demonize you, you do that yourself and are too dense to realize
that.

>
> And, as usual, you tried to make it seem like you 7 scoundrels,
> and three "camp followers" [no pun on the excluded Robert Camp
> intended] were just the tip of the iceberg. All seven
> of you love to play a game of "Le talk.origins, c'est nous."
>
>
>>
>> I encourage others to read the whole essay to get the context. And note
>> that it was written in 1970; that is part of the context, too.
>
> Ah, you sure know how to don the mask of reasonableness when it
> suits you, Dr. Mark Jekyll Isaak. How much longer will you be
> able to keep Mr. Mark Hyde Issak from posting to this thread?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
>

Because it's none of their business? I especially don't want YOU knowing
privy details about myself, being the slimy jackal you are.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> >>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> >>> rejection of the opposite sex".
> >>
> >> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
> >
> > Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
> > neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
> > it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.

Like you and Mark, Robert is suffering from double standards
about the words "homophobic" and "heterophobic."


<snip to get to your words, Burkhard>

> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.

With no regrets for you silly goof? You already have several worse
goofs that you have yet to deal with. See my reply to Mark Isaak
for one of them.

Two fairly big goofs came in just one compound clause, not even a
complete sentence:

What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
mischaracterisation of Wittman,

I've already dealt with this twofold goof, and nobody has so far
left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
the sand about being caught out?


The rest of your long opening clause is here, and I'm quoting it for
the first time:

or that it forces you into yet another
internal inconsistency (after all, Wittman argues just as you do, that
getting the "marriage" label for same sex couples is not a big deal)

I don't think you would dream of saying anything like this if you had
thought hard about what Wittman actually wrote on marriage. Take a
look at the long excerpt on marriage that I quoted in reply to
Mark Isaak less than an hour ago.

There is nothing in it about labels; it's all about rejecting the
idea of gays entering into anything like marriage. And you won't
find him talking about "marriage" as a label anywhere else
in the essay.

--http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm

In fact, as I told Mark, I believe that if it were not for Wittman's
impeccable credentials as a gay liberationist and a leftist, what he
wrote in the part I've quoted would be called "homophobic."


A few more words about what Robert Camp wrote: are you endorsing his
silly bit about my "bigoted neuroses"?

Did you know that Robert and Mark are the ONLY two people
who keep using the hoary old dodge of saying that I need to get
professional help? It's all a sham to avoid having to confront
the indictments I have leveled at both of them.

They are like the pickpocket on a Prague subway whom
a fellow topologist, Frank Tall kept accusing
of having his (Frank's) wallet. The pickpocket kept
shouting, over and over, "You're a crazy man!"

The story has a happy ending, but I've given you the
most important details and will only continue if someone
reading this requests it.


Peter Nyikos

PS Did you notice that this is the first post by Robert Camp
since January? He used to be a really regular participant,
logging an average of about one post per day, never skipping
a month. Now he shows up very sporadically.

[Burkhard]

I'd interpreted it as "you asked us", the readers here on TO - as we
here are the only ones that can answer that question, right? I simply
gave you a pass on you addressing the question to folks who aren't here
to speak for themselves, and took on that role on theory behalf.

[Burkhard]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
>>>>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
>>>>> rejection of the opposite sex".
>>>>
>>>> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
>>>
>>> Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
>>> neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
>>> it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.
>
> Like you and Mark, Robert is suffering from double standards
> about the words "homophobic" and "heterophobic."
>
>
> <snip to get to your words, Burkhard>
>
>
>> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.
>
> With no regrets for you silly goof? You already have several worse
> goofs that you have yet to deal with. See my reply to Mark Isaak
> for one of them.
>

What you "think" is a silly goof. But reality is not your friend.

> Two fairly big goofs came in just one compound clause, not even a
> complete sentence:
>
> What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
> mischaracterisation of Wittman,
>
> I've already dealt with this twofold goof,

You mean the answer that did not address any of the reasons I gave why
it was a shrill mischaracterisation? You know, the stuff about the law
on marital rape when he was writing, the non-enforcement of domestic
violence law etc etc? Colour me unimpressed.

and nobody has so far
> left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
> the sand about being caught out?

In your own mind, you ride from victory to victory, sure.

>
>
> The rest of your long opening clause is here, and I'm quoting it for
> the first time:
>
> or that it forces you into yet another
> internal inconsistency (after all, Wittman argues just as you do, that
> getting the "marriage" label for same sex couples is not a big deal)
>
> I don't think you would dream of saying anything like this if you had
> thought hard about what Wittman actually wrote on marriage. Take a
> look at the long excerpt on marriage that I quoted in reply to
> Mark Isaak less than an hour ago.
>
> There is nothing in it about labels; it's all about rejecting the
> idea of gays entering into anything like marriage. And you won't
> find him talking about "marriage" as a label anywhere else
> in the essay.

He says gays and the institutions they create for themselves should stop
"mimicking straight institutions" and use its labels, so do you, just
for opposite reasons. You are just annoyed that someone doesn't even
want what you want to withhold from them.

>
> --http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm
>
> In fact, as I told Mark, I believe that if it were not for Wittman's
> impeccable credentials as a gay liberationist and a leftist, what he
> wrote in the part I've quoted would be called "homophobic."
>
>
> A few more words about what Robert Camp wrote: are you endorsing his
> silly bit about my "bigoted neuroses"?
>
> Did you know that Robert and Mark are the ONLY two people
> who keep using the hoary old dodge of saying that I need to get
> professional help?

I'd say that's because they still care. Not everybody does.

It's all a sham to avoid having to confront
> the indictments I have leveled at both of them.

Again, in your own mind you ride from victory to victory - just only there.

>
> They are like the pickpocket on a Prague subway whom
> a fellow topologist, Frank Tall kept accusing
> of having his (Frank's) wallet. The pickpocket kept
> shouting, over and over, "You're a crazy man!"
>
> The story has a happy ending, but I've given you the
> most important details and will only continue if someone
> reading this requests it.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Did you notice that this is the first post by Robert Camp
> since January? He used to be a really regular participant,
> logging an average of about one post per day, never skipping
> a month. Now he shows up very sporadically.

Shrug. None of my business, really. People contribute if they have the
time and the interest, it's not mandatory.
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Robert Camp wrote:
> >>> On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> >>>>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> >>>>> rejection of the opposite sex".
> >>>>
> >>>> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
> >>>
> >>> Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
> >>> neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
> >>> it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.
> >
> > Like you and Mark, Robert is suffering from double standards
> > about the words "homophobic" and "heterophobic."
> >
> >
> > <snip to get to your words, Burkhard>
> >
> >
> >> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.
> >
> > With no regrets for you silly goof? You already have several worse
> > goofs that you have yet to deal with. See my reply to Mark Isaak
> > for one of them.
> >

You give no sign of having seen it; instead you resort
to TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion):

> What you "think" is a silly goof. But reality is not your friend.

Your attempt to justify this formulaic taunt below only served
to show the opposite.

> > Two fairly big goofs came in just one compound clause, not even a
> > complete sentence:
> >
> > What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
> > mischaracterisation of Wittman,
> >
> > I've already dealt with this twofold goof,

...beginning with:

Hold it right there. I called his *screed* blatantly heterophobic.

I addressed the action, not the man.

> You mean the answer that did not address any of the reasons I gave why
> it was a shrill mischaracterisation?

They didn't address the excerpt which I posted.

> You know, the stuff about the law
> on marital rape when he was writing, the non-enforcement of domestic
> violence law etc etc? Colour me unimpressed.

Give yourself an olive drab star for being pusillanimous enough
to NOT reply to the post where I called you out for your
goof, where you would have had to do something about
my "Hold it right there...."

> and nobody has so far
> > left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
> > the sand about being caught out?


> In your own mind, you ride from victory to victory, sure.

You know, Burkhard, for the years you had me killfiled,
the reason you gave was that I spend too much time making
personal attacks. But your behaviour these last two months
makes me suspect that your real -- perhaps only subconscious -- reason,
is that you couldn't trust yourself to keep from devolving
from *Homo* *sapiens* *sapiens* into either *Homo* *sapiens* *polemica*
or *Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*

Your behavior all through this post illustrates that very
inability to trust yourself.

> >
> >
> > The rest of your long opening clause is here, and I'm quoting it for
> > the first time:
> >
> > or that it forces you into yet another
> > internal inconsistency (after all, Wittman argues just as you do, that
> > getting the "marriage" label for same sex couples is not a big deal)
> >
> > I don't think you would dream of saying anything like this if you had
> > thought hard about what Wittman actually wrote on marriage. Take a
> > look at the long excerpt on marriage that I quoted in reply to
> > Mark Isaak less than an hour ago.
> >
> > There is nothing in it about labels; it's all about rejecting the
> > idea of gays entering into anything like marriage. And you won't
> > find him talking about "marriage" as a label anywhere else
> > in the essay.
>
> He says gays and the institutions they create for themselves should stop
> "mimicking straight institutions" and use its labels,

You are editorializing. Either quote an excerpt which suggests
that last clause, or retract.

> so do you, just
> for opposite reasons. You are just annoyed that someone doesn't even
> want what you want to withhold from them.

Stop trying to read my mind. I'm not annoyed by it at all.

More importantly, you are trivializing what Wittman wrote, by making it look
like the label was all that mattered to him, the way it does to me.

Calling my legitimate beef with what Wittman wrote "an inconsistency"
is sheer sophistry, and not a very skillful display of it, at that.

> > --http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm


How come you suddenly became tongue-tied when I wrote the following?

> > In fact, as I told Mark, I believe that if it were not for Wittman's
> > impeccable credentials as a gay liberationist and a leftist, what he
> > wrote in the part I've quoted would be called "homophobic."

And indeed, someone with similarly impeccable credentials of the
same sort might well do that, and might even go on to claim that
Wittman hated the fact that he was gay.

Eldridge Cleaver did a similar thing to James Baldwin
in _Soul on Ice_ by pointing out passages in Baldwin's writings
indicative of a self-loathing on account of his race.
Back in those days, Cleaver was lionized by the liberal media as being
"at the exact resonant center" of radical "black" writing,
so he had the requisite credentials.

> > A few more words about what Robert Camp wrote: are you endorsing his
> > silly bit about my "bigoted neuroses"?
> >
> > Did you know that Robert and Mark are the ONLY two people
> > who keep using the hoary old dodge of saying that I need to get
> > professional help?
>
> I'd say that's because they still care. Not everybody does.

You are continuing to devolve in the direction of
*Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*

> It's all a sham to avoid having to confront
> > the indictments I have leveled at both of them.
>
> Again, in your own mind you ride from victory to victory - just only there.

You had me killfiled when the worst of it was going on,
so all you are doing here is expressing your solidarity with them.

> >
> > They are like the pickpocket on a Prague subway whom
> > a fellow topologist, Frank Tall kept accusing
> > of having his (Frank's) wallet. The pickpocket kept
> > shouting, over and over, "You're a crazy man!"
> >
> > The story has a happy ending, but I've given you the
> > most important details and will only continue if someone
> > reading this requests it.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS Did you notice that this is the first post by Robert Camp
> > since January? He used to be a really regular participant,
> > logging an average of about one post per day, never skipping
> > a month. Now he shows up very sporadically.
>
> Shrug. None of my business, really. People contribute if they have the
> time and the interest, it's not mandatory.

Camp had that interest: he's brought trumped-up charges of
homophobia against me before. Here is the latest (IIRC) example:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/6pKI5EqwBAAJ
Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9f77304e-8f69-4619...@googlegroups.com>

Note how I had compared Mark Isaak FAVORABLY to him in an
earlier, 2015 encounter. And I didn't exactly reverse
that judgment in the linked post, which ended with:

_______________________ excerpt ______________________

> > I'd like an honest answer as to why you long ago stopped
> > trying to refute my arguments against that label, and instead
> > brand them as more evidence of bigotry.
>
> Your arguments (those that I've seen) are specious and self-serving.

I don't think you can give people here a description of any of them without
spin-doctoring it to death. Your track record of "arguing" against them
is certainly no better than Mark's, and arguably a lot worse.

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

I doubt that you'd want to read the rest of the long linked post.
It might cramp your style.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:10:04 PM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> >> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> >> rejection of the opposite sex".
> >
> > He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
>
> Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point.

Whose? Burkhard's? He's spewing one piece of sophistry after another.
Look at my reply to him about half an hour ago. He didn't even
have the originality to add anything to what you wrote below,
but essentially "cast a vote" having nothing to do with the true
spirit of democracy.

> The manifesto is
> neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
> it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.

Psychology has re-invented itself at least once in the last half
century. A standard psychology text for university undergraduates
written about a decade ago never used the words "neurotic," "neurosis,"
etc. nor "psychosis." It did talk about schizophrenia, and used the term
"bipolar disorder" instead of "manic-depressive psychosis."

So, your amateur "diagnosis" of "neuroses" really dates you.

But that's not the end of your misconceptions about psychology.
You and I actually had a basically attack-free discussion a while
back about alleged miracles, focused on the "miracle of the sun"
at Fatima. I gave a down to earth hypothesis of it being an unusually
spectacular sundog that rapidly changed appearance due to the rapid
movement of clouds, with the real sun hidden behind thick clouds.

You, on the other hand, stuck by the explanation that the ca.
70,000 witnesses were victims of a "mass hallucination."
Not only does psychology not acknowledge the existence of anything
like that; it also does not accept ESP. And the only way your hypothesis
makes sense is that mass telepathy -- a form of ESP -- seized the crowd and
caused them to hallucinate something which did not actually take place.

Attempts to test the existence of telepathy were carried
out at Duke University by Professor J. B. Rhine for decades, but they
were inconclusive and widely critiqued:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Banks_Rhine


As for your propaganda piece below, it's way too terse to give
any of your points against me real credibility. Try limiting your
subject and arguing for each of your conclusions at length,
using more and longer quotes for each one, and then
you may have something worth replying to.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Burkhard Who Doesn't Have Me Killfiled seems to get your goat even more than
Burhard Who Has Me Killfiled. It sure didn't take long for you to put him on
your villains list.

[Peter Nyikos]

A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
for reasons explained here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/6NKAJVC9ibI/nO4Xri2UBgAJ
Subject: Boycott of Erik Simpson and `Oxyaena' ATTN: DIG
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <eafd9791-05a9-4533...@googlegroups.com>

and here, on the same Subject: line, and on the same date:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/6NKAJVC9ibI/GCuqml2fBgAJ
Message-ID: <d1820a6a-25a8-4859...@googlegroups.com>

Except for occasional reminders like this, done in direct follow-up
to the posts of Oxyaena, this boycott works like a killfile.

In particular, it does not exclude replying to people who leave in
text from Oxyaena, nor commenting on statements by Oxyaena that were left
in by them.


The boycott has saved me an enormous amount of time, because
I am free to choose those posts where I can make the most
powerful points, often killing two birds with one stone.
An excellent example of this occurred earlier today, where
the other "bird" consisted of jillery shackling herself to
a particularly transparent and stupid lie by Oxyaena:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/iTUoa_fABwAJ
Subject: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries of Evolution: Sexual Reproduction; Part A, meiosis
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 09:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c3adf309-d759-4f96...@googlegroups.com>

The altered Subject: line is due to Oxyaena, whose "OP" would make
a perfect candidate for a real Chez Watt, were that old custom
of talk.origins still in effect.

Peter Nyikos

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:

> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?

I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
heterosexual on this group either.

I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[Burkhard]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
>>>>>>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
>>>>>>> rejection of the opposite sex".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
>>>>>
>>>>> Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
>>>>> neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
>>>>> it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.
>>>
>>> Like you and Mark, Robert is suffering from double standards
>>> about the words "homophobic" and "heterophobic."
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip to get to your words, Burkhard>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.
>>>
>>> With no regrets for you silly goof? You already have several worse
>>> goofs that you have yet to deal with. See my reply to Mark Isaak
>>> for one of them.
>>>
>
> You give no sign of having seen it; instead you resort
> to TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion):

The facts are there for all to see, everybody will be able to make up
their own mind.

>
>> What you "think" is a silly goof. But reality is not your friend.
>
> Your attempt to justify this formulaic taunt below only served
> to show the opposite.
>
>
>>> Two fairly big goofs came in just one compound clause, not even a
>>> complete sentence:
>>>
>>> What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
>>> mischaracterisation of Wittman,
>>>
>>> I've already dealt with this twofold goof,
>
> ...beginning with:
>
> Hold it right there. I called his *screed* blatantly heterophobic.
>
> I addressed the action, not the man.

Eh, so?

>
>
>> You mean the answer that did not address any of the reasons I gave why
>> it was a shrill mischaracterisation?
>
> They didn't address the excerpt which I posted.

That's because they were in the post from before you even posted an
excerpt.

>
>
>> You know, the stuff about the law
>> on marital rape when he was writing, the non-enforcement of domestic
>> violence law etc etc? Colour me unimpressed.
>
> Give yourself an olive drab star for being pusillanimous enough
> to NOT reply to the post where I called you out for your
> goof, where you would have had to do something about
> my "Hold it right there...."
>
>
>> and nobody has so far
>>> left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
>>> the sand about being caught out?
>
>
>> In your own mind, you ride from victory to victory, sure.
>
> You know, Burkhard, for the years you had me killfiled,
> the reason you gave was that I spend too much time making
> personal attacks. But your behaviour these last two months
> makes me suspect that your real -- perhaps only subconscious -- reason,
> is that you couldn't trust yourself to keep from devolving
> from *Homo* *sapiens* *sapiens* into either *Homo* *sapiens* *polemica*
> or *Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*

Oh, not just subconsciously, that was indeed one of the many reason why
it is more productive and healthy to ignore you. You do manage indeed
to get the worst out of lots of posters (and a person with the ability
to honest self-reflection may ask why. So yes, I do keep the old
Nietzsche adage "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he
thereby become a monster." always in the back of my mind. So far I
think I manage to restrain myself sufficiently, but it takes lots of
breezing exercises.

>
> Your behavior all through this post illustrates that very
> inability to trust yourself.

Nah, I'm good. While the standards I set myself do indeed prevent me
from telling you what exactly I think of you and your behavior in more
earthy vocabulary, so far I managed to stay within the limits I set
myself. The moment I don;t trust myself any longer on this, I'd simply
disengage.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The rest of your long opening clause is here, and I'm quoting it for
>>> the first time:
>>>
>>> or that it forces you into yet another
>>> internal inconsistency (after all, Wittman argues just as you do, that
>>> getting the "marriage" label for same sex couples is not a big deal)
>>>
>>> I don't think you would dream of saying anything like this if you had
>>> thought hard about what Wittman actually wrote on marriage. Take a
>>> look at the long excerpt on marriage that I quoted in reply to
>>> Mark Isaak less than an hour ago.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in it about labels; it's all about rejecting the
>>> idea of gays entering into anything like marriage. And you won't
>>> find him talking about "marriage" as a label anywhere else
>>> in the essay.
>>
>> He says gays and the institutions they create for themselves should stop
>> "mimicking straight institutions" and use its labels,
>
> You are editorializing. Either quote an excerpt which suggests
> that last clause, or retract.

Following usual academic writing convention the "" indicate he direct
quote, the rest my interpretation.

>
>
>> so do you, just
>> for opposite reasons. You are just annoyed that someone doesn't even
>> want what you want to withhold from them.
>
> Stop trying to read my mind. I'm not annoyed by it at all.

That'supremely ironic, seeing hat in this post alone you tried 3 times
to read mine, and failed consistently to get anywhere near

>
> More importantly, you are trivializing what Wittman wrote, by making it look
> like the label was all that mattered to him, the way it does to me.
>
> Calling my legitimate beef with what Wittman wrote

You haven't been able to substantiate the "legitimate" at all

"an inconsistency"
> is sheer sophistry, and not a very skillful display of it, at that.

I've given the reason hwy it is an inconsistency, yo have so far failed
to show any mistake in my reasoning.

>
>>> --http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm
>
>
> How come you suddenly became tongue-tied when I wrote the following?

It would take me too long to mark up all of your comments that are so
far off that I have no clue what you could possibly mean with it, so
strict myself to those where I think I can make a more direct contribution/

>
>>> In fact, as I told Mark, I believe that if it were not for Wittman's
>>> impeccable credentials as a gay liberationist and a leftist, what he
>>> wrote in the part I've quoted would be called "homophobic."
>
> And indeed, someone with similarly impeccable credentials of the
> same sort might well do that, and might even go on to claim that
> Wittman hated the fact that he was gay.

You are again fighting imaginary battles in a fantasy world, now with a
strange made-up ally

>
> Eldridge Cleaver did a similar thing to James Baldwin
> in _Soul on Ice_ by pointing out passages in Baldwin's writings
> indicative of a self-loathing on account of his race.
> Back in those days, Cleaver was lionized by the liberal media as being
> "at the exact resonant center" of radical "black" writing,
> so he had the requisite credentials.
>
>
>>> A few more words about what Robert Camp wrote: are you endorsing his
>>> silly bit about my "bigoted neuroses"?
>>>
>>> Did you know that Robert and Mark are the ONLY two people
>>> who keep using the hoary old dodge of saying that I need to get
>>> professional help?
>>
>> I'd say that's because they still care. Not everybody does.
>
> You are continuing to devolve in the direction of
> *Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*

No, I this case just some honest feedback. I think the two are genuinely
concerned for you as your online behaviour falls massively short of
acceptable social norms. Others will think the same, but gave up on
offering that advice. Me, as discussed recently in another thread on
another topic, don't think online diagnoses of mental issues are
methodologically sound, especially when carried out by people not
trained in the subject. And I also resent the medicalisation of behaving
like an asshole.

>
>
>> It's all a sham to avoid having to confront
>>> the indictments I have leveled at both of them.
>>
>> Again, in your own mind you ride from victory to victory - just only there.
>
> You had me killfiled when the worst of it was going on,
> so all you are doing here is expressing your solidarity with them.

You do your victory dances often enough to have identified a pretty
reliable pattern over time, I'd say.

[Burkhard]

Erm, and what is the point of this apart from a demonstration that you
apparently people of all races creeds, sexual orientations and genders
find you equally annoying? If you want to put that on your bade, be
free, but for the discussion it is utterly irrelevant.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

>
> Advice #3:
>
> Drop this subject. It's an embarrassment.

+1

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 22:12:49 -0600, André G. Isaak
<agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

>On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
>> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
>> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
>
>I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
>heterosexual on this group either.
>
>I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
>really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.
>
>André

Your point above is similar to what I have made numerous times, except
that I make a stronger claim, that one's gender/sexuality isn't at all
relevant to almost all topics discussed in T.O.

More to the point, those who say otherwise, as Nyikos the peter does
above, and has in the past, show their own obsession with irrelevant
personal details, which only help to derail discussions with their
allusions and ad-hominems.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 5/31/2019 6:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip dick waving]

Didn't your mama tell you it's not nice to pick your boogers and smear
them all over the place?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 22:12:49 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
>> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
>> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?

>I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
>heterosexual on this group either.
>
>I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
>really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.

No, that can't *possibly* be it! It *must* be a vast
conspiracy!
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 May 2019 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
>for reasons explained here:

You might want to remember that no one really cares about
your "boycotts"; this is Usenet, and your responses or
refusal to make them are of concern almost entirely to you.

<snip irrelevant "reasons">

[Oxyaena]

On 6/1/2019 2:03 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 22:12:49 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>
>> On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
>>> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
>>> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
>
>> I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
>> heterosexual on this group either.
>>
>> I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
>> really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.
>
> No, that can't *possibly* be it! It *must* be a vast
> conspiracy!
>

Quick, someone call the goddamn moralizer to root out this corrupt,
morally decadent cabal of stereotypical mustache-twirling villains!

[jillery]

The following repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter,
and which has nothing to do with the topic or with anything anybody
said in it, is brought to you by...

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
> >A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
> >for reasons explained here:
>
> You might want to remember that no one really cares about
> your "boycotts";

"no one" refers to the majority who do not show signs of
caring. It does NOT apply to a number of people with whom you, Bob, have
especially friendly relations with, year in and year out.

For example:

Harshman enormously cared about them when he blasted me for
maintaining them, after having cunningly pretended not to know that
I had boycotted Erik.

Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
one of the two; and when that didn't fly, she accused me of violating
the "spirit" of killfiles without giving a hint about what
that spirit is supposed to be or why it doesn't apply
to everyone who uses killfiles, including her loyal friend Oxyaena.

When that didn't work, jillery started using innuendo about the boycotts
making up for alleged "anatomical deficiencies" and so did Oxyaena.
They also went at it against Hemidactylus when he went on and on about
his killfiles.

Oxyaena and jillery cared so much about my two boycotts
that they kept lying that I was "bragging" about them,
in supposed contrast to Burkhard's periodic reminders
when he was killfiling me. But they could never come
up with any valid difference between my behavior and
Burkhard's that is relevant to the word "bragging".

Instead, they were banking on how people would see that Hemidactylus
could be construed as bragging about his, and then would assume that
the same applied to me, just on the say-so of the two of them.


Do you really think that people will just assume
that you MISSED all this? I certainly am not assuming it.

> this is Usenet, and your responses or
> refusal to make them are of concern almost entirely to you.

I'll try to remember that when you use the words
"You might want to remember that," a red flag should go up,
just as a red flag went up every time Ray Martinez used
the words "Imagine that" in reply to anyone,
and should go up every time jillery uses the words, "Of course,"
at least in reply to me or someone else against whom she has
maintained a perennial adversarial position.

IOW, what follows these phrases needs to be taken with a huge dose
of grains of salt.


> <snip irrelevant "reasons">


The main reason is that people might be left wondering
whether there is a lot of validity to any of the points
Oxyaena or Erik make about me. They can find out by replying to
their posts and either (1) endorsing something they say
or (2) correcting some things but not others or
(3) just saying that they would like to know whether
this or that point is really true.

Since you did none of the above, it would seem that you
don't see much of interest in Oxyaena and Erik's posts
to this thread, and that is fine with me.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
>one of the two;

Prove that I lied or retract.

>and when that didn't fly, she accused me of violating
>the "spirit" of killfiles without giving a hint about what
>that spirit is supposed to be or why it doesn't apply
>to everyone who uses killfiles, including her loyal friend Oxyaena.

I can't even make sense of your incoherent babbling above.

>When that didn't work, jillery started using innuendo about the boycotts
>making up for alleged "anatomical deficiencies" and so did Oxyaena.
>They also went at it against Hemidactylus when he went on and on about
>his killfiles.

So you have problems with allusions to your anatomical deficiencies.
Poor baby.

>Oxyaena and jillery cared so much about my two boycotts
>that they kept lying that I was "bragging" about them,

Liar. You were bragging about your boycotts, as you continue to do.

>in supposed contrast to Burkhard's periodic reminders
>when he was killfiling me.

As I said at the time, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall any
such periodic reminders from Burkhard.

>But they could never come
>up with any valid difference between my behavior and
>Burkhard's that is relevant to the word "bragging".

Liar. I challenged you at the time to show Burkhard posting his
periodic reminders in threads and topics having nothing to do with
you, something you *still* haven't done.

>Instead, they were banking on how people would see that Hemidactylus
>could be construed as bragging about his, and then would assume that
>the same applied to me, just on the say-so of the two of them.

You're still a really crappy mindreader.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-4, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
> > or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
> > talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
>
> I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
> heterosexual on this group either.

Recall the old saying:

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news. When a man bites a dog,
that is news."

With heterosexual people making up over 95% of the population,
there is no particular reason for a heterosexual person to
make any comments about his or her orientation. However,
just FTR, I am a heterosexual and have been one all my life.

> I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
> really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.

On the other hand, I am accused of homophobia by several
people on this thread, and have been accused by others in the past,
and one might expect someone who is homosexual or bisexual to
be especially critical of some of the things I say.

And one might expect at least one gay or lesbian person to
be incensed at my objection to the use of "marriage" on a license
of civil union of people of the same sex, and to let everyone
know that they are potentially affected by any such "shortcoming"
on such a license.

But it hasn't happened. So, can I conclude that all people
who have accused me of homophobia are "straight"?

Burkhard made a claim that suggests Mark Isaak is gay, but everyone except
me has carefully ignored that claim. I reminded Mark of it,
but he hasn't posted anything to this thread since I mentioned
that in a reply to him.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

You sure know how to ask ridiculous questions. Where do you
get anything like that out of anything I wrote?

> If you want to put that on your bade, be
> free, but for the discussion it is utterly irrelevant.

Everything I wrote is relevant to your fallacious analogy,
which ranged even further afield from the topic of this thread
than the subject of racism and a destructive meme tailor-made
for bringing trumped-up charges of racism against someone.

Re-read what I wrote in the last two pargraphs to which you are
responding. Also re-read your naive idea of how to respond
to a militant person, such as you are on the subject of
gender and sexual orientation.

You and others have shown that talk about gays, same sex marriage,
etc. is a minefield full of booby traps. For instance,
Robert Camp, Mark Isaak, and yourself have taken umbrage
at all kinds of innocent-seeming things I have said.
You have even endorsed a claim by Camp that what I have said
is indicative of "bigoted neuroses".


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
> >one of the two;
>
>
> Prove that I lied or retract.

You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
when I demonstrated its falsity.

I call that a *prima* *facie* case for you having lied.
If you retract the claim, I will retract the accusation that it was a lie.


Peter Nyikos

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-06-03 12:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-4, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
>>> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
>>> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
>>
>> I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
>> heterosexual on this group either.
>
> Recall the old saying:
>
> "When a dog bites a man, that is not news. When a man bites a dog,
> that is news."
>
> With heterosexual people making up over 95% of the population,
> there is no particular reason for a heterosexual person to
> make any comments about his or her orientation. However,
> just FTR, I am a heterosexual and have been one all my life.

95% seems too high to me. Most estimates I've seen put the prevalence of
homosexuality at between 7% and 10%.

Even if your 95% figure is correct, though, that still means gays are
more common than people with an AB blood type (at least here in Canada),
and I haven't seen anyone commenting on having AB blood here either
despite the fact that this would be even more newsworthy.

>
>> I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
>> really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.
>
> On the other hand, I am accused of homophobia by several
> people on this thread, and have been accused by others in the past,
> and one might expect someone who is homosexual or bisexual to
> be especially critical of some of the things I say.
>
> And one might expect at least one gay or lesbian person to
> be incensed at my objection to the use of "marriage" on a license
> of civil union of people of the same sex, and to let everyone
> know that they are potentially affected by any such "shortcoming"
> on such a license.
>
> But it hasn't happened. So, can I conclude that all people
> who have accused me of homophobia are "straight"?
>
> Burkhard made a claim that suggests Mark Isaak is gay, but everyone except
> me has carefully ignored that claim. I reminded Mark of it,
> but he hasn't posted anything to this thread since I mentioned
> that in a reply to him.

I still don't see why sexual orientation would be relevant to this
discussion. If one perceives something as unjust, I don't think one
needs to be part of the affected group to speak out on the subject, nor
do I think that stating one's orientation contributes anything to the
debate, anymore than it does to debates on evolution.

Really, the only place I can think of where this information would be
relevant would be on something like a dating website.

[Peter Nyikos]

It should be one to Mark Isaak, Robert Camp, and now Burkhard, who is
making one stupid piece of sophistry after another.

And as a result, it should be an embarrassment to Erik Simpson, for whom both
Robert Camp and Mark Isaak have severely compromised their credibility when
I blew the whistle on a perennial scam of Erik's. Here is how
Robert did it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/k44KWqcmIAAJ
Message-ID: <649a5653-98a6-45f5...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Cambrian and Paleocene Explosions
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:46:10 -0800 (PST)


>
> +1

Is it an embarrassment to you, zencycle?

If you click on the link, it should be easy for you to see
how Mark Isaak compromised his credibility for Erik Simpson also.

Even Hemidactylus got into the act, compromising his credibility
for both Camp and Simpson.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

In reply to Casanova, who is on especially good terms with jillery,

and who wrote:

You might want to remember that no one really cares about
your "boycotts";

> >When that didn't work, jillery started using innuendo about the boycotts
> >making up for alleged "anatomical deficiencies" and so did Oxyaena.
> >They also went at it against Hemidactylus when he went on and on about
> >his killfiles.
>
>
> So you have problems with allusions to your anatomical deficiencies.

Nonexistent. It is Bob Casanova who has problems with disregarding
your and Oxyaena's aggressive use of Goneril-style [1] tactics
to disparage my boycott.

[1] allusion: "King Lear," where Goneril says to her righteous
husband, the Duke of Albany, "Marry, your manhood now" after
the duke confronts her with the evil that has been done to
the father of Edgar and Edmund, with her approval.


> Poor baby.

Bob would indeed be a poor baby, if he literally believed
no one but myself cares about my boycotts, but I think
he was dissembling.

>
> >Oxyaena and jillery cared so much about my two boycotts
> >that they kept lying that I was "bragging" about them,
>
>
> Liar. You were bragging about your boycotts, as you continue to do.

As usual, you give not even a smidgin of explanation for your
bizarre use of "bragging".

>
>
> >in supposed contrast to Burkhard's periodic reminders
> >when he was killfiling me.
>
>
> As I said at the time, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall any
> such periodic reminders from Burkhard.

He made them from time to time. And, in stunning contrast
to Erik and Oxyaena, I did NOT assail him in thread after thread while
he had me killfiled.

I don't even recall replying any posts of his, until shortly
before he took me off the killfile, once I learned he had killfiled me.
And I never showed any disrespect for him when I commented on the issue
of whether he still had me killfiled.

>
>
> >But they could never come
> >up with any valid difference between my behavior and
> >Burkhard's that is relevant to the word "bragging".
>
>
> Liar.

Free-floating accussation, unrelated to what you wrote next:

> I challenged you at the time to show Burkhard posting his
> periodic reminders in threads and topics having nothing to do with
> you, something you *still* haven't done.

My periodic reminders like the one Casanova dissed are IIRC always
in direct follow-up to posts where Erik or Oxyaena is attacking me.

Be that as it may, can you find even ONE reminder by me on a thread
where neither of them is attacking me? I think you cannot.

>
> >Instead, they were banking on how people would see that Hemidactylus
> >could be construed as bragging about his, and then would assume that
> >the same applied to me, just on the say-so of the two of them.

For one thing, Hemidactylus threatened to killfile you, as though
being put into a killfile were somehow something that you would
be a "poor baby" about. That could be construed as bragging.

>
> You're still a really crappy mindreader.

Not as crappy as you with your "Poor baby."


Anyway, what reason CAN you give for accusing me of "bragging"
about my boycott?


Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

On 03/06/2019 20:33, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
> I still don't see why sexual orientation would be relevant to this
> discussion. If one perceives something as unjust, I don't think one
> needs to be part of the affected group to speak out on the subject, nor
> do I think that stating one's orientation contributes anything to the
> debate, anymore than it does to debates on evolution.
>
> Really, the only place I can think of where this information would be
> relevant would be on something like a dating website.
>

There is a view that minorities being open about their existence disarms
prejudice; that remaining in the closet allows bigots to depict them as
a scary other, rather than just the normal folks that they are. There
are blogs I read with a religious or political focus where people put
this view into practice.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 May 2019 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
>> >for reasons explained here:
>>
>> You might want to remember that no one really cares about
>> your "boycotts";
>
>"no one" refers to the majority who do not show signs of
>caring. It does NOT apply to a number of people with whom you, Bob, have
>especially friendly relations with, year in and year out.

I reject your "examples" below as indicating "caring" about
your "boycotts"; commenting on idiocies doesn't indicate
"caring". You might think that this response shows that I
"care"; it doesn't.

HAND.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
>> >one of the two;
>>
>>
>> Prove that I lied or retract.
>
>You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
>when I demonstrated its falsity.

Cite the post where I claimed you had broken it.

>I call that a *prima* *facie* case for you having lied.

Of course you do, because you use self-serving definitions of words.

>If you retract the claim, I will retract the accusation that it was a lie.

Cite the post where you proved my alleged claim false.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
> >> >one of the two;
> >>
> >>
> >> Prove that I lied or retract.
> >
> >You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
> >when I demonstrated its falsity.
>
>
> Cite the post where I claimed you had broken it.

If I do, will you snip the evidence and post:

<snip remaining self-serving spew>

?

> >I call that a *prima* *facie* case for you having lied.
>
>
> Of course you do, because you use self-serving definitions of words.

...glass houses...stones.

Case in point: your self-serving, Oxyaena-serving definition
of "spew":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/7eYujW1pAQAJ
Subject: Jillery's use of "spew" unmasked WAS: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries of Evolution: ...
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c12979f1-2413-4a2f...@googlegroups.com>

If you run true to form, you will snip this link in reply,
with a snip-n-deceive like the one I quote above from it.

>
>
> >If you retract the claim, I will retract the accusation that it was a lie.
>
>
> Cite the post where you proved my alleged claim false.

If I do it, will you snip the evidence and write:

<snip remaining spew>
?

This, and the similar snip-n-deceive above, are taken
directly from the linked post, where I explain what was
actually snipped and why it was flagrantly Oxyaena-serving
and jillery-serving.


Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
regular in talk.origins" and Oxyaena "the most ruthlessly dishonest
regular in talk.origins"? Or do you secretly accept these as
"compliments" as reassurances that you and Oxyaena are doing all the
"right" self-serving things?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:35:03 PM UTC-4, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2019-06-03 12:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-4, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >> On 2019-05-30 4:18 p.m., Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS I wonder why I never see anyone characterize himself or herself
> >>> or [fill in other genders, at will] as gay, or bisexual, in
> >>> talk.origins. Any ideas as to why, anyone?
> >>
> >> I don't recall anyone characterizing themselves as straight or
> >> heterosexual on this group either.
> >
> > Recall the old saying:
> >
> > "When a dog bites a man, that is not news. When a man bites a dog,
> > that is news."
> >
> > With heterosexual people making up over 95% of the population,
> > there is no particular reason for a heterosexual person to
> > make any comments about his or her orientation. However,
> > just FTR, I am a heterosexual and have been one all my life.
>
> 95% seems too high to me. Most estimates I've seen put the prevalence of
> homosexuality at between 7% and 10%.

If one of them is the Kinsey Report, its flagrant bias was exposed
decades ago.

You may be confusing homosexuality with the percentage of people who had a
same-sex fling at some point in their lives but are essentially heterosexual.

> Even if your 95% figure is correct, though, that still means gays are
> more common than people with an AB blood type (at least here in Canada),
> and I haven't seen anyone commenting on having AB blood here either
> despite the fact that this would be even more newsworthy.

Sure, but there is little incentive for doing so, unless someone
were assailed by relentless charges by several people that he is an
"ABphobe" for saying "insufficiently empathetic" things about people
with AB blood.

Then it would make sense for someone with AB blood to come forth
and either confirm or deny being offended by said remarks.

Possibly relevant: The evidence that the origins of the Romany
("gypsies" -- is that a Romanophobe word nowadays?) are in India
are partly based on the percentage of people with B blood being
much greater than in the global population.

The Romany were at least as persecuted during the Holocaust as
homosexuals, about whom Burkhard went into an orgy of "commiseration"
of my innocent mistake as to whom he had been talking about.

And, judging from his overall behavior on this thread, Burkhard
just might accuse me of having again displayed homophobia by
my daring to talk about "irrelevant" other victims of the Holocaust
and thus taking away attention from the horrors that homosexuals underwent.

> >
> >> I suspect in both cases the reason is the same -- one's sexuality is not
> >> really relevant to the subject of talk.origins.
> >
> > On the other hand, I am accused of homophobia by several
> > people on this thread, and have been accused by others in the past,
> > and one might expect someone who is homosexual or bisexual to
> > be especially critical of some of the things I say.
> >
> > And one might expect at least one gay or lesbian person to
> > be incensed at my objection to the use of "marriage" on a license
> > of civil union of people of the same sex, and to let everyone
> > know that they are potentially affected by any such "shortcoming"
> > on such a license.
> >
> > But it hasn't happened. So, can I conclude that all people
> > who have accused me of homophobia are "straight"?
> >
> > Burkhard made a claim that suggests Mark Isaak is gay, but everyone except
> > me has carefully ignored that claim. I reminded Mark of it,
> > but he hasn't posted anything to this thread since I mentioned
> > that in a reply to him.
>
> I still don't see why sexual orientation would be relevant to this
> discussion. If one perceives something as unjust, I don't think one
> needs to be part of the affected group to speak out on the subject,

Of course not, otherwise pro-lifers would be barred from speaking
on the subject of abortion, unless they had survived a botched abortion.

As it is, those few survivors are regularly assailed with trumped-up
"suspicions" that their story of having survived abortion was false.

And they are blindsided in public, like survivor Gianna Jessen was on FOX NEWS,
not having boned up on the issues enough to counter false and misleading
claims (not in connection with being aborted, granted) about various abortion
issues by an abortion rights propagandist.

> nor do I think that stating one's orientation contributes anything to the
> debate, anymore than it does to debates on evolution.

A homosexual affirming that he is not offended by several
things I have written would be very welcome news to me.

As it is, the closest thing that ever happened along those lines
in talk.origins was back around 2000, that when someone using
the moniker "Shirley" used inappropriate familiarity with me
and I asked, "Is this the name of a woman, a drag queen, or..."

This set off a storm of replies, one of which was (IIRC) by none
other than Mark Isaak, saying he would be delighted if someone
posting to talk.origins WERE a drag queen, because it would
enrich talk.origins with insight into a fascinating life style.

There were also those, of course, who professed to be shocked by my
daring to ask that question. But "Shirley" reassured us that he
was not offended, and later either he or someone else posted a
photo of him wearing female garb at a picnic.

I can't recall whether he also wore female makeup like "Mickey Mortimer,"
an amateur paleontologist who has done some fine work in systematics,
producing phylogenetic trees; he is a far better amateur paleontologist
than Oxyaena.

>
> Really, the only place I can think of where this information would be
> relevant would be on something like a dating website.
>
> André

You are using a very narrow -- albeit natural -- concept of "relevance."


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>

> >> 2. installment

> >>
> >>> On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 5/16/19 9:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> Your homophobia is demonstrated by your own statements of opposition to
> >>>>>> same-sex marriage,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Highly misleading half-truth. Unlike most conservatives who want
> >>>>> to deprive gays in same-sex marriages of real rights, my only
> >>>>> beef is the use of the word "marriage" on licenses of civil unions.
> >

> > By the way, I'm not even a conservative. For instance, my views on the
> > degradation of our environment are fairly radical, although I think for
> > myself and outside the box about it, and so I am not easily
> > pigeonholed as a "greenie".
> >
> >
> >>>>> You have been using the classic connotations of the word "marriage" for
> >>>>> something that lost many of them long ago. Quickie divorce, Reno-style,
> >>>>> and especially no-fault divorce have made a mockery of the idea
> >>>>> of marriage being a covenant. Leftists beginning (?) with Marx
> >>>>> and Engels have denounced marriage as an oppressive institution.
> >>>>> A particularly scathing attack was in "Refugees from Amerika:
> >>>>> A Gay Manifesto", by Carl Wittman.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This entry does not quote that directly, but it does quote the following,
> >>>>> which gives some idea of how the direct attack runs:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exclusive heterosexuality is fucked up. It reflects a fear of
> >>>>> people of the same sex, it's anti-homosexual, and it is fraught
> >>>>> with frustration. Heterosexual sex is fucked up too; ask women's
> >>>>> liberation about what straight guys are like in bed. Sex is aggression
> >>>>> for the male chauvinist; sex is obligation for the traditional woman.
> >>>>> -- Amerika: A Gay Manifesto I.3[6]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your radical leftist reaction to the 2016 election, and to the
> >>>>> Charlottesville clashes, suggest that you are tuned in to radical leftist
> >>>>> sources. You are obviously tuned into LBGTQ sources, and so I ask you: how
> >>>>> thoroughly has this essay been repudiated by these two movements?
> >>>
> >>> Your animosity towards me is so great that you not only ducked
> >>> this question, you seem to accuse me of homophobia below for daring
> >>> to ask it.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> both by that point alone and by your bizarre attempts
> >>>>>> to justify it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> None of which you dare to describe; and so readers are left with
> >>>>> the connotations and denotations of the word "bizarre".
> >>>>
> >>>> You just provided an example above.

> >>>
> >>> I take it that you think it is homophobic to ask to what
> >>> extent a blatantly heterophobic screed has been repudiated
> >>> by people who are most strongly pushing for special treatment
> >>> for gays.
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >> Yes it is, in the same way it is "anti-American" if the first thing I
> >> asked/requested from a US citizen when they reveal their nationality is
> >> to repudiate and apologize for John Kirkpatrick's advocacy and support
> >> of US state sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua, or ask of a present-day
> >> catholic to repudiate and apologize for Bishop Hudal's memories where he
> >> justifies his support for the Nazis.
> >

> > Can't you see how fallacious this analogy is? I didn't ask Mark
> > whether HE repudiated Wittman's essay; I asked him if he knew whether the
> > movers and shakers of the LBGTQ and leftist movements have repudiated it.
> >
>
> I'd interpreted it as "you asked us", the readers here on TO

This gratuitous rationalization does NOTHING to ameliorate the
fallaciousness of your analogy.


> - as we
> here are the only ones that can answer that question, right?

Here, yes, duh. But I am involved on other forums where I
can also ask the question. And if I ever run into one or more
of the REAL movers and shakers of one or both of these two movements,
I will ask them the question you are FALSELY accusing me
of having asked Mark Isaak.


> I simply
> gave you a pass on you addressing the question to folks

ABOUT folks. The German language doesn't confuse "to" and "about" to the
extent that you can plead insufficient fluency in English
for this misleading piece of sophistry.


> who aren't here
> to speak for themselves,

...completely ignoring the plain truth of what I told Mark Isaak.
He seems to have impeccable radical leftist credentials, evidenced by
his paranoid-seeming reaction to Trump's election, outdoing
everyone (including distant first runner-up Hemidactylus)
here in that respect. Also his reaction to the antifa-white supremacist
clash in Charlottesville, though not as militantly leftist as
that of Sean Dillon, spoke for itself.

And so, for that reason alone, I had reason to suspect that he
had inside knowledge about LBGT movers and shakers. He professes
ignorance, but that is completely beside the point of what I MEANT.


Speaking of Mark, you are ignoring something you left in far below:

[copied from below, your words coming first:]
> >> it is that you put an obligation on people to defend or justify
> >> themselves for the actions of someone else, by the mere fact that they
> >> share his sexual orientation.
> >
> > I can't figure out what this refers to. Your fallacious analogy
> > would seem to indicate that "they" refers to Mark Isaak; but
> > are you actually suggesting that Mark is gay?
[end of excerpt]

Mark hasn't been seen on this thread since I asked him whether
he quickly replied to my OP, as you are belatedly doing here,
to save you the embarrassment of having to answer just WHAT
you were suggesting here. Care to inform us all about this now?


> and took on that role on theory behalf.

You are simply digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

And I expect the end of this to be people like your buddy Hemidactylus
gloating over how I manage to offend even people like "the highly
respected Burkhard Schaefer," as though you were innocent of
all flamebait, flaming, persistent clinging to fallacies,
and failure to clarify potentially explosive statements like the
one I've copied above, and while I am the mean "goddamn moralizer"
who is the guilty party in all of this.


Your failure to even acknowledge what I wrote next
speaks volumes about your tortuous rationalization.

>
> >
> > A much better analogy would be for someone who knows I've kept
> > my membership in the Roman Catholic Church to ask me whether the Catholic
> > Church had fixed the shocking loophole it left in its 2002 reaction
> > to the priestly sex scandal: failure to punish or even censure the
> > bishops and other members of the hierarchy who covered up the
> > criminal activities of priests in their charge.

Note the similarity to what you wrote about Bishop Hudal.
To make it even closer, I could have singled out Cardinal/Archbishop
Theodore McCarrick, whose cover-ups and whose own criminal sexual
advances towards seminarians touched off the current firestorm.

Then I would have gotten more specific, and would have said
that I am very glad he was laicized by Pope Francis and being
made to live in a monastery for the rest of his life.

I would have added that I think it would be quite appropriate
for him to be given the additional penance of having to wear
sackcloth and ashes if he steps outside the building, even if
only for a walk on monastery grounds.

> > And my answer would be that Pope Francis has taken some promising
> > steps in that direction, but it's just a beginning, and I'll be
> > watching very closely to see what further steps the whole
> > hierarchy makes -- and soon!


Peter Nyikos


> >
> > And I would NOT call such a person anti-Catholic.
> >
> > <snip of something to be addressed in a separate post>

> >
> >
> >> What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
> >> mischaracterisation of Wittman,
> >

> > Hold it right there. I called his *screed* blatantly heterophobic.
> >

> > And why not? Suppose I were to say such things about gays and gay sex
> > as Wittman wrote about heterosexuals and their sexual behavior.
> >
> > I think the reaction here would be so intense that I would
> > suffer the same fate as "prawnster", who was universally shunned
> > because of bigoted things he wrote that went far, far beyond
> > anything I have written so far. I doubt, for instance, that
> > you would want to talk about the Scottish verdict "not proven,"
> > or about free will. Or if you did, you would probably be sure
> > to put a disclaimer in every reply to me about not condoning my
> > "gay-bashing."
> >
> > Why on earth do you use words like "hyperbolic mischaracterization"?
> > Is it because you have been conditioned to keep stretching the
> > word "homophobic" far beyond its original meaning, but when you
> > see the word "heterophobic" you suddenly take the "phobic" very
> > literally?
> >
> >
> > <another snip, same reason as above>
> >
> >
> >> it is that you put an obligation on people to defend or justify
> >> themselves for the actions of someone else, by the mere fact that they
> >> share his sexual orientation.
> >
> > I can't figure out what this refers to. Your fallacious analogy
> > would seem to indicate that "they" refers to Mark Isaak; but
> > are you actually suggesting that Mark is gay?

> >
> >
> >> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> >> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> >> rejection of the opposite sex".
> >
> > He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!

> > And I wholeheartedly agree with THAT! Please re-read what he wrote,
> > in context:
> >
> > http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm
> >
> > Also, it seems like you are taking the word "heterophobic" with excruciating
> > literalness here too. That is utterly unlike the free and loose way you
> > -- and everyone else here -- treats the word "homophobic." It has become
> > a meme that has taken on a life of its own, to the point where it would take
> > an essay just to give a feel for what the word means to each of a variety
> > of people who use it.
> >
> >
> > I see this one post of yours calls for several replies; this reply
> > has already gotten much longer than I'd like for an OP.
> >
> > Though perhaps not as long as the essay I envisioned just now. :-)
> >
> >
> > TO BE CONTINUED
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >

[zencycle]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Advice #3:
> > >
> > > Drop this subject. It's an embarrassment.
> >

> > +1
>
> Is it an embarrassment to you, zencycle?
>

No, just you embarrassing yourself (not an uncommon occurrence) in a misguided attempt to validate your own shortcomings. There won't be another response from me in this thread.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
>> >> >one of the two;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Prove that I lied or retract.
>> >
>> >You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
>> >when I demonstrated its falsity.
>>
>>
>> Cite the post where I claimed you had broken it.
>
>If I do, will you snip the evidence and post:
>
> <snip remaining self-serving spew>

The evidence? What evidence? You posted *zero* evidence of your
asserted claim. And you *still* haven't. Who do you think you're
fooling?


<snip the rest of your self-serving spew>

[Ernest Major]

On 06/06/2019 17:55, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> ("gypsies" -- is that a Romanophobe word nowadays?)

Romanophobe has been occasionally used with this mean, but it also means
fear and hatred of the Roman Empire/Ancient Rome. The regular word is
antiziganism.

A lot of people do consider gypsy to be a slur.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

People bitten by werewolves have a lot of respect for gypsy fortune
tellers.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

I have some music by the Gipsy Kings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipsy_Kings

“Their music has been described as a place where "Spanish flamenco and
gypsy rhapsody meet salsa funk".[1]”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_rumba

“The Catalan rumba (Catalan: rumba catalana, IPA: [ˈrumbə kətəˈlanə]) is a
genre of music that developed in Barcelona's Romani community beginning in
the 1950s.”

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> [...]

> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest

> regular in talk.origins" ... ?

Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.

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

[erik simpson]

Dangerously, disingenuously, cunningly, amorally, disturbingly, hilariously,...
I'm sure he's awarded at least one of these to you. It must be hard to keep
track.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 4:50:02 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 06/06/2019 17:55, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > ("gypsies" -- is that a Romanophobe word nowadays?)
>
> Romanophobe has been occasionally used with this mean, but it also means
> fear and hatred of the Roman Empire/Ancient Rome. The regular word is
> antiziganism.

Interesting. It reminds me of the Hungarian word "Ciga'ny" for the Romany.
I wonder whether the Hungarian Romany resent the word. [btw that a'
should have an acute accent over the "a" instead of that makeshift apostrophe
after it.]

> A lot of people do consider gypsy to be a slur.

Thank you for the cautionary words, Ernest. That's why I used
the word "Romany" outside the parenthetical expression, which I included
because I was afraid some people reading my words were unfamiliar
with the word "Romany". [When I first saw it half a century ago, I thought
it was short for "Romanians."]

I think Peter Maas didn't title a best-seller of his _King of the Romany_
for the same reason -- it might not have become a best-seller then.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:37:38 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> [...]
>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>
>Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.

It's a regularly-changing epithet assignment; I'm sure
you'll soon be back on top.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > [...]
> > Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
> > regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>
> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.

I've decided, from years of exposure to y'all's shenanigans, that each
of the seven people that you love to pretend are representative
of talk.origins specializes in one despicable trait with which [s]he
outdoes all the other six.

Accordingly, I decided about half a year ago that you deserve the title:

Most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins.

All the other six are highly self-righteous, but you outdo them all
in my estimation.

And you share the five other traits - cunning, dangerous, ruthless,
disingenuous, and condescending, that modify "dishonest" in
five of the other six. But you are outdone in each of them by
at least one other.

The outlier [or as the Brits would say, "odd man out"] is:


Hemidactylus: The most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins


And he isn't big on any of the forms of dishonesty, if you don't
count one atypical bout of intensely ruthless dishonesty last year.

Hemi's specialty is a brand of insincerity which allows him the
escape route if cornered: "I was only expressing my opinion!"
He's plied it both flippantly and hypocritically for the last
five and a quarter years now, except for that one lapse into
ruthless libel.


Peter Nyikos

PS I've told Hemidactylus about this many times, so it's not
like I'm talking behind his back. In fact, he keeps breezing past
recountings of his behavior, both general (as here) and specific
(as in hundreds of other posts) as though they weren't even there.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
> >> >> >one of the two;
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove that I lied or retract.
> >> >
> >> >You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
> >> >when I demonstrated its falsity.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cite the post where I claimed you had broken it.
> >
> >If I do, will you snip the evidence and post:
> >
> > <snip remaining self-serving spew>
>

You ducked the question. No surprise there.

> The evidence? What evidence? You posted *zero* evidence of your
> asserted claim.

What makes you think that? If you are referring to this thread,
I'm asking questions to clarify what the sequel will be if
I DO post the evidence here.

And you are only obscuring what the sequel might be, not
clarifying it.

> And you *still* haven't. Who do you think you're
> fooling?

You sure know how to rant about things you don't even try to explain.

>
> <snip the rest of your self-serving spew>

If asking questions like the above is "spew," [as "rest of" suggests],
then you are just expanding your private definition of "spew," which
I have already demonstrated to be both self-serving and Oxyaena-serving.

And you are labeling the demonstration "spew", very much in line
with the demonstration itself. Your irony-meter needs to be fixed
so that it measures your statements, not just those of people you've
decided to establish an adversarial relationship with.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 6/7/2019 3:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>>
>> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>
> I've decided, from years of exposure to y'all's shenanigans, that each
> of the seven people that you love to pretend are representative
> of talk.origins specializes in one despicable trait with which [s]he
> outdoes all the other six.

Apparently you don't understand what "sarcasm" is. Figures.


[snip one long steaming heap of psychological projection]

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

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[erik simpson]

Now, now. Remeber, English isn't his first language. It may not be any of his
languages.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 4:50:02 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 06/06/2019 17:55, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > ("gypsies" -- is that a Romanophobe word nowadays?)
> >
> > Romanophobe has been occasionally used with this mean, but it also means
> > fear and hatred of the Roman Empire/Ancient Rome. The regular word is
> > antiziganism.
>
> Interesting. It reminds me of the Hungarian word "Ciga'ny" for the Romany.
> I wonder whether the Hungarian Romany resent the word. [btw that a'
> should have an acute accent over the "a" instead of that makeshift apostrophe
> after it.]

Ah, I think I've figured it out. The word "Ciga'ny" comes from the German
word "Zigeuner" due to the Magyars having been under Austrian domination
for several centuries [including the entire 18th and 19th], and I conjecture
that "antiziganism" is based on "Zigeuner."

By the way, the German pronunciation of Z is the same as the Hungarian
pronunciation of C, and as many here probably know, it is closely approximated
by the English "ts".


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:37:38 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>
> >On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
> >> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
> >
> >Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>
> It's a regularly-changing epithet assignment; I'm sure
> you'll soon be back on top.

There is no "top." There are seven "tops," like seven peaks whose tops
are shrouded in clouds. I referred to the "tops" as "traits" wrt
which the seven of you outdo everyone else in talk.origins,
in my estimation, the fruit of at least five years of experience
with each and every one of you seven.


You represent the following "top":

Most condescendingly dishonest regular in talk.origins

If y'all wanted to figure out the "tops" I haven't listed on this thread,
all you'd have to do is ask Erik for his, and if he answers sincerely,
you can figure out Harshman's by process of elimination, referring to
my reply to Mark if need be.

By the way: the designations for Harshman, Oxyaena, and Simpson
are just as valid for sci.bio.paleontology as for talk.origins.

HANW.

TGIF.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Jillery enormously cared when she first lied that I had broken
>> >> >> >one of the two;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prove that I lied or retract.
>> >> >
>> >> >You claimed I had broken it, and did not retract the claim
>> >> >when I demonstrated its falsity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cite the post where I claimed you had broken it.
>> >
>> >If I do, will you snip the evidence and post:
>> >
>> > <snip remaining self-serving spew>
>>
>
>You ducked the question. No surprise there.

Your self-serving question is irrelevant. No suprise there.

You ducked the relevant challenge. No surprised there.

Who do you think you're fooling?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/7/19 2:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:37:38 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>>
>>> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>>>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>>>
>>> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>>
>> It's a regularly-changing epithet assignment; I'm sure
>> you'll soon be back on top.
>
> There is no "top." There are seven "tops," like seven peaks whose tops
> are shrouded in clouds. I referred to the "tops" as "traits" wrt
> which the seven of you outdo everyone else in talk.origins,
> in my estimation, the fruit of at least five years of experience
> with each and every one of you seven.
>
> You represent the following "top":
>
> Most condescendingly dishonest regular in talk.origins

Thank you. I feel much better now.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/7/19 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>>
>> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>
> I've decided, from years of exposure to y'all's shenanigans, that each
> of the seven people that you love to pretend are representative
> of talk.origins specializes in one despicable trait with which [s]he
> outdoes all the other six.
>
> Accordingly, I decided about half a year ago that you deserve the title:
>
> Most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins.
>
> All the other six are highly self-righteous, but you outdo them all
> in my estimation.
>
> And you share the five other traits - cunning, dangerous, ruthless,
> disingenuous, and condescending, that modify "dishonest" in
> five of the other six. But you are outdone in each of them by
> at least one other.

Thank you. I feel much better now.

(Please disregard my post in response to the one you made to Bob
Cassanova. My mistake in making it there.)

[Alpha Beta]

Homosexuality is bad.

[erik simpson]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 9:15:02 PM UTC-7, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Homosexuality is bad.

So we've been told. You came in late.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 21:09:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Homosexuality is bad.

Not as bad as bestiality. Get help.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:37:38 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>>
>> >On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>> >> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>> >
>> >Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>>
>> It's a regularly-changing epithet assignment; I'm sure
>> you'll soon be back on top.
>
>There is no "top." There are seven "tops," like seven peaks whose tops
>are shrouded in clouds.

Cool, like the Seven Hills of Rome? So do you think of
yourself as a Sabine, an Etruscan or a Samnite? Or maybe a
Carthaginian? Hint: None ended well.

<snip rant>

[Oxyaena]

On 6/8/2019 12:09 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Homosexuality is bad.
>

Oh no, stupid inbound.

[Oxyaena]

Does he even speak any language other than "douche"?

[Oxyaena]

Don't feel bad, Pontiff Peter has reserved a special, rotating slot for
you in his pantheon of evil cabalists.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:10:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/7/19 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
> >>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
> >>
> >> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.

I recognized the sarcasm immediately, but played along because it
helped me to compose comments that should come in handy later on.

It was obvious that you were following a standard procedure inaugurated
by Paul Gans in 1995, when he pretended it was an honor to be
put on my list of people who had shown strong evidence of dishonesty
and hypocrisy. He kept begging and pleading with me to put him on
it; and I kept telling him I hadn't seen him meet the standards
for membership.

At one point, Gans even did a moderately long post where he clumsily
simulated being dishonest and hypocritical. In reply, I explained in detail
why none of it came up to the standards that had been met by
the other people on my list.


It was only after I had accumulated enough REAL evidence, about a
month after all this sarcastic groveling began, that I put him
on the list. He let out a halleluyah, but -- like everyone else
on the list -- did NOT try to show that I was wrong in thinking
him hypocritical or dishonest.

And you are following in his footsteps, to the t., right on
this thread. As are the others I talk about below.


The phoniness of it all is clear from the way Hemidactylus has sarcastically
rejoiced over my "lists" of 1995-2001 again and again during
the last four years, and kept "hoping" for their revival.
But when I posted a list of 20 people whom I had NOT caught in any act of
dishonesty or hypocrisy, Hemidactylus conveniently absented himself
from the thread until the topic had completely shifted, weeks later.

> > I've decided, from years of exposure to y'all's shenanigans, that each
> > of the seven people that you love to pretend are representative
> > of talk.origins specializes in one despicable trait with which [s]he
> > outdoes all the other six.
> >
> > Accordingly, I decided about half a year ago that you deserve the title:
> >
> > Most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins.
> >
> > All the other six are highly self-righteous, but you outdo them all
> > in my estimation.
> >
> > And you share the five other traits - cunning, dangerous, ruthless,
> > disingenuous, and condescending, that modify "dishonest" in
> > five of the other six. But you are outdone in each of them by
> > at least one other.

Sarcastic as ever, you reply:

> Thank you. I feel much better now.
>
> (Please disregard my post in response to the one you made to Bob
> Cassanova. My mistake in making it there.)

Done. With its sarcasm understood, as here, of course.


By the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you -- and, indeed,
everyone except Oxyaena and erik simpson and zencycle -- for NOT replying
to any posts by Oxyaena or erik. Even zencycle replied to only one, by
erik, and his/her text was a "plagiarism" of a standard reply
by Steady Eddie [the real one, not the faker who posted briefly here last month]:

+1

That's all [s]he wrote, folks. It's almost as though everyone
were boycotting Oxyaena and Erik, whereas only I am.

Of course, these other "boycotts" cannot be expected to last
all through 2019, like mine will.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> By the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you -- and, indeed,
> everyone except Oxyaena and erik simpson and zencycle -- for NOT replying

> to any posts by Oxyaena or erik [on this thread].

"Fixed it" with the addition in brackets. This thread has grown to 68 posts
by now, including 7 by Oxyaena and 4 by erik.

> Even zencycle replied to only one, by
> erik, and his/her text was a "plagiarism" of a standard reply
> by Steady Eddie [the real one, not the faker who posted briefly here last month]:
>
> +1
>
> That's all [s]he wrote, folks. It's almost as though everyone
> were boycotting Oxyaena and Erik, whereas only I am.
>
> Of course, these other "boycotts" cannot be expected to last
> all through 2019, like mine will.

Not even on this thread; but maybe it will.

Zencyle promised not to post any more on this thread, so that's an
encouraging sign.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 6/11/2019 4:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> By the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you -- and, indeed,
>> everyone except Oxyaena and erik simpson and zencycle -- for NOT replying
>> to any posts by Oxyaena or erik [on this thread].
>
> "Fixed it" with the addition in brackets. This thread has grown to 68 posts
> by now, including 7 by Oxyaena and 4 by erik.
>

What Peter thinks of me and Erik:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuDEP6eFkeA

[snip groveling]

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/11/19 1:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:10:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/7/19 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
>>>>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
>>>>
>>>> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
>
> I recognized the sarcasm immediately, but played along because it
> helped me to compose comments that should come in handy later on.
>
> It was obvious that you were following a standard procedure inaugurated
> by Paul Gans in 1995, when he pretended it was an honor to be
> put on my list of people who had shown strong evidence of dishonesty

> and hypocrisy. [...]

I'm not pretending. I see it to be, if not an honor, at least a point
in my favor to have your disapproval. If you wish to understand why,
begin by following Socrates' dictum to know thyself.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/11/19 1:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:10:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/7/19 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 6/6/19 8:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Do you ever wonder why I call you "the most dangerously dishonest
> >>>>> regular in talk.origins" ... ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Aw, shucks. I thought I got that honor. This is so disappointing.
> >
> > I recognized the sarcasm immediately, but played along because it
> > helped me to compose comments that should come in handy later on.
> >
> > It was obvious that you were following a standard procedure inaugurated
> > by Paul Gans in 1995, when he pretended it was an honor to be
> > put on my list of people who had shown strong evidence of dishonesty
> > and hypocrisy. [...]
>
> I'm not pretending. I see it to be, if not an honor, at least a point
> in my favor to have your disapproval.

That is because you are continuing to play Gans's destructive game,
by pointedly using the term "disapproval" rather than referring
to the "honor" that I spelled out.

As part of that game, you deleted the description
of the "honor" which I have judged you to deserve:

The most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins.

Continuing to follow in Gans's footsteps, you also deleted
your sarcastic pretense of being "relieved" to have been
accorded this other "honor". Otherwise, your obfuscatory
use of "disapproval" would have looked less natural.


Your next comment illustrates the dishonest self-righteousness
whose MANY other illustrations by you have earned the above "honor" for you:

> If you wish to understand why,
> begin by following Socrates' dictum to know thyself.

Your solicitous comment is a cunning, but ultimately worthless,
substitute for making any effort to show that you do NOT
fit the description which you pretend to be an honor.

In short, you are continuing to tread in the footsteps of Gans.


By the way, you snipped something at the end which continues
to hold true: with the very minor exception of zencycle's
laconic "+1", and my announcement that I am boycotting
Oxyaena and Simpson, no one on this thread has replied to any of
the posts of the boycotted pair EXCEPT for the other member
of the boycotted pair.

And I even snipped everything Oxyaena had written in the post where
I made the announcement, along with the attribution
line which is automatically put into every follow-up I do on Usenet.
This is the procedure which I use for all such announcements.


To make matters more interesting, today Oxyaena has posted an 8th reply
to someone (in this case myself) on this thread, and still my observation of yesterday holds true.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 5:05:04 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> >>>> Robert Camp wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/29/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for your shrill attack on Wittman, far from being "heterophobic", the
> >>>>>>> manifesto says explicitly (In 1.1.) that it is not about ".. hatred or
> >>>>>>> rejection of the opposite sex".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He is saying that about *homosexuality*, not about his essay!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Literally true, but entirely beside the larger point. The manifesto is
> >>>>> neither heterophobic nor about hatred of straights, and for you to read
> >>>>> it that way reveals more about your bigoted neuroses than anything else.
> >>>
> >>> Like you and Mark, Robert is suffering from double standards
> >>> about the words "homophobic" and "heterophobic."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <snip to get to your words, Burkhard>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I save myself the work to reply, and simply endorse this.
> >>>
> >>> With no regrets for you silly goof? You already have several worse
> >>> goofs that you have yet to deal with. See my reply to Mark Isaak
> >>> for one of them.
> >>>
> >
> > You give no sign of having seen it; instead you resort
> > to TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion):


In reply, you resort to a formula much beloved of Internet trolls:

> The facts are there for all to see, everybody will be able to make up
> their own mind.

I have led the readers to water, and I hope many of them will drink,
undeterred by your misleading misdirection.



> >
> >> What you "think" is a silly goof. But reality is not your friend.
> >
> > Your attempt to justify this formulaic taunt below only served
> > to show the opposite.

> >
> >>> Two fairly big goofs came in just one compound clause, not even a
> >>> complete sentence:
> >>>
> >>> What makes your comment homophobic is not (mainly) your hyperbolic
> >>> mischaracterisation of Wittman,
> >>>
> >>> I've already dealt with this twofold goof,
> >
> > ...beginning with:
> >
> > Hold it right there. I called his *screed* blatantly heterophobic.
> >
> > I addressed the action, not the man.
>
> Eh, so?

I did not mischaracterize Wittman, I critiqued a statement of his
that may not have been a permanent opinion of his. Here is that
statement:

Exclusive heterosexuality is fucked up. It reflects a fear of
people of the same sex, it's anti-homosexual, and it is fraught
with frustration. Heterosexual sex is fucked up too; ask women's
liberation about what straight guys are like in bed. Sex is aggression
for the male chauvinist; sex is obligation for the traditional woman.
-- Amerika: A Gay Manifesto I.3[6]


> >> You mean the answer that did not address any of the reasons I gave why
> >> it was a shrill mischaracterisation?
> >
> > They didn't address the excerpt which I posted.
>
> That's because they were in the post from before you even posted an
> excerpt.

This is a demonstrable falsehood. The above excerpt was in the OP
of this thread. The "reasons" of which you are so proud came later,
and had nothing to do with the content of the except.

I'm getting a better and better idea of the real (perhaps unconscious)
reason you killfiled me, and it isn't flattering to you. I made a
similar comment in the post to which you are replying, preserved below.



> >
> >> You know, the stuff about the law
> >> on marital rape when he was writing, the non-enforcement of domestic
> >> violence law etc etc? Colour me unimpressed.

Colour yourself obfuscating, in bold neon-bright colors.


> > Give yourself an olive drab star for being pusillanimous enough
> > to NOT reply to the post where I called you out for your
> > goof, where you would have had to do something about
> > my "Hold it right there...."

> >
> >> and nobody has so far
> >>> left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
> >>> the sand about being caught out?
> >
> >
> >> In your own mind, you ride from victory to victory, sure.
> >
> > You know, Burkhard, for the years you had me killfiled,
> > the reason you gave was that I spend too much time making
> > personal attacks. But your behaviour these last two months
> > makes me suspect that your real -- perhaps only subconscious -- reason,
> > is that you couldn't trust yourself to keep from devolving
> > from *Homo* *sapiens* *sapiens* into either *Homo* *sapiens* *polemica*
> > or *Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*
>
> Oh, not just subconsciously, that was indeed one of the many reason why
> it is more productive and healthy to ignore you. You do manage indeed
> to get the worst out of lots of posters

The obvious reason is that they are uninterested in truth when
confronted by someone able to counter their amateurish comments,
but are trying to score debating points in the only way they
know how: obfuscation, and in many cases, deceit piled upon deceit,
for as long as the debate lasts.

There are about ten regulars still in talk.origins [fortunately,
still not a majority] who have gone down this primrose path into
disgrace. [I have named the most enduring seven in replies to
Mark Isaak, who is one of them.] You would be well advised
to curb your instincts to follow them.


> (and a person with the ability
> to honest self-reflection may ask why.

And, like Mark Isaak, you carefully avoid revealing the answer
of how it brings out the worst in YOU. See my reply to him a bit
over an hour ago, on this same thread.


> So yes, I do keep the old
> Nietzsche adage "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he
> thereby become a monster."

If I am a "monster" in your eyes, then it is because I am a "goddamn
moralizer" who has little patience with dishonesty, hypocrisy, and
baseless accusations. The seven to whom I refer above have each
tried my patience literally hundreds of times.

As I have put it many times in many threads: I suffer fools gladly,
knaves with difficulty or not at all.


> always in the back of my mind. So far I
> think I manage to restrain myself sufficiently, but it takes lots of
> breezing exercises.

You evidently have much lower standards of self-restraint than I do.


> > Your behavior all through this post illustrates that very
> > inability to trust yourself.
>
> Nah, I'm good. While the standards I set myself do indeed prevent me
> from telling you what exactly I think of you and your behavior in more
> earthy vocabulary,

...or in vocabulary that avoids grandstanding? There's all the
difference in the world between the two vocabularies.


> so far I managed to stay within the limits I set
> myself. The moment I don;t trust myself any longer on this, I'd simply
> disengage.

IOW, re-killfile me. Correct?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later. Duty calls.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Yeah, you did, stop lying.

>
> Exclusive heterosexuality is fucked up. It reflects a fear of
> people of the same sex, it's anti-homosexual, and it is fraught
> with frustration. Heterosexual sex is fucked up too; ask women's
> liberation about what straight guys are like in bed. Sex is aggression
> for the male chauvinist; sex is obligation for the traditional woman.
> -- Amerika: A Gay Manifesto I.3[6]
>
>
>>>> You mean the answer that did not address any of the reasons I gave why
>>>> it was a shrill mischaracterisation?
>>>
>>> They didn't address the excerpt which I posted.
>>
>> That's because they were in the post from before you even posted an
>> excerpt.
>
> This is a demonstrable falsehood. The above excerpt was in the OP
> of this thread. The "reasons" of which you are so proud came later,
> and had nothing to do with the content of the except.

Stop lying.

>
> I'm getting a better and better idea of the real (perhaps unconscious)
> reason you killfiled me, and it isn't flattering to you. I made a
> similar comment in the post to which you are replying, preserved below.
>

Remember when you complained about Burk "mind-reading" you? This is
getting especially ironic more and more as time goes on.

>
>
>>>
>>>> You know, the stuff about the law
>>>> on marital rape when he was writing, the non-enforcement of domestic
>>>> violence law etc etc? Colour me unimpressed.
>
> Colour yourself obfuscating, in bold neon-bright colors.

So, in other words, you have no actual rebuttal and must resort to
obfuscating? Classic Nyikos.

>
>
>>> Give yourself an olive drab star for being pusillanimous enough
>>> to NOT reply to the post where I called you out for your
>>> goof, where you would have had to do something about
>>> my "Hold it right there...."
>
>>>
>>>> and nobody has so far
>>>>> left it in his post. Do you plan to just bury your head in
>>>>> the sand about being caught out?
>>>
>>>
>>>> In your own mind, you ride from victory to victory, sure.
>>>
>>> You know, Burkhard, for the years you had me killfiled,
>>> the reason you gave was that I spend too much time making
>>> personal attacks. But your behaviour these last two months
>>> makes me suspect that your real -- perhaps only subconscious -- reason,
>>> is that you couldn't trust yourself to keep from devolving
>>> from *Homo* *sapiens* *sapiens* into either *Homo* *sapiens* *polemica*
>>> or *Homo* *sapiens* *emoticon.*
>>
>> Oh, not just subconsciously, that was indeed one of the many reason why
>> it is more productive and healthy to ignore you. You do manage indeed
>> to get the worst out of lots of posters
>
> The obvious reason is that they are uninterested in truth when
> confronted by someone able to counter their amateurish comments,
> but are trying to score debating points in the only way they
> know how: obfuscation, and in many cases, deceit piled upon deceit,
> for as long as the debate lasts.

Oh the irony is thick here.

>
> There are about ten regulars still in talk.origins [fortunately,
> still not a majority] who have gone down this primrose path into
> disgrace. [I have named the most enduring seven in replies to
> Mark Isaak, who is one of them.] You would be well advised
> to curb your instincts to follow them.
>
>
>> (and a person with the ability
>> to honest self-reflection may ask why.
>
> And, like Mark Isaak, you carefully avoid revealing the answer
> of how it brings out the worst in YOU. See my reply to him a bit
> over an hour ago, on this same thread.
>
>
>> So yes, I do keep the old
>> Nietzsche adage "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he
>> thereby become a monster."
>
> If I am a "monster" in your eyes, then it is because I am a "goddamn
> moralizer" who has little patience with dishonesty, hypocrisy, and
> baseless accusations. The seven to whom I refer above have each
> tried my patience literally hundreds of times.
>

Ha ha no, it's because you're a narcissistic oaf with all those vices
you listed above.

> As I have put it many times in many threads: I suffer fools gladly,
> knaves with difficulty or not at all.
>
>
>> always in the back of my mind. So far I
>> think I manage to restrain myself sufficiently, but it takes lots of
>> breezing exercises.
>
> You evidently have much lower standards of self-restraint than I do.

Bullshit.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Advice #3:
> > > >
> > > > Drop this subject. It's an embarrassment.
> > >
> > > +1

Irony: the above 2-symbol text is in the only reply to either
Oxyaena or Erik on this thread which preserves any text of either one.
And the only other "reply", by myself, obliterated all clues as to
whom it was a direct follow-up to.

As of this morning, the duo had done 13 posts to this thread, 9
of them by Oxyaena.


> > Is it an embarrassment to you, zencycle?
> >
>
> No, just you embarrassing yourself (not an uncommon occurrence) in a misguided attempt to validate your own shortcomings.

Are you shackling yourself to the frequent Goneril-style idiocies by jillery
and Oxyaena about my trying to compensate for (nonexistent) "anatomical
deficiencies" of mine?

Hemidactylus actually complained about that kind of language, but I
laid its essence bare with the references to "King Lear" and the
righteous Duke of Albany being countered by his wife, the same Goneril, with "Marry, your manhood, now..."

Goneril also says, as the villanous Edmund exits off stage,

O, the difference of man and man!
To thee a woman's services are due:
My fool usurps my body.
--Act III, Scene 2

The exchange with her "fool," ending as described above, takes place almost
immediately thereafter.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/full.html


> There won't be another response from me in this thread.

Excellent. This means you won't be replying to either Oxyaena
or Erik on this thread, thereby restoring the absolute "virtual boycott"
of everyone on this thread of their posts, except for

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oxyaena-jillery posting style on

the mutual masturbation of Oxyaena and Erik.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oxyaena-jillery posting style off


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

Thank you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:21:43 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

Nice of Peter to compliment you that way...

[Peter Nyikos]

Nice of you to show your solidarity with Dr. Gansenstein and Mark Isaak.

"Dr. Gansenstein" is a reference to Paul Gans's mentoring of jillery ca.
2011-2013, helping her to become the moral monster that she is now.

Some time after he was done with his mentoring, Paul showed some concern
for how far jillery had gone afterwards, but with no mention of his
indispensable aid in showing her some dirty debating tactics, including
rank dissimulation.

Did you follow Paul's mentoring closely, Bob? Or did some
other influences turn you into the second most disingenuously
dishonest regular in talk.origins?

Number one in that category is Erik Simpson, but you outdo him in being
the most *condescendingly* dishonest regular.


Wear that badge of distinction proudly: it's your only hope of making
naive readers think that you do NOT deserve it.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

"Solidarity"? Is that how you view expressed admiration for
a very knowledgeable individual? OK, if that's your schtick.

("Gansenstein"? Is that intended to be an anti-Semitic slur,
despite your disclaimer below? If so, I'm hardly surprised.
Disappointed, maybe, but not surprised.)

>"Dr. Gansenstein" is a reference to Paul Gans's mentoring of jillery ca.
>2011-2013, helping her to become the moral monster that she is now.
>
>Some time after he was done with his mentoring, Paul showed some concern
>for how far jillery had gone afterwards, but with no mention of his
>indispensable aid in showing her some dirty debating tactics, including
>rank dissimulation.
>
>Did you follow Paul's mentoring closely, Bob?

No, Peter, unlike you I don't obsess over the interactions
of others, nor do I create "lists" of those I imagine are
conspiring against me.

> Or did some
>other influences turn you into the second most disingenuously
>dishonest regular in talk.origins?

IYAO. Which I reject.

>Number one in that category is Erik Simpson, but you outdo him in being
>the most *condescendingly* dishonest regular.
>
>
>Wear that badge of distinction proudly: it's your only hope of making
>naive readers think that you do NOT deserve it.

....says one of the two most consistently annoying
individuals posting here...you and DocDoc should form a
club.