John Harshman Shows His True Colors

[Peter Nyikos]

John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be. But
a very dramatic exception issued from him yesterday. He stooped as
low as I've seen any t.o. regular stoop, with the exception of jonathan.

If Harshman runs true to the form which he establishes below,
this will be "a thread that he doesn't see because he doesn't
want to see"; and if someone calls it to his attention, he will
hypocritically laim that he doesn't concern himself with "crap."

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/13/17 12:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:50:06 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/13/17 5:56 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> >>>> Classification has uses, and those uses are not going away. They give us
> >>>> a set of names to use when talking about nodes on the tree,
> >>>
> >>> I didn't quite know what to make of this emphasis on names at first.
> >>> I focused on the unusual use of the word "nodes" where the
> >>> straightforward use of "clades" would have made more sense,
> >>> as you belatedly revealed.
> >>>
> >>> I think I see the reason now: you and Mark have adopted a meaning
> >>> of the word "classification" which takes it out of the realm of
> >>> science into the realm of the humanities, where Mark is
> >>> FAR more at home.
> >>> >>
> >> Paranoia: it's the only word that makes sense here.
> >
> > Gratuitous insult is the only term that this last sentence of yours
> > deserves.
>
> You are assuming nefarious motivations not in evidence.

Nonsense. "Paranoia" is totally inappropriate for pointing out word games,
of which Ray Martinez makes use of incessantly and is criticized for these games
by many people in many threads.

But I've never seen Martinez sink so low as to accuse his critics of paranoia
just for criticizing these word games.

> What other word
> should be used?

Disingenuous question noted.

> > You need to look up the word "paranoia." It does not mean what
> > you seem > > you seem to think it means.
>
> No, you're just unable to see it. You have delusions of persecution.

I defy you to come up with even ONE time you used "paranoia" or
"paranoid" in a way that did justice to that definition.
I can come up with many that PATENTLY do not.

If you think this latest one of yours DOES satisfy it, you
are more deluded than you claim me to be, and illogical
to an extent that is rare even for Ray Martinez.


> > That reminds me: did you bother to look up the word "defame" the
> > way I advised you to do on the thread where Joe linked your
> > LinkedIn information? If you didn't bother, on what grounds did
> > you accuse Joe of lying?

> > Joe had written:
> >
> > This post has not been made to defame John Harshman,
> > but to inform readers.
> >
> > And you shot back with:
> >
> > Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.
>
> So you have time for this crap

The crap is all yours. You have leveled a serious charge against
Joe LyonLayden and even issued a schoolmarmish reprimand that
assumes that the charge is valid. Yet, when challenged to
justify it with a pointed question of how you justify it,
you not only leave the crickets chirping but you show the
world what a self-righteous asshole you are.

And you can't even use your usual taunt "It's all about
you, isn't it?" when I confront you with despicable behavior
by you. This particular libelous-seeming charge was aimed not at me,
but at Joe.


> but not for any on-topic, substantive
> discussion.

And here you show the world what a dishonest hypocrite you are.

Dishonest, because the posts that preceded yours did feature
on-topic, substantive discussion, especially the ones whose
attribution lines I snipped above because no text from them appears
here:
> >>>> On 12/6/17 3:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/5/17 9:17 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

And hypocritical, because I caught you playing "good cop" to
Wolffan's "bad cop" in a mendacious, totally off-topic post in
which you very mildly disagreed with Wolffan's toxic description
of me but made no attempt to criticize him for any of it.

This was right on the thread where everything mentioned here
took place; see reference below.

Wolffan's post was one of those infrequent posts that
"you saw because you wanted to see it." But my devastating
rebuttal evidently is one of the posts which
"you didn't see because you didn't want to see it":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/_7w7fJGdCgAJ
Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e3b47269-700d-444d...@googlegroups.com>

The only reply to that post to date came from Hemidactylus,
who carefully expurgated every criticism I made of you
and Wolffam from his reply. Do you think anyone should be
surprised that he did that?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

In this post, we get a glimpse of why Harshman was so
hypocritical and dishonest about "on-topic, substantive discussion."
It's a second reply to the same post to which I was replying
in my OP.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/13/17 12:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:50:06 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/13/17 5:56 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 12/6/17 3:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/5/17 9:17 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 9:15:02 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>> Peter does a great job pointing out the errors in your new system of building phylogenetic trees. It leads to errors
> > and vagueries.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, it isn't the system of building them, unless you are referring to
> >>>>>>> my prediction in sci.bio.paleontology that systematists a century from
> >>>>>>> now will abandon trying to classify extinct animals from which we do
> >>>>>>> not have reasonably comprehensive genomes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wow, I have rarely seen a prediction easier to disagree with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can disagree with all the predictions you wish. The trick is to
> >>>>> give plausible reasons for disagreement. And you don't even TRY to give
> >>>>> any here. You don't even give a reason why you think it is easy for you,
> >>>>> besides the following cryptically worded genralilzation:
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me try. There is no sign of any trend in that direction.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, no? Why do you think that molecular methods of
> >>> calculating phylogeny seem to win out over morphological methods
> >>> again and again?
> >>
> >> Because molecular data is better (if analyzed properly) when you can get
> >> it. That means that in general when doing analysis of extinct taxa it's
> >> best to use a molecular backbone. But that doesn't say anyone is giving
> >> up on extinct taxa.
>
> Google Groups is misthreading again. This appeared at the root.

I told you the real reason at the end of the post to which you
are replying. I'm not surprised, though, that you didn't scroll
back up to delete your ignorant assumption.

> > As I had said in the post to which you are replying (deleted at the end):
> > I predict that in the 22nd century systematists will
> > continue to give each extinct fossil its genus and species. I also
> > predict is that they will reject clades with more than one genus as too
> > subjective unless they have at least one living representative.
>
> Yeah, and I predict jet packs and antigravity cars. Your prediction is
> useless unless you can back it up with something. So far you haven't.

You should be glad I haven't gone beyond a few hint so far.
Otherwise I would be charging you in sci.bio.paleontology
with multiple violations of our agreement to behave like
good ambassadors. There, you wrote in a very insulting way
about my prediction, without so much as asking me what my
basis was for them.

As it is, it will only be in January (or maybe February, if you
put up a spirited debate) that I will charge you with that
violation in direct reply to where you made it. Because then
I could link people to the thread here, in which it will
become clear how baseless those insults were.

> > But it is too close to my annual multi-week break to go into
> > all the reasons for this prediction. I'm way too busy between
> > now and its start for the deep discussion that should ensue.
>
> So far you haven't gone into any of the reasons, and yet you have wasted
> oodles of time on irrelevancies, here and in other threads.

What are you trying to do, goad me into short-changing my students
by being late with turning in grades, and short-changing my family
right during Christmas? Once my grades are in, there will begin
a ten-day family reunion lasting until the fourth day of Christmas.

> > See you in January 2018 for its inauguration. [The hint I give
> > you with "too subjective" will have to do between now and then.]


Wolffan wrote a <cough> poem <cough> that describes your behavior here
much better than it could claim to describe mine. The following reply
to him failed to post, but this way it becomes a twofer.

[the failed post:]
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 7:45:02 PM UTC-4, Wolffan
did a creativity-challenged rip-off of Dr. Seuss's masterly
song about the Grinch Who Stole Christmas:

> You're a mean one Peter Nyikos
> You really are a heel.
> You're as cuddly as a cactus,
> And as charming as an eel,
> Peter Nyikos!
>
> You're a bad banana,
> With a greasy black peel!
>
> You're a monster, Peter Nyikos!
> Your heart's an empty hole.
> Your brain is full of spiders.
> You've got garlic in your soul,
> Peter Nyikos!
>
>
> I wouldn't touch you
> With a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!
>
> You're a vile one, Peter Nyikos!
> You have termites in your smile.
> You have all the tender sweetness
> Of a seasick crocodile,
> Peter Nyikos!
>
> Given the choice between the two of you,
> I'd take the seasick crocodile!
>
> You're a foul one, Peter Nyikos!
> You're a nasty, wasty skunk!
> Your heart is full of unwashed socks.
> Your soul is full of gunk,
> Peter Nyikos!
>
> The three words that best describe you
> Are as follows, and I quote,
> "Stink, stank, stunk!"
>
> You're a rotter, Peter Nyikos!
> You're the king of sinful sots!
> Your heart's a dead tomato,
> Splotched with moldy, purple spots,
> Peter Nyikos!
>
> Your soul is an appalling dump-heap

<snip remainder, which anyone guess the contents of by looking
at the Dr. Seuss lyrics>

Don't let my amateur critic treatment of what you wrote
deter you from posting more such ripoffs in the future, Wolffan.
I'm sure jillery was hugely entertained by it despite the
complete lack of originality, and I am sure your number two
fan after jillery, namely Hemidactylus, will be hugely entertained
by it too. In fact, I just might show it to him today.

Peter Nyikos

PS I'm sure you don't believe people have souls, Wolffan,
except in the metaphoric sense. [See the last line of yours
that I left in.] And I believe you don't understand what
soul singers mean by "soul" either. So I doubt
you'll understand my closing line:

You ain't got no soul, bro'.

[end of formerly failed post]

And you ain't got no soul either, Harshman. But I'm sure
you enjoyed reading that poem with my name in place of yours,
you old Grinch.

Assuming, of course, that this is a post that you "see
because you want to see it." That's a rather tenuous
assumption, I admit.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

I'm a known worldview enemy of John Harshman, yet I fail to see how generic criticism, like "paranoia," leveled at Peter Nyikos could set Perer off and blow the gasket he has blown. I just don't get it?

For newer posters at Talk.Origins: Peter maintained that Ron Okimoto was the most heinous and dishonest person here; then it was John Stockwell; then Richard Forrest; then Robert Camp; then Jillery; then came myself. I held this coveted position for a while. Now John Harshman is currently the most dishonest. I'm jealous. John has held the position longer than me.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.

Ray

[erik simpson]

I'm dishonest (or at least insincere), and I'm a sociopath to boot. Peter's
been having a rough year. Hemidactylus also should be mentioned as a
particularly scurrilous sociopath. I don't know what's happened with Paul
Gans; he used to be the worst of the worst, but hasn't rated much from Peter
this year.

[Ray Martinez]

Thanks for mentioning these others. I stand corrected.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-8, erik simpson wrote:

Yes, you have held the title as the most dishonest for a while. We number about 8 to 10 persons. But currently JH holds the chair.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 12/14/17 9:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be. But
> a very dramatic exception issued from him yesterday. He stooped as
> low as I've seen any t.o. regular stoop, with the exception of jonathan.
>
> If Harshman runs true to the form which he establishes below,
> this will be "a thread that he doesn't see because he doesn't
> want to see"; and if someone calls it to his attention, he will
> hypocritically laim that he doesn't concern himself with "crap."
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/13/17 12:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:50:06 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/17 5:56 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

<snip paranoid nonsense>

Goodness, the kooks with their personal attack threads are feeling their
oats this month.

[erik simpson]

Well, us kooks are really feeling threatened by the hoard of Peter clones with
their coordinated attacks. We need trigger warnings and safe spaces.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Do we have a running headcount on the identified sociopaths here? Hemi,
Erik, ...?

[Ray Martinez]

An accusation of word games equates to an unsupported claim or assertion because the accusation is never explained or shown true. Moreover, the same supports one of my main criticisms of evolutionary thinking:

Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. If truly understood then they would SEE how ridiculous their claims actually are. Evolutionists will acknowledge that words represent things THEN they will promptly contradict their acknowledgement by making the invalid and unexplained criticism of word games.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ever ponder the Sorites problem? What’s the demarcation between fully
haired and bald? A grain of sand and a pile? Words applied to what?

Isolated populations, incipient species, and separate species? Wolves
become dogs assorted into arbitrary breeds. What is identity under heavy
flux.

You seek permanence or stability at a macroscale where none obtains.
Components come and go. What appears permanent is ephemeral when you expand
the scale of time. Your Paleyian worldview shatters from glass to sand
which erodes into the ocean of deep time. You try clutching and it falls
through your fingers. Darwinism reigns supreme.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> What are you trying to do, goad me into short-changing my students
> by being late with turning in grades, and short-changing my family
> right during Christmas? Once my grades are in, there will begin
> a ten-day family reunion lasting until the fourth day of Christmas.
>

Don’t blame others for your prioritization schema or lack of time
management skills. As Covey said “first things first”. He also said “begin
with end in mind” and you seem aimless here unless sowing dissension is
your mission statement. And active listening “seek first to understand then
to be understood” is something to work on. You project preconceptions
heavily onto others and your categories wind up becoming self fulfilling
prophecies. In other words you are reaping what you sow. And you have no
idea how this problem of yours is entirely self generated. Sad.

[Ray Martinez]

Since we already know that you're an Atheist and of course a Darwinist, what's the point?

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Trying to remedy your worldview.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Try this flux notion on for size Paley boy:

http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/cratylus.htm

Words thus escape me for the blur whirling by. Heraclitus less extreme. But
still captures the essence of radical nominalism. Words are jelly nailed to
a wall of wet tissue paper...oh crap, am I starting to sound like Bill? I’m
melting away into the voooooiiiiiii......

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:25:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.
>
> Ray

Bullshit. You are taking people whom I have accused of dishonesty
at random and deceitfully claiming that I have called them the
most dishonest person in talk.origins.

In fact, your reckless use of this fiction makes me wonder: DID I
ever claim that Ron O was the most dishonest person here?

Until I see documentation that I said that, I withdraw my agreement
with you that I had so designated Ron O. For a long time he was the
person on whom I had the most goods in the dishonesty department,
but that's not the same thing.

You realize, don't you, that this reckless use of "most dishonest"
is making people pay less attention to the despicable behavior
that I have documented on Harshman.

And I do believe that is one of your conscious, deliberate aims.

Others are trying a lot harder than you to do that, admittedly.
But they have always been on very good terms with Harshman, especially
his number one fan, Erik Simpson.

This also includes Hemidactylus; the only time I ever saw him
cross with Harshman was when he berated Harshman for keeping me here
in talk.origins by discussing on-topic substantive issues with me.
But you can see from his behavior on this thread that he is zealously
supportive of Harshman.


Do you aim to be accepted by them as an ally against me?


Peter Nyikos

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 14, Peter Nyikos squeaked:

evidence of his paranoia, deleted. Hiya, Petey! Still oozing corrosive green
slime, I see!

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 14, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article<YNqdnZdxba4qYq_H...@giganews.com>):

me! I’m sure that I simply must have made that list already, and if somehow
I haven’t yet one more good try should do it!

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 14, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<b506048c-f50b-40ac...@googlegroups.com>):

I wanna be #1! Petey, come on, you know that you wanna rate me #1!

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:

> I'm dishonest (or at least insincere), and I'm a sociopath to boot.

You became demonstrably dishonest when you posted grotesque falsehoods
about how I handled a scientific paper in sci.bio.paleontology.

I resoundingly refuted you in two long careful posts, both in reply
to one post of yours. The rest of your post had to do with a different
topic, and so you seized on the third post where you were less
decisively shown to be insincere. But you have never dared to
touch the first two posts.

> Peter's been having a rough year.

No more rough than any other. What sets this one apart is that
several people, including yourself and Hemidactylus have behaved
in a more documentably despicable manner than ever before.


And Harshman has shown himself to be one of the most cowardly people here.
To this day he hasn't dared let out a peep about what those hairlike
structures are on *Sinosauropteryx* lest he offend Ron O, who very
foolishly called them feathers.


And yet Harshman is a professional ornithologist. Go figure.


I'd love to see you show some backbone about that issue of those
hairlike structures, but I think you are even more afraid of
offending Ron O than Harshman is.

> Hemidactylus also should be mentioned as a
> particularly scurrilous sociopath.

Hemidactylus made a very silly comment about how I am using the
word "sociopath" very liberally. What he doesn't realize is that
the two of you are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I have EVER
claimed to have powerful evidence on that score -- or any evidence
at all. With you it is what is legally called "preponderance of evidence"

For a while I said that Hemidactylus is one "beyond a reasonable doubt"
but I gave him the opportunity to cop a plea of being brainwashed
by Lefitist/politically correct propaganda to the point where the
words "hate" "hypocrite" and "self-righteous" can only apply to
politically incorrect people in his brainwashed mind.

Did you see where I wrote that? Last I looked, no one replied
to that post. I'd be astounded if Hemidactylus dared to confront
the evidence I recounted, some of it going back about three
and a half years.

> I don't know what's happened with Paul
> Gans; he used to be the worst of the worst,

That was way back around 1998-2000. So don't you go sneering about
how I am talking about things that happened three years ago.

> but hasn't rated much from Peter
> this year.

See the first of my two replies to Martinez, where he is simply
referred to as an "old-timer" who once dominated a newsgroup; that
newsgroup is soc.history.medieval.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

For some reason, this post has not appeared, while a second reply I
did to Martinez posted over half an hour ago. So I am trying again,
making one small change.

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:10:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> I'm a known worldview enemy of John Harshman,

IOW you fight against his worldview, but in fact you and he are on
quite good terms. For example, were extremely
forgiving of him when he claimed everyone knows you get all your
ideas from Gene Scott. Had the Christian, Dana Tweedy, who shares
more of your worldview, made such a completely false assessment of
you, you might well have boycotted him for that before you
boycotted him for saying things about Gene Scott that you have
never even TRIED to refute.

yet I fail to see how generic criticism, like "paranoia," leveled at Peter Nyikos could set Perer off and blow the gasket he has blown. I just don't get it?

It's a scam Harshman has been working against me for almost seven
years now, done to discredit me in the eyes of people who know
that I am not a creationist on the one hand and in the eyes of
creationists on the other. [I believe the second set is a subset
of the first.]

And I didn't "blow my gasket" over that. Far worse was the
charge John made against Joe, and when called upon to support
his allegation that Joe had lied and ought to be "ashamed of
himself" he displayed an almost unbelievable level of arrogance.

You have started at least one thread because you were so upset
with me having accused you of lying. How would you have
reacted if I had been so arrogant towards you?


Why is it that it is so hard for you to see things from my POV on
this matter?


Is it because you are on such friendly terms with Harshman that
you can't imagine how anyone could come down this hard on him?


Is it because Joe isn't me, and you share with your "Saint Ayn Rand"
her contempt for altruists?

IIRC, you said that if it wasn't for her atheism, Ayn Rand would be a
saint. Does her contempt for altruists not disqualify her from
sainthood in your eyes?

To put the matter of altruism another way: do you secretly admire the priest
and Levite who passed the robbers' victim before the Good Samaritan
took pity on him?

Similarly, are you of the same mindset as Martin Harran, who elevates
"Mind your own business" almost to the status of an 11th Commandment?

> For newer posters at Talk.Origins: Peter maintained that Ron Okimoto was the most heinous and dishonest person here;

[If I said that,] it was before I saw just how dishonest others could be.
In particular, it took me a long time to see that John Harshman is one of
the three most cunningly dishonest people I have ever encountered on the
internet.

That's because his style is so different from that of the other two,
one of whom is a real old-timer who now seems to be completely
ineffectual, but who in his heyday dominated another newsgroup far
more than anyone (including himself) has ever succeeded in dominating
talk.origins.

>then it was John Stockwell; then Richard Forrest; then Robert Camp; then Jillery; then came myself.

I NEVER said any of the above was THE most dishonest person here, except
possibly you recently. It is true that the sheer volume of your lies
is greater than that of anyone else, in my experience. But that is partly
because I have paid a LOT more attention to you than I have to Ron O
these last three years.

> I held this coveted position for a while. Now John Harshman is currently the most dishonest.

You are so far off base it isn't funny. Harshman only descends to the
depths of dishonesty very infrequently. And this isn't one of those times.
What he has done is to descend to the depths of arrogance and
self-righteousness AND cowardice in refusing to either confirm or
deny that he had no basis for accusing Joe of lying.

> I'm jealous. John has held the position longer than me.

You are confusing "most cunningly dishonest" with "most dishonest."
John has never held a position even in the top five in the latter
category. And only three of the people you have named ever made
the "top five"; that three has included you for a long time, with
only Ron O having held "top three" status longer than you.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:00:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:25:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Bullshit. You are taking people whom I have accused of dishonesty
> at random and deceitfully claiming that I have called them the
> most dishonest person in talk.origins.

You've had an ever-changing number 1 personal enemy here at Talk.Origins----that's what I said and that's all I said. And what I said can be said using different terms and in different ways, but it all means the exact same thing. You're trying hard to miss the jest. You've consistently identified about 7 or 8 posters as the most dishonest including myself. Currently John Harshman holds the title.

>
> In fact, your reckless use of this fiction makes me wonder: DID I
> ever claim that Ron O was the most dishonest person here?

Yes you have. I'm not going to spend any time producing quotations. I've named at least 7 different persons who at one time or another have been identified by you as the most dishonest. I'm not interested in your nit-picking. I've seen these accusations with my own eyes. You're the boy who cried wolf.

>
> Until I see documentation that I said that, I withdraw my agreement
> with you that I had so designated Ron O. For a long time he was the
> person on whom I had the most goods in the dishonesty department,
> but that's not the same thing.

It's the exact same thing----EXACT.

>
> You realize, don't you, that this reckless use of "most dishonest"
> is making people pay less attention to the despicable behavior
> that I have documented on Harshman.

How does a generic, critical observation of paranoid rise to despicable behavior? Don't answer. My question is rhetorical! You have nothing. John is simply under your skin in general but you can't seem to explain why? Observing your opponent despicable for saying you're paranoid is hardly biting, much less scathing, but seems to be, like I said, rather generic, filler, lacking jagged edges. But here you are admitting that a critical observation of paranoia has you seething. I just don't get it!

>
> And I do believe that is one of your conscious, deliberate aims.

I wouldn't mind seeing you skewer John----not one bit! But paranoia is a generic criticism, not despicable behavior. Remember, I consider any war between you and John to be a kook fight among fellow Atheist-Evolutionists. I have a bag of popcorn always at the ready.

>
> Others are trying a lot harder than you to do that, admittedly.
> But they have always been on very good terms with Harshman, especially
> his number one fan, Erik Simpson.
>
> This also includes Hemidactylus; the only time I ever saw him
> cross with Harshman was when he berated Harshman for keeping me here
> in talk.origins by discussing on-topic substantive issues with me.
> But you can see from his behavior on this thread that he is zealously
> supportive of Harshman.
>
>
> Do you aim to be accepted by them as an ally against me?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

Why would Hemi or Erik Simpson cross JH or vice-versa? All three are deranged Atheists who believe the marvelous organization found in living things came about through accident (RM) working in tandem with unintelligence (NS).

Allies? Peter: YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS CALLED EACH OF US AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER THE MOST DISHONEST! I'm just reminding you of the fact as a taunt! SHEESH!

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:50:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> For some reason, this post has not appeared, while a second reply I
> did to Martinez posted over half an hour ago. So I am trying again,
> making one small change.
>
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:10:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > I'm a known worldview enemy of John Harshman,
>
> IOW you fight against his worldview, but in fact you and he are on
> quite good terms.

Ridiculous contradiction.

We routinely attempt to shame one another for displaying delusional thinking. One time John told me this: "The word cat is not a cat." Really!?!? John has no awareness whatsoever that what he wrote supports the fact that his thinking is not based in reality, which was my ultimate point. Smart people understand that I'm indicting the thinking of all evolutionary theorists via John Harshman. No one ever claimed that the word cat is a cat. John made this intended criticism because he thinks illogically, anti-reality. The word cat is a noun, and a noun is a specified material thing. The thing is ***always*** preeminent. The noun or label cannot be dis-attached from the material thing.

If you or anyone understands what's written above, and one should since it's devoid of any jargon, then one must conclude that I'm out to destroy the intellectual credibility of evolutionary theorists via John Harshman. So contrary to your belief, we are not on good terms at all.

> For example, were extremely
> forgiving of him when he claimed everyone knows you get all your
> ideas from Gene Scott. Had the Christian, Dana Tweedy, who shares
> more of your worldview, made such a completely false assessment of
> you, you might well have boycotted him for that before you
> boycotted him for saying things about Gene Scott that you have
> never even TRIED to refute.

What John said was ridiculous, testing me for reaction. If even slightly true it renders me a plagiarizer, which I'm not. I always credit my sources and never portray claims or facts that belong to someone else as my own. I think John was reminding the group that my thinking was shaped by Dr. Scott, a Creationist----which is true. Yes, Dr. Scott, an OEC, taught his audience how to think logically and factually.

And one need not address the slander of Dana Tweedy. That's what the slander artist wants----attention. When attention is given to slander then a psychological perception of legitimacy comes with it.

Ray

[I will address the remainder of Peter's points seen below ASAP....]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:25:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as
>> the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Bullshit. You are taking people whom I have accused of dishonesty
> at random and deceitfully claiming that I have called them the
> most dishonest person in talk.origins.
>
> In fact, your reckless use of this fiction makes me wonder: DID I
> ever claim that Ron O was the most dishonest person here?
>

Losing track of your reckless insinuations? Uh oh. That can’t bode well for
the future.

>
> Until I see documentation that I said that, I withdraw my agreement
> with you that I had so designated Ron O. For a long time he was the
> person on whom I had the most goods in the dishonesty department,
> but that's not the same thing.
>
> You realize, don't you, that this reckless use of "most dishonest"
> is making people pay less attention to the despicable behavior
> that I have documented on Harshman.
>
> And I do believe that is one of your conscious, deliberate aims.
>
> Others are trying a lot harder than you to do that, admittedly.
> But they have always been on very good terms with Harshman, especially
> his number one fan, Erik Simpson.
>
> This also includes Hemidactylus; the only time I ever saw him
> cross with Harshman was when he berated Harshman for keeping me here
> in talk.origins by discussing on-topic substantive issues with me.
>

You participated in this thread which featured one of the greatest rifts in
the history of talk.origins:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/vf7HrYuhGwAJ

“I was talking about structuralism and how Gould had those tendencies and
he dislikes me.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/44pz1M5mHAAJ

“It seems that some clarification is necessary for both of you. Of the
three of you, I dislike Ray the most, Peter second, and Hemidactylus
only third.”

Hear that jarring sound? It’s the gears of your bullshit narrative grinding
to an abrupt halt.

>
> But you can see from his behavior on this thread that he is zealously
> supportive of Harshman.
>

Zealously? Qualify that remark.

>
> Do you aim to be accepted by them as an ally against me?
>

Geez, now Ray is part of the massive collusion aligned against you. Are we
all political anim^H^H^ociopaths now?

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

> For a while I said that Hemidactylus is one "beyond a reasonable doubt"
> but I gave him the opportunity to cop a plea of being brainwashed
> by Lefitist/politically correct propaganda to the point where the
> words "hate" "hypocrite" and "self-righteous" can only apply to
> politically incorrect people in his brainwashed mind.
>

Was that the post where after throwing everything including the kitchen
sink at me you saw fit to take a swipe at the Svengali LGBTQ for having
brainwashed me?

My head is getting close to going full Scanners again. Seriously how can
anyone not appreciate that arcane film reference? That would be an old
school Dennis Miller style quip previous to his selling his soul to Roger
Ailes. And yet you still dwell on it to this day.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]

Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
exist, because words represent them.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>
> Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
> Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
> Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
> exist, because words represent them.
>

And that Arnold “Strong” *is* Hercules.

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:35:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>
> > I'm dishonest (or at least insincere), and I'm a sociopath to boot.
>
> You became demonstrably dishonest when you posted grotesque falsehoods
> about how I handled a scientific paper in sci.bio.paleontology.
>

No, you grotesquely misread the paper. You didn't even read the figure captions
carefully, as far as I (and the very few other readers) could see. Now you're
the dishonest one. You tried to cover your mistake, but stumbled around even
then, still having a hard time telling the results using genomic data from
results omitting them. Either that, or (a real possiblility) you were being
UNCLEAR about what you were saying.

> I resoundingly refuted you in two long careful posts, both in reply
> to one post of yours. The rest of your post had to do with a different
> topic, and so you seized on the third post where you were less
> decisively shown to be insincere. But you have never dared to
> touch the first two posts.
>
> > Peter's been having a rough year.
>
> No more rough than any other. What sets this one apart is that
> several people, including yourself and Hemidactylus have behaved
> in a more documentably despicable manner than ever before.
>
>
> And Harshman has shown himself to be one of the most cowardly people here.
> To this day he hasn't dared let out a peep about what those hairlike
> structures are on *Sinosauropteryx* lest he offend Ron O, who very
> foolishly called them feathers.
>

They're most likely 'protofeathers' or 'feathers' if you like. I'm sure you're
still big on Lingham-Soliar's misbegotten analysis, but I don't get your
obsession about labelling them. Before you fly off the handle about this
assessment, you should go back and look at the rest of that thread after you
took off on another quest for justice somewhere.

>
> And yet Harshman is a professional ornithologist. Go figure.
>
>
> I'd love to see you show some backbone about that issue of those
> hairlike structures, but I think you are even more afraid of
> offending Ron O than Harshman is.
>

I'm also bemused at your linking me with John and Ron. Really, we don't
conspire against you. It isn't necessary. You conspire enough for all of us.

>
> > Hemidactylus also should be mentioned as a
> > particularly scurrilous sociopath.
>
> Hemidactylus made a very silly comment about how I am using the
> word "sociopath" very liberally. What he doesn't realize is that
> the two of you are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I have EVER
> claimed to have powerful evidence on that score -- or any evidence
> at all. With you it is what is legally called "preponderance of evidence"

Your clinical qualifications are not credible in the slightest. For all I could
tell, accusations of sociopathy might have been tongue in cheek, like you
weaseled when I pointed out that you'd identified me as a crank, which you
denied. (More dishonesty?)

>
> For a while I said that Hemidactylus is one "beyond a reasonable doubt"
> but I gave him the opportunity to cop a plea of being brainwashed
> by Lefitist/politically correct propaganda to the point where the
> words "hate" "hypocrite" and "self-righteous" can only apply to
> politically incorrect people in his brainwashed mind.
>
> Did you see where I wrote that? Last I looked, no one replied
> to that post. I'd be astounded if Hemidactylus dared to confront
> the evidence I recounted, some of it going back about three
> and a half years.

I don't recall seeing that, and I don't need a reference (documentation if you
prefer). It just sounds like more of the rubbish you've been shovelling out
most of this year. Do you ever plan to say something substantive about anything
other than gripes about how badly everyone treats you or threats to "deal with
you later, you're really going to be sorry"?

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:23:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.


>Don't let my amateur critic treatment of what you wrote
>deter you from posting more such ripoffs in the future, Wolffan.
>I'm sure jillery was hugely entertained by it despite the
>complete lack of originality, and I am sure your number two
>fan after jillery, namely Hemidactylus, will be hugely entertained
>by it too. In fact, I just might show it to him today.


You really should stop pretending to read minds. You really suck at
it.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ernest Major]

On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>
> Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
> Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
> Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
> exist, because words represent them.
>

I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
speciation, etc., shows their existence.

However, Ray doesn't seem to understand that words represent things.
Rather than adopting a realist position, as implied by his avocation of
objectivism, wherein reality is primary, and words (sometimes) mirror
it, he acts as if reality can be changed by word games.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>>
>> Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>> Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>> Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>> exist, because words represent them.
>>
>
> I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
> wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
> speciation, etc., shows their existence.

Only moderately? I'm amazed!

As for non-referring terms, he is on record as saying that they make a
"false claim". That of course makes matters even worse, as we now have
another category mistake piled on top of the others a confusion between
terms and sentences (or propositions if you prefer)

So again by the transitivity of the identity relation, you (and
everybody else) are a word and a claim. In your case you are 11 letters
long (tall?) and you arguably are a true claim too. What that could even
possibly mean nobody knows

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 15, jillery wrote
(in article<k5173dlpdk33uuskr...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:23:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised.
>
> > Don't let my amateur critic treatment of what you wrote
> > deter you from posting more such ripoffs in the future, Wolffan.
> > I'm sure jillery was hugely entertained by it despite the
> > complete lack of originality, and I am sure your number two
> > fan after jillery, namely Hemidactylus, will be hugely entertained
> > by it too. In fact, I just might show it to him today.
>
> You really should stop pretending to read minds. You really suck at
> it.

aw, come on, you gotta admit that Petey’s latest paranoid meltdown is funny
to watch. As long as you’re outside of slime-splattering range, anyway.

[Ernest Major]

On 15/12/2017 10:41, Burkhard wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>>>
>>> Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>>> Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>>> Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>>> exist, because words represent them.
>>>
>>
>> I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
>> wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
>> speciation, etc., shows their existence.
>
> Only moderately? I'm amazed!

It's Ray. Special pleading and incoherent arguments are his stock in trade.

>
> As for non-referring terms, he is on record as saying that they make a
> "false claim". That of course makes matters even worse, as we now have
> another category mistake piled on top of the others a confusion between
> terms and sentences (or propositions if you prefer)

Of course, that shoots his arguments in the foot - in a just world he
can't claim that something is true because words represent real things,
and then turn round and dismiss other words as "false claims".

>
> So again by the transitivity of the identity relation, you (and
> everybody else) are a word and a claim.  In your case you are 11 letters
> long (tall?) and you arguably are a true claim too. What that could even
> possibly mean nobody knows
>
>
>
>>
>> However, Ray doesn't seem to understand that words represent things.
>> Rather than adopting a realist position, as implied by his avocation of
>> objectivism, wherein reality is primary, and words (sometimes) mirror
>> it, he acts as if reality can be changed by word games.
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill Rogers]

> But I've never seen Martinez sink so low as to accuse his critics of paranoia
> just for criticizing these word games.
>
> > What other word
> > should be used?
>
> Disingenuous question noted.
>
> > > You need to look up the word "paranoia." It does not mean what
> > > you seem > > you seem to think it means.
> >
> > No, you're just unable to see it. You have delusions of persecution.
>
> I defy you to come up with even ONE time you used "paranoia" or
> "paranoid" in a way that did justice to that definition.
> I can come up with many that PATENTLY do not.
>
> If you think this latest one of yours DOES satisfy it, you
> are more deluded than you claim me to be, and illogical
> to an extent that is rare even for Ray Martinez.
>
>
> > > That reminds me: did you bother to look up the word "defame" the
> > > way I advised you to do on the thread where Joe linked your
> > > LinkedIn information? If you didn't bother, on what grounds did
> > > you accuse Joe of lying?
>
> > > Joe had written:
> > >
> > > This post has not been made to defame John Harshman,
> > > but to inform readers.
> > >
> > > And you shot back with:
> > >
> > > Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.
> >
> > So you have time for this crap
>
> The crap is all yours. You have leveled a serious charge against
> Joe LyonLayden and even issued a schoolmarmish reprimand that
> assumes that the charge is valid. Yet, when challenged to
> justify it with a pointed question of how you justify it,
> you not only leave the crickets chirping but you show the
> world what a self-righteous asshole you are.
>
> And you can't even use your usual taunt "It's all about
> you, isn't it?" when I confront you with despicable behavior
> by you. This particular libelous-seeming charge was aimed not at me,
> but at Joe.
>
>
> > but not for any on-topic, substantive
> > discussion.
>
> And here you show the world what a dishonest hypocrite you are.
>
> Dishonest, because the posts that preceded yours did feature
> on-topic, substantive discussion, especially the ones whose
> attribution lines I snipped above because no text from them appears
> here:
> > >>>> On 12/6/17 3:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 12/5/17 9:17 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> And hypocritical, because I caught you playing "good cop" to
> Wolffan's "bad cop" in a mendacious, totally off-topic post in
> which you very mildly disagreed with Wolffan's toxic description
> of me but made no attempt to criticize him for any of it.
>
> This was right on the thread where everything mentioned here
> took place; see reference below.
>
> Wolffan's post was one of those infrequent posts that
> "you saw because you wanted to see it." But my devastating
> rebuttal evidently is one of the posts which
> "you didn't see because you didn't want to see it":
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/_7w7fJGdCgAJ
> Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <e3b47269-700d-444d...@googlegroups.com>
>
> The only reply to that post to date came from Hemidactylus,
> who carefully expurgated every criticism I made of you
> and Wolffam from his reply. Do you think anyone should be
> surprised that he did that?
>
> Peter Nyikos

Just go cold turkey. Talk Origins is not making your life any better or happier. Just let it go for good. Seriously.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On the contrary, could it be possible he derives great personal
satisfaction from such interpersonal exchange where he perceives himself as
capably holding multiple opponents at bay with his advanced skills of
self-defense and verbal jousting? He appears to be enjoying himself
immensely. He might, stretching the definition, consider it repartee.

[Peter Nyikos]

After a few jabs, I hit Ray with a haymaker. If you wish to
skip the preliminary sparring, scroll down to an all-caps line
and take note both of the ten lines that precede it and the
repost that follows.

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:00:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:25:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Bullshit. You are taking people whom I have accused of dishonesty
> > at random and deceitfully claiming that I have called them the
> > most dishonest person in talk.origins.
>
> You've had an ever-changing number 1 personal enemy here at Talk.Origins----that's what I said and that's all I said.

If so, you were blatantly asserting it, without ever trying to prove
that they were ever number one.

>And what I said can be said using different terms and in different ways, but it all means the exact same thing. You're trying hard to miss the jest.

I'll take this as an admission that you've been bullshitting us
all this time about "number one" enemies.

> You've consistently identified about 7 or 8 posters as the most dishonest including myself.

No, those people were also there because of hypocrisy. Including yourself,
of course, the most hypocritical of all in claiming to follow
Christ but repeatedly trampling on his commandment: "Do not bear
false witness."

And you've given away another Harshman-serving game of your by your bait
and switch:

Bait:
number one enemy

Highly inaccurate switch:

"You've consistently identified about 7 or 8 posters as the most dishonest"

> Currently John Harshman holds the title.

That is another Harshman-serving piece of bullshit.

Will you turn around and sneer at me for not recognizing that this,
too, is a jest?

If so, it seems that you are following a false translation of
a famous saying of Jesus, which has him saying,

Be ye... as cunning as serpents

Instead of the standard "Be ye...as wise as serpents."

> >
> > In fact, your reckless use of this fiction makes me wonder: DID I
> > ever claim that Ron O was the most dishonest person here?
>
> Yes you have. I'm not going to spend any time producing quotations.

Coming from a pathological liar like you, this says loud and
clear: you cannot produce a quotation.

> I've named at least 7 different persons who at one time or another have been identified by you as the most dishonest. I'm not interested in your nit-picking.

In your second sentence, you are disclaiming all responsibility
for the truth of the first sentence. So that first sentence
can be totally disregarded.

Your naming of Stockwell is especially ridiculous. My biggest beef
against him was that, until jonathan went way beyond him, he
was the ONLY person who made disparaging comments about my wife,
calling her my "ball and chain." But he was finally able to convince
me that the people he hobnobs with use that term routinely without
meaning anything pejorative about it.

It's sad that he has to hobnob with such people, but I think lots
of other people participating in this thread hobnob with such people also.

> I've seen these accusations with my own eyes. You're the boy who cried wolf.

Your disclaimers about me not getting a jest, and not interested
in nitpicks, make YOU the boy who cried wolf with this last
sentence of yours.

> > Until I see documentation that I said that, I withdraw my agreement
> > with you that I had so designated Ron O. For a long time he was the
> > person on whom I had the most goods in the dishonesty department,
> > but that's not the same thing.
>
> It's the exact same thing----EXACT.

If what you wrote above did not convince readers that you have
been spouting pure bullshit, this last sentence should do the job.

> >
> > You realize, don't you, that this reckless use of "most dishonest"
> > is making people pay less attention to the despicable behavior
> > that I have documented on Harshman.
>
> How does a generic, critical observation of paranoid rise to despicable
> behavior? Don't answer.

I will answer anyway. There was no such "observation" at all.
What happened was way too specific for you to be able to face it.

But I think the REAL reason you cannot face it, and are forced
to ask your blatantly misleading and disgenuous question is that
I COMPARED YOU FAVORABLY TO HARSHMAN:

_____________________excerpt from OP______________________

==================END OF EXCERPT===========================

You are so fond of Harshman, that you can't bear to see
ANY of the contempt in which people hold you to rub off onto him.

That is a formal accusation. How do you plead?


Remainder deleted. I can only stomach so much hypocrisy
and deceit and blatant favoritism towards a militant atheist
from someone who keeps claiming he is a Christian.


Peter Nyikos

[J.LyonLayden]

How do we know they are protofeathers and not protofur or thin, elongated scutes? I haven't read the report, but I do see indentations in fossils being termed "protofeathers" and am curious as to how they know what kind of evolved scute they are, despite no organic material. I don't know if the above is a case of that or not, but the question still stands.

>
> >
> > And yet Harshman is a professional ornithologist. Go figure.
> >
> >
> > I'd love to see you show some backbone about that issue of those
> > hairlike structures, but I think you are even more afraid of
> > offending Ron O than Harshman is.
> >
> I'm also bemused at your linking me with John and Ron. Really, we don't
> conspire against you. It isn't necessary. You conspire enough for all of us.
> >
> > > Hemidactylus also should be mentioned as a
> > > particularly scurrilous sociopath.
> >
> > Hemidactylus made a very silly comment about how I am using the
> > word "sociopath" very liberally. What he doesn't realize is that
> > the two of you are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I have EVER
> > claimed to have powerful evidence on that score -- or any evidence
> > at all. With you it is what is legally called "preponderance of evidence"
>
> Your clinical qualifications are not credible in the slightest. For all I could
> tell, accusations of sociopathy might have been tongue in cheek, like you
> weaseled when I pointed out that you'd identified me as a crank, which you
> denied. (More dishonesty?)

A sociopath is just someone without a conscience who displays antisocial behavior. I have seen little evidence of consciences since I've been back here. I've seen no real apologies and have issued three. I am likely guilty like most here of displaying anti-social behavior a few times. When people attack a poster without first attempting to enter the thread in a somewhat polite manner, they are displaying anti-social tendencies.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:25:03 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:25:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> Apologies to Mark Isaak. Forgot to mention that he held the position as
> >> the Peter Nyikos Most Dishonest Poster at Talk.Origins for a while as well.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > Bullshit. You are taking people whom I have accused of dishonesty
> > at random and deceitfully claiming that I have called them the
> > most dishonest person in talk.origins.
> >
> > In fact, your reckless use of this fiction makes me wonder: DID I
> > ever claim that Ron O was the most dishonest person here?
> >
> Losing track of your reckless insinuations?

Not at all. My only mistake here is that I should have remembered
that Harshman got nasty with you at one point.

> Uh oh. That can’t bode well for
> the future.
> >
> > Until I see documentation that I said that, I withdraw my agreement
> > with you that I had so designated Ron O. For a long time he was the
> > person on whom I had the most goods in the dishonesty department,
> > but that's not the same thing.
> >
> > You realize, don't you, that this reckless use of "most dishonest"
> > is making people pay less attention to the despicable behavior
> > that I have documented on Harshman.
> >
> > And I do believe that is one of your conscious, deliberate aims.
> >
> > Others are trying a lot harder than you to do that, admittedly.
> > But they have always been on very good terms with Harshman, especially
> > his number one fan, Erik Simpson.
> >
> > This also includes Hemidactylus; the only time I ever saw him
> > cross with Harshman was when he berated Harshman for keeping me here
> > in talk.origins by discussing on-topic substantive issues with me.
> >
> You participated in this thread which featured one of the greatest rifts in
> the history of talk.origins:

A rift that seems to have been healed even before this post, as
I recounted to Harshman at the end of the OP.

You haven't touched that recounting with a ten foot pole. Should
ANYONE who knows what a blackguard you are be surprised by that?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/vf7HrYuhGwAJ
>
> "I was talking about structuralism and how Gould had those tendencies and
> he dislikes me."
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/44pz1M5mHAAJ
>
> "It seems that some clarification is necessary for both of you. Of the
> three of you, I dislike Ray the most, Peter second, and Hemidactylus
> only third."

No qualification as to DEGREE of dislike. Not much there,
seeing as you are the third (3rd) of three (3).

>
> Hear that jarring sound? It's the gears of your bullshit narrative grinding
> to an abrupt halt.

Was his expression of dislike of YOU any worse than you berating Harshman
as I recounted above?

> > But you can see from his behavior on this thread that he is zealously
> > supportive of Harshman.
> >
> Zealously? Qualify that remark.

Here, on this thread, you are just that.

You seem to have forgiven Harshman, just as Ray instantly forgave
Harshman when Harshman falsely claimed that everyone knows
Ray gets all his ideas from Gene Scott.

[Trivia: I keep having to check my memory to make sure
I don't write "Scott Chase" -- your real name -- in
place of "Gene Scott" in contexts and vice versa.]

I've given Ray a real dressing down for the dishonest way
he is exhibiting his forgiveness, a few minutes ago.

I do believe that will be one of those posts "you don't see
because you don't want to see it."

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

> A rift that seems to have been healed even before this post, as
> I recounted to Harshman at the end of the OP.
>
> You haven't touched that recounting with a ten foot pole. Should
> ANYONE who knows what a blackguard you are be surprised by that?
>

Let’s see. If I don’t go out of my way to shame Harshman for his multiple
transgressions against you, oh paragon of virtue and righteousness, I am a
blackguard. If I happened to jump all over Harshman I would be throwing him
under the bus as I did to jonathan. Double bind for me where you can paint
your negative narrative either way.

[snip]

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:52:02 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be.

I disagree that he shows any such thing.

Peter, OTOH, shows that trait regularly. Now, for instance.
--

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, 15 Dec 2017 03:39:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip the usual Peterisms>

>Just go cold turkey. Talk Origins is not making your life any better or happier. Just let it go for good. Seriously.

I'd question whether a masochist is actually made happier by
avoiding the source of his discontent, rational discontent
or otherwise.

[erik simpson]

By all means, look up Sinosauropterix. Look up "feathered dinosaurs" (GIYF,
even though Google is probably evil). Peter hates all this.

[J.LyonLayden]

I just read the wikipedia entry on feathered dinosaurs, and it seems to boil down to this: "In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at the tail tip which often supports large feathers).[20]"

How do you tell feather impressions from hair impressions? How do you tell feather integument from hair integument?

The "quill kobs" seem to be better evidence, but I'd guess that they are found on the Therapods and not the three Ornithischians.

Sinosauropterix is a Therapod raptor, much closer to Paraves than Ornithischians. And there is a small amount of controversy over the subject:

"Some contention has arisen with an alternative interpretation of the filamentous impression as remains of collagen fibres, but this has not been widely accepted."

[erik simpson]

Have a look at this:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2017Smithwick.pdf

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > A rift that seems to have been healed even before this post, as
> > I recounted to Harshman at the end of the OP.
> >
> > You haven't touched that recounting with a ten foot pole. Should
> > ANYONE who knows what a blackguard you are be surprised by that?
> >
> Let's see. If I don't go out of my way to shame Harshman for his multiple
> transgressions against you, oh paragon of virtue and righteousness, I am a
> blackguard.

This is the first half of a flagrant false dichotomy, adding a little
straw of fresh evidence that you are a blackguard to a haystack of
evidence that has been accumulating for about four years.

What I had in mind was that you SNIPPED all evidence of what
blackguards Harshman and Wolffan had been, and my stinging
expose of that in your reply to the following post, which
I linked in the OP:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/_7w7fJGdCgAJ
Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e3b47269-700d-444d...@googlegroups.com>

By deleting it, you hid everything in it that was damaging
to Harshman and Wolffan, and also what was most damaging to Martinez,
from the sight of all people who follow your and Harshman's posts,
but not mine.

This perforce includes people who have me killfiled, including
the redoubtable Burkhard.


Here comes the second half of your false dichotomy, completely
ignoring the alternative above:

> If I happened to jump all over Harshman I would be throwing him
> under the bus as I did to jonathan.

To boot, you are being sarcastic in pretending to agree that you
HAD thrown jonathan under the bus. You had LIED that you
had always kept him at arm's length. [Either that, or you
have a Martine-style definition for "always."]

And then I hit you with the following excerpt, showing how
you had deflected attention from a challenge that I had
issued jonathan by pretending that I was running away
from a legitimate challenge by jonathan:

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 11:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:55:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >>>> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

> >>>>> You're a moron. Go away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> These are the times when one must stand up and be counted.
> >>>>
> >>>> You failed the test.
> >>>
> >>> So did you, by failing to condemn the antifa. See my reply to
> >>> Mark Isaak a few minutes ago.

<crickets>

> >>> By the way, don't think for one moment that Sean Dillon's
> >>> (almost completely irrelevant) reply to me let you off the hook.
> >>> I still expect answers to the questions I asked you, including
> >>> the one whose intent Sean completely misunderstood.

Where are those answers, Jonathan?

> >> I see after your month off you dive back in at your typical level of
> >> topicality. Is this your way of avoiding jonathan's mathematical challenge
> >> to you?
> >
> > LOL!!!
> >

> I told you, Hemidactylus, he would dodge.
>
> Cha ching~

You are counting your chickens before the eggs are hatched. And
they aren't even chicken eggs.

================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jkzurO4M50s/vR9IMW5rAgAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Pres Trump Declares his Love for the Furher - SIEG HEIL~
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0de0eeba-b38d-4505...@googlegroups.com>

It's a long post, and one so devastating to your and jonathan's pretentions
about his challenge being "mathematical," that you, who were evidently
in a quite cozy relationship with back then, never acknowledged the
existence of the post. [Of course, neither did Jonathan.]

But when Wolffan, who makes a MUCH better ally than jonathan,
posted his "God, what a scumbag" [visible in the first post linked above]
attack on jonathan, you threw jonathan under the bus. I think what
made the decision palatable for you was the way Wolffan sugar-coated
the pill for you by reassuring everyone that he claimed that I was

the _second_ most evil, slimy, noxious, poster on t.o.

Of course, you also snipped the part where I set the record
straight on these generic insults;

Wolffan's whole campaign against me consists of hurling generic insults
at me with no attempt to link them with anything I've done, with one
exception that I can recall. Every other example I remember
is summed up by him treating me like Dr. Fell in the nursery rhyme,

I do not love thee, Dr. Fell.
Why this is I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I do not love thee, Dr. Fell.

The one exception goes like this, with me nicknamed "Dr. Fell":

I say thou wert outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.
When and where this might have happened, I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I say thou wert outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.

==================== end of excerpt from the first post linked above.

> Double bind for me where you can paint
> your negative narrative either way.

And thus you sarcastically make light of the way I really DID
put you on the horns of a dilemma wrt Bob Casanova having
given himself away as a highly irresponsible person.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Dec 14, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article<b506048c-f50b-40ac...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-8, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > I'm a known worldview enemy of John Harshman, yet I fail to see how

> > > > generic criticism, like "paranoia," leveled at Peter Nyikos could set
> > > > Perer off and blow the gasket he has blown. I just don't get it?
> > > >

> > > > For newer posters at Talk.Origins: Peter maintained that Ron Okimoto was

> > > > the most heinous and dishonest person here; then it was John Stockwell;

> > > > then Richard Forrest; then Robert Camp; then Jillery; then came myself. I

> > > > held this coveted position for a while. Now John Harshman is currently the
> > > > most dishonest. I'm jealous. John has held the position longer than me.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > I'm dishonest (or at least insincere), and I'm a sociopath to boot. Peter's
> > > been having a rough year. Hemidactylus also should be mentioned as a
> > > particularly scurrilous sociopath. I don't know what's happened with Paul
> > > Gans; he used to be the worst of the worst, but hasn't rated much from Peter
> > > this year.
> >
> > Yes, you have held the title as the most dishonest for a while. We number
> > about 8 to 10 persons. But currently JH holds the chair.
> >
> > Ray

Ray's crap above, about "most dishonest" was seen for the lie it was when
he foolishly claimed that something completely different was exactly the
same as rating someone as "most dishonest".


> I wanna be #1! Petey, come on, you know that you wanna rate me #1!

Dream on, pipsqueak. Your generic insults are too generic even to count
as lies. IIRC the only insult of yours that ever made the grade of "lie"
was one I reminded your fan Hemidactylus about a few minutes ago, in a
creative take-off from the "I do not love thee, Dr.Fell" nursery rhyme.

The only reason you have any clout in talk.origins is that those two
heavyweights, Hemidactylus and jillery, have your back.


Speaking of jillery, I was amazed to see that she apparently missed the
following post. Just in case you missed it too, I'm providing it
because I believe a two-liner of mine in it will be highly flattering to you.

____________________________ repost ___________________

I lost track of this thread for a long time, as can be
seen by the dates.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised.
>
>

> >Is it to be turtles all the way down, JilleryFan?
>
>
> You say that like it's a Bad Thing (c)

I think it is exactly as good or bad as you being Wolffan's fan --
no better and no worse.


Or were you referring to the "turtles all the way down"? That's a
metaphor for Wolffan's *modus operandi* of supporting generic insults
with other generic insults without ever providing specific examples
of behavior by me to which the generic insults are supposed to refer.


So it's been generic insults all the way down.

>
> >Peter Nyikos
> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >University of South Carolina
> >http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
>
> Replaced your sig with your "official" one,

It is only official when scientific discussions or scientific
rebuttals of creationism are being done. Are you
suggesting that by using the term "turtles all the way down,"
I am engaged in one of these endeavors?

> so you can't pretend you
> didn't ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter above.

I can't pretend anything that is as meaningless as the "description"
you are spewing. It's obviously a figure of speech, but you never explained
what it is figurative OF.

Peter Nyikos

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of post archived at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5xp8T9nUY6M/iGLDQY-OBAAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Las Vegas shooter--Atheist millionaire
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4a037b9e-7b0b-44ee...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:35:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> > > I'm dishonest (or at least insincere), and I'm a sociopath to boot.
> >
> > You became demonstrably dishonest when you posted grotesque falsehoods
> > about how I handled a scientific paper in sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> No, you grotesquely misread the paper. You didn't even read the figure captions
> carefully, as far as I (and the very few other readers) could see.

You don't have the minimal backbone to say HOW I allegedly
misread them.

> Now you're
> the dishonest one. You tried to cover your mistake, but stumbled around even
> then, still having a hard time telling the results using genomic data from
> results omitting them. Either that, or (a real possiblility) you were being
> UNCLEAR about what you were saying.

You are just running your usual "unclear" scam without ever referring
to anything specific in my posts.

>
> > I resoundingly refuted you in two long careful posts, both in reply
> > to one post of yours.

Rats, it appears that the second post never made it. Well, the
first one, which you never dared reply to, is enough to sink
this latest dishonest attempt by you to discredit me:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/FOSTrHHO7g4/eXDyc8EPCAAJ

Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution

Lines: 93
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <dbe81791-565b-4cef...@googlegroups.com>

> > The rest of your post had to do with a different
> > topic, and so you seized on the third post where you were less
> > decisively shown to be insincere. But you have never dared to
> > touch the first two posts.



> > > Peter's been having a rough year.
> >
> > No more rough than any other. What sets this one apart is that
> > several people, including yourself and Hemidactylus have behaved
> > in a more documentably despicable manner than ever before.
> >
> >
> > And Harshman has shown himself to be one of the most cowardly people here.
> > To this day he hasn't dared let out a peep about what those hairlike
> > structures are on *Sinosauropteryx* lest he offend Ron O, who very
> > foolishly called them feathers.
> >
>
> They're most likely 'protofeathers' or 'feathers' if you like.

Cowardly dodge. Do you believe they are feathers even as structured
as downy featers, let alone contour feathers? Or do you believe
that they are homologous to evolutionary precursors of such feathers?

> I'm sure you're
> still big on Lingham-Soliar's misbegotten analysis,

Dream on, you dedicated perpetrator of injustice. [1] I haven't
said a word about that all year.

> but I don't get your
> obsession about labelling them.

It is YOU who labeled them just now. I describe them: hairlike
structures.

By the way, how many 'protofeathers' do you have on your scalp?

> Before you fly off the handle about this
> assessment, you should go back and look at the rest of that thread after you
> took off on another quest for justice somewhere.

What a dishonest bluff! You actually hope I DID post something
even remotely suggestive of Lingham-Soliar, and hope that you
are correct.

You have done what so many blackguards falsely accuse me of: you
have jumped into an argument about which you knew nothing.

>
> >
> > And yet Harshman is a professional ornithologist. Go figure.
> >
> >
> > I'd love to see you show some backbone about that issue of those
> > hairlike structures, but I think you are even more afraid of
> > offending Ron O than Harshman is.

And you flunked the test just now.

> I'm also bemused at your linking me with John and Ron.

Another case of you jumping into an argument about which you
know nothing. Ron O and John had nothing to do with each other,
except that John was the resident expert on the hairlike structures
that Ron O ignorantly called feathers in his OP. But John couldn't be sure
Ron O wasn't lurking to see how he assessed them, and so he kept
running away from the challenge to say something one way or the
other about those feathers.

> Really, we don't
> conspire against you.

You are truly pathetic, playing the "conspiracy theory" card
as dishonestly as Harshman played it, as documented in the OP of
THIS thread.

> > It isn't necessary. You conspire enough for all of us.

You are one pathetic troll.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to in January. You aren't worth
more than one reply a month, and you have gone way over that
quota.

But I'll give you one more: the SECOND demolition of your
cowardly generalities above, the one that failed to post.
Coming your way a bit later today.

HLVB.

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

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

The words-nouns/things mentioned are considered non-existent by most people for very good reasons, unlike shovels, gasoline, oxygen, and apples. Because of design observed, most people also accept the existence of the God of the Bible or the God of nature. A noun is still defined as a person, place, or thing. Whether the thing exists or not is a different issue. The fact that Mark does not understand these BASIC points of fact indicates that he is an ignoramus with no awareness of the fact, which has been my on-going point made against persons who believe in evolution. They are easily demonstrated to be ignorant in basic epistemological matters. I stress basic because Mark's point clearly reveals that he does not know what a noun actually is.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[erik simpson]

Hm. Another forgetful moment:

"..but people like Feduccia and Lingham-Soliar are widely ridiculed
for pointing out inconvenient facts about birds and "protofeathers,"
respectively."

Remember now? Your performances here are noticeably deteriorating.

> > but I don't get your
> > obsession about labelling them.
>
> It is YOU who labeled them just now. I describe them: hairlike
> structures.
>
> By the way, how many 'protofeathers' do you have on your scalp?
>
>
> > Before you fly off the handle about this
> > assessment, you should go back and look at the rest of that thread after you
> > took off on another quest for justice somewhere.
>
> What a dishonest bluff! You actually hope I DID post something
> even remotely suggestive of Lingham-Soliar, and hope that you
> are correct.

As you see, above, you did, Peter, you did.

Ah. More threats! You're coming to give me what's coming to me. Bring it on.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:

> On 12/14/17 9:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be. But
> > a very dramatic exception issued from him yesterday. He stooped as
> > low as I've seen any t.o. regular stoop, with the exception of jonathan.
> >
> > If Harshman runs true to the form which he establishes below,
> > this will be "a thread that he doesn't see because he doesn't
> > want to see"; and if someone calls it to his attention, he will
> > hypocritically laim that he doesn't concern himself with "crap."
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/13/17 12:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:50:06 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 12/13/17 5:56 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>

> <snip paranoid nonsense>

You read like a clone of Harshman, using the word "paranoid" as
unjustifiably as he does.



> Goodness, the kooks with their personal attack threads are feeling their
> oats this month.

Pure guilt by association, but don't let it go to your head: the
position of Most Fond of Guilt By Association, vacant since
Roger Shrubber inexplicably left talk.origins, has been filled
by Hemidactylus this week.

I know vastly more about the strengths and weaknesses of the
likes of you (which includes Harshman and Simpson and Hemidactylus)
than the "kooks" do.

And to show you what I mean, I am now reposting a post from which
you fled and which has been the topic of conversation between
myself and Hemidactylus recently.

In it, you compromise your integrity in foolish support of
Erik Simpson, to a far greater extent than you are compromising
it here with his role model Harshman.

_____________________ repost ______________________

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:09:11 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 3/2/16 11:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:04:12 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:44:13 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> <...>
> >
> > [restoration]
> >>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:09:15 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> >>>> This post is a perfect illustration of why you're no fun anymore.
> >
> > [end of restoration]
> >
> >
> >>> Yeah, it must have been great fun pretending not to understand what I had
> >>> written, all through one thread late last year, and many times in
> >>> most of the other threads in which we've encountered each other.
> >>
> >> Believe me, no pretense was necessary. And it still isn't.
> >
> > I don't believe you.
>
> (I'll ask a question, make some observations, then depart. Do with it
> what you will.)
>
> Have you ever noticed how often you infer deception and pretense on the
> part of others?

Only a few select people, of whom Erik is one, who have a
proven track record of deception and pretense.

The worst such people are jillery, Ron O, and Ray Martinez, although
Mark Isaak is not all that far behind. Sneaky O. Possum (S.O.P.) is a
separate case: he has accused me of one of the unforgivable sins in a
left-learning [on the whole] forum such as this one: hatred of gays.
I am boycotting him until he either retracts the charge or posts
something I wrote that could plausibly lead a ratonal person to suspect
such a heinous charge.

Despite that, if S.O.P. were to say he doesn't understand
something I wrote, and someone were to leave his words intact
in a reply to him, I would explain it, because he doesn't have
the 2+ year track record of being essentially a one-trick pony
of saying I am being unclear and then essentially never giving
me feedback when I do try to explain what I meant.


> When someone says they don't understand you, or they
> don't think you have a sense of humor, or suggests you are being
> excessively suspicious - or even when someone expresses a modicum of
> sympathy - you invariably accuse them of having ulterior motives, or
> just making it all up.

Where do you get such sweeping generalizations as as "someone" (implying
"each and everyone") and "invariably"? Unless you spent
all your free time following my posts, you couldn't begin
to support such a statement -- but then, you would also see
how false it is in each and every detail.

I defy you to find even ONE person besides Erik and John Harshman
to whom I've said nasty things as a result of them claiming to
have trouble with understanding something I say.

Here is the "exception that proves the rule": when Richard Norman
got carried away in a thread where Erik was hitting me again and
again and again with the charge of being unclear, I did politely point
out to Richard that he wasn't giving me feedback on my explanations,
but he quickly backed off and we had a pleasant conversation
after that. Contrast that with Erik's behavior (described in
more detail below).

"modicum of sympathy" -- are you referring to a poison-pen
"defense" of me by John Stockwell back around 1998 in which
he essentially accused me of not being able to help myself,
and so in effect accused me of being mentally ill? Because
that's the only "modicum of sympathy" about which I can recall
taking umbrage...

...except for when you did it: you kept claiming
I needed to get help. "Seriously." And you claimed to be worried
about my state of mental health. But that was because I was
accusing people of being dishonest and hypocritical, wasn't it?

Are you so hopelessly naive that you think everyone in this
newsgroup never does anything dishonest or hypocritical?
I don't think so.

> I know you don't want to believe these things about yourself, nobody
> does. But I assure you that I (and I suspect many others) am not lying
> when I say you are unclear, or paranoid, or have a deficient sense of
> humor. I really believe these things, I'm not saying them to defame you.

How about explaining your charge that I am in need of psychiatric help
instead of harping on these trivial actions?

You could go on telling me I am unclear a dozen times each month
for several months, and unless you adamantly refuse to give me feedback
on my answers, I will not treat you the way I am treating Erik here.

"and I suspect many others" -- you have no idea of what
has gone on between me and Erik these last two years. Time and
again I was on the verge of accusing him of insincerity,
and time and again I decided to give him another chance.

Matters finally came to a head just before I went on my
Christmas break, and since I returned, he has not shown
any sign of reforming -- in fact, he has displayed an
arrogance towards me which was completely lacking before this
January. Take a look at the last half dozen posts by him and
me on the "Hiatus" thread, and see how he adamantly refused
to give me feedback even after I had bent over backwards.
And that isn't the half of it.

> I offer these comments because (yes, I'm aware you will not believe me)
> I think you have something to contribute and wish you could get past
> those other problems. Accepting that they might be true would be a good
> first step.

Erik is one of those other problems. If he were to disappear from
talk.origins, I would be able to get past that one, no problem.

Erik's main role, in his interactions with me at any rate, has been to
reinforce John Harshman in some of John's worst traits -- traits that
Erik may actually have picked up as a result of using John as a role model.
Unfortunately, he has picked up precious little of John's good traits,
which may have a chance to blossom out once Erik is gone.

Peter Nyikos

=================== end of post archived
at
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)

After you fled from the above post, Hemidactylus showed
how hypocritical he can be. After having browbeat
Harshman for not devoting all his replies to me to personal flamage
against me, he had he chutzpah to say,

> That has to be one of the most hateful things I've seen posted here
> recently. I dealt with Harshman saying he dislikes me, but you saying
> that is far worse.

Replied to by me in:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/1lqmroWiIAAJ
Message-ID: <d390b382-1d2f-4d4c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Cambrian and Paleocene Explosions
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:37:47 -0800 (PST)

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 6:40:05 AM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > John Harshman rarely shows what a dishonest hypocrite he can be. But
> > a very dramatic exception issued from him yesterday. He stooped as
> > low as I've seen any t.o. regular stoop, with the exception of jonathan.
> >
> > If Harshman runs true to the form which he establishes below,
> > this will be "a thread that he doesn't see because he doesn't
> > want to see"; and if someone calls it to his attention, he will

> > hypocritically claim that he doesn't concern himself with "crap."

I appreciate your concern, Bill, but I actually did go cold turkey
from ALL of Usenet for seven years, Aug 2001 to late October 2008, to
be exact. But, to make a long story short, I saw that my help was
urgently needed, first in talk.abortion to keep a clique of highly
dishonest abortion rights fanatics from driving every person with
a different point of view off it.

And then I caught sci.bio.paleontology when it was on the verge
of extinction, and played a key role in gradually bringing it off
the "critically endangered" list.

As for talk.origins, it is now perhaps the only robust forum of its kind
in the world where people of strongly differing viewpoints can still
have sincere interaction AND express themselves freely AND which has
an amazing continuity from year to year. And I see behaviors
which threaten that status in many ways. I think if you carefully read
the post to which you are replying, you will sense those kinds of
threats. Also try to look at some of the replies I do to others;
I think you will sense a lot more threats of various sorts.


In short, for all its dysfunctional aspects, I think talk.origins
is a very precious thing, and I aim to do the best I can for it.


You may be glad to know that I am planning to quit "cold turkey"
for about a month. I was hoping to start tonight, but some posts
have stubbornly failed to post, and so I will have to return on
Monday -- I never post on weekends except in the most extraordinary
circumstances -- to tie up a few loose ends before our ten-day
family reunion for Christmas goes into high gear.

I wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season. If you
are one of those old-fashioned enough to celebrate Christmas,
in however secular or religious a fashion, I wish y'all a merry
Christmas too; in any case, a happy new year.

Here's to more frequent pleasant (for me at least -- I hope for you too)
encounters like this between us in the coming year.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Dear Audience:

Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist. Peter completely rejects design existing in nature. He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth. And he has been known to label himself as an Agnostic, Deist, and even a Christian from time to time. But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world. He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.

Ray (Christian; anti-evolutionary)

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
> > >
> > > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
> > > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
> > > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
> > > exist, because words represent them.
> > >
> >
> > I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
> > wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
> > speciation, etc., shows their existence.
>

You fail to understand that not all words/nouns are true/actually have existence. All I've done is state the uncontested fact as to what nouns are. In response contested nouns are invoked. The fact that Evolutionists think the definition of a noun and acceptance of that definition means acceptance of all nouns existing once again shows how dumb these persons actually are.

>
> >
> > However, Ray doesn't seem to understand that words represent things.
>

I've stated that fact dozens of times just in the last year, I would guess. You're either unaware or deliberately misrepresenting. It's the Evolutionists who have begrudgingly accepted the fact that a noun is a thing while immediately negating by saying something contradictory.

> > Rather than adopting a realist position, as implied by his avocation of
> > objectivism, wherein reality is primary, and words (sometimes) mirror
> > it, he acts as if reality can be changed by word games.
> >
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
>

You could not support that statement even if your life depended on it.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:53:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>You read like a clone of Harshman, using the word "paranoid" as
>unjustifiably as he does.

....says the individual who throws around "sociopath" and
"fraudulent" with wild abandon, and *at least* as
unjustifiably, IMHO much more so...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:53:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>> You read like a clone of Harshman, using the word "paranoid" as
>> unjustifiably as he does.
>
> ....says the individual who throws around "sociopath" and
> "fraudulent" with wild abandon, and *at least* as
> unjustifiably, IMHO much more so...

If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
of individual control. So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
for such a condition seems quite misguided. But that is exactly something a
sociopath could be expected to say.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:46:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:

>> > On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:

>> > > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > >> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]

>> > > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>> > > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>> > > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>> > > exist, because words represent them.

>> > I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
>> > wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
>> > speciation, etc., shows their existence.

>You fail to understand that not all words/nouns are true/actually have existence.

That is contradicted by your first statement, still seen
above:

"Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things"

That said, it's also contradicted by your previous post, to
wit: Statement by Ray Martinez on 14 Dec 2017 in the
"Evolution vs, Creation" thread:

"The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
existed first, not the label or identifier"

So according to that statement *made by you*, the "thing
itself" has to exist prior to the existence of the word for
it.

Q.E.D.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:46:40 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> >> > On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> > > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> > >> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>
> >> > > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
> >> > > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
> >> > > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
> >> > > exist, because words represent them.
>
> >> > I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
> >> > wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
> >> > speciation, etc., shows their existence.
>
> >You fail to understand that not all words/nouns are true/actually have existence.
> >
> That is contradicted by your first statement, still seen
> above:
>
> "Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things"

Bob, an Evolutionist, is intentionally misrepresenting and/or acting like he doesn't understand the fact that not all people accept all nouns to actually have a material referent----that some nouns are contested and/or false concepts. Case in point: Bob rejects the noun/design to exist in nature (unlike myself), but like everyone else (including myself) he accepts the noun/zebra to exist in nature.

Other than what I just reiterated, above, which is basic, uncontested, common knowledge, I have no desire to feed Bob the troll anymore in this thread.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Design exists in nature. News flash!

[jillery]

Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
without having to justify said dismissal. An irony here is it's
another one of rockhead's repetitive tu quoques.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 15, Peter Nyikos squeaked

[more evidence of paranoia, deleted]

generic insult #109, Petey!

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/15/17 12:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>>
>> Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>> Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>> Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>> exist, because words represent them.
>>

> The words-nouns/things mentioned are considered non-existent by most people for very good reasons, unlike shovels, gasoline, oxygen, and apples. Because of design observed, most people also accept the existence of the God of the Bible or the God of nature. A noun is still defined as a person, place, or thing. Whether the thing exists or not is a different issue. The fact that Mark does not understand these BASIC points of fact indicates that he is an ignoramus with no awareness of the fact, which has been my on-going point made against persons who believe in evolution. They are easily demonstrated to be ignorant in basic epistemological matters. I stress basic because Mark's point clearly reveals that he does not know what a noun actually is.

I'm just using the word as you use it.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <65f29a8b-9ff6-41a7...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >
> > > Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
> >
> > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
> > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
> > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
> > exist, because words represent them.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> > "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
> > have." - James Baldwin
>
> The words-nouns/things mentioned are considered non-existent by most people
> for very good reasons, unlike shovels, gasoline, oxygen, and apples. Because
> of design observed, most people also accept the existence of the God of the
> Bible or the God of nature.

Why could this 'design observed' not be seen equally as evidence of
Quetzalcoatl, Ptah, or Loki?

Andre

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

[J.LyonLayden]

It could. You must summon them or pray to them to find out.

[Burkhard]

Ptah works fine, but Loki isn't a creator deity (responsible for
earthquakes you could say, but inadvertently). If you accept the
controversial identification with Lodurr, he played a role in animating
the first human, but not designing them. Quetzalcoatl too is not mainly
know as a creator deity, though in some account creator of humans.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:51:00 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:46:40 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 15/12/2017 04:51, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>>
>> >> > > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>> >> > > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>> >> > > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>> >> > > exist, because words represent them.
>>
>> >> > I am moderately puzzled. If Ray was consistent in his faux-objectivism
>> >> > wouldn't he conclude that the existence of words for evolution,
>> >> > speciation, etc., shows their existence.

>> >You fail to understand that not all words/nouns are true/actually have existence.

>> That is contradicted by your first statement, still seen
>> above:
>>
>> "Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things"
>

>Bob, an Evolutionist, is intentionally misrepresenting...

It's a direct quote, Ray, and is not taken out of context.
You have stated in another thread recently: "We know this is

true because the thing existed first, not the label or

identifier". That is *also* not taken out of context.

Own your errors for a change.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <p164md$jk$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Loki may not be *credited* with creation, but if we assume he was
actually responsible was it could explain a lot...

[*Hemidactylus*]

He went and put me on time out for a month.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 17, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article<ce2dnarkha9Am6rH...@giganews.com>):

He loves the two of you more than me. [sniff] how will I ever survive? Petey!
Come back to me, Petey! It’s True Luv, Petey, despite the stench wafting
gently from where your slime dissolved concrete! [generic insult #219]

[Ray Martinez]

Anyone can say design in nature infers the work of whatever deity that they believe exists.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/17/17 5:19 PM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Dec 17, Hemidactylus* wrote
> (in article<ce2dnarkha9Am6rH...@giganews.com>):
>
>> erik simpson<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:35:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:

>>>> [...]

>>>>> Really, we don't
>>>>> conspire against you.
>>>>
>>>> You are truly pathetic, playing the "conspiracy theory" card
>>>> as dishonestly as Harshman played it, as documented in the OP of
>>>> THIS thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't necessary. You conspire enough for all of us.
>>>>
>>>> You are one pathetic troll.
>>>>
>>>> Remainder deleted, to be replied to in January. You aren't worth
>>>> more than one reply a month, and you have gone way over that
>>>> quota.
>>>>
>>>> But I'll give you one more: the SECOND demolition of your
>>>> cowardly generalities above, the one that failed to post.
>>>> Coming your way a bit later today.
>>> Ah. More threats! You're coming to give me what's coming to me. Bring it on.
>> He went and put me on time out for a month.
>
> He loves the two of you more than me. [sniff] how will I ever survive? Petey!
> Come back to me, Petey! It’s True Luv, Petey, despite the stench wafting
> gently from where your slime dissolved concrete! [generic insult #219]

Comment on what he says about gay marriage. That should boost your
standing.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <3d1b2a79-78f7-420e...@googlegroups.com>,

But above you say this leads most people to believe in the God of the
Bible. Even if one accepts the argument from design (which I don't) why
would this point specifically to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God?

[Peter Nyikos]

Only if he breaks his habit of generic insults that are too generic
to qualify as lies.

You either haven't been keeping up with this thread or you are
only reading Wolffan's replies to me and not mine to him...

...or you are dissembling about my last (and IIRC my only) reply
to Wolffan on this thread.

For a craven libeler like you, that last option is small potatoes.

And if you lie as usual about not having libeled me, you go on time-out
for a month too, but I will come back at you in January, loaded for bear.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:26:27 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

Guess that was too much to ask...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:35:10 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 7:20:04 AM UTC-8, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> In article <65f29a8b-9ff6-41a7...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> > > On 12/14/17 2:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Evolutionists don't understand that words represent things. [...]
>> > >
>> > > Ray therefore believes that Baal, Marduk, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu,
>> > > Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Viracocha, Pele, Ra, Aten, Ptah,
>> > > Woton, Thor, Frigga, Zeus, and a few tens of thousands of other gods
>> > > exist, because words represent them.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> > > "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
>> > > have." - James Baldwin
>> >
>> > The words-nouns/things mentioned are considered non-existent by most people
>> > for very good reasons, unlike shovels, gasoline, oxygen, and apples. Because
>> > of design observed, most people also accept the existence of the God of the
>> > Bible or the God of nature.
>>
>> Why could this 'design observed' not be seen equally as evidence of
>> Quetzalcoatl, Ptah, or Loki?

>Anyone can say design in nature infers the work of whatever deity that they believe exists.

Of course they can; that is the *point*. Saying something is
true doesn't confer accuracy; that requires objective
evidence.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:29:00 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
> >blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
> >of individual control.

But the actions of sociopaths are well within their control. I'll
have more to say about this in direct reply to Hemidactylus.

>So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
> >for such a condition seems quite misguided.

I'll also have more to say about this, as well as to the following
*tu quoque*:

>But that is exactly something a
> >sociopath could be expected to say.
>
>
> Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
> without having to justify said dismissal.

Is that why you sometimes call Hsrshman a sociopath?

Would you like to list, for the edification of interested readers [1],
all the other people whom you've accused of being sociopaths?


> An irony here is

...that if Hemidactyus were really serious about learning of people
besides himself and Erik Simpson who have been labeled sociopaths,
he'd have been on your case long ago. As it is, his comment,

Do we have a running headcount on the identified sociopaths here? Hemi,
Erik, ...?

is beyond clueless: he obviously likes you much more than he likes me,
yet he ignores the most likely source for additions to his list.

The cluelessness is inherent in him not realizing that the two
people on his list are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I
EVER suggested as being sociopaths.

> it's
> another one of rockhead's repetitive tu quoques.

Quite the contrary: the strongest evidence of Hemi's sociopathic
nature is the way he has completely ignored the demolitions
of his claims in three successive posts, issuing flippant taunts
to cover up for the way he left the crickets chirping.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:29:00 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
> >blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
> >of individual control.

But the actions of sociopaths are well within their control. I'll
have more to say about this in direct reply to Hemidactylus.

>So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
> >for such a condition seems quite misguided.

I'll also have more to say about this, as well as to the following
*tu quoque*:

>But that is exactly something a
> >sociopath could be expected to say.
>
>
> Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
> without having to justify said dismissal.

Is that why you sometimes call Hsrshman a sociopath?

Would you like to list, for the edification of interested readers [1],
all the other people whom you've accused of being sociopaths?


> An irony here is

...that if Hemidactyus were really serious about learning of people
besides himself and Erik Simpson who have been labeled sociopaths,
he'd have been on your case long ago. As it is, his comment,

Do we have a running headcount on the identified sociopaths here? Hemi,
Erik, ...?

is beyond clueless: he obviously likes you much more than he likes me,
yet he ignores the most likely source for additions to his list.

The cluelessness is inherent in him not realizing that the two
people on his list are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I
EVER suggested as being sociopaths.

> it's
> another one of rockhead's repetitive tu quoques.

Quite the contrary: the strongest evidence of Hemi's sociopathic
nature is the way he has completely ignored the demolitions
of his claims in three successive posts, issuing flippant taunts
to cover up for the way he left the crickets chirping.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg, but I'm too close
to my ca. one-month posting break to go into further details.


But it's nice to see how well you've reciprocated Hemidactylus's
esteem for you.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I had intended to put in a footnote, but got distracted. I remedy that,
and I also post a fascinating use of the word "spoof" that I've never
seen described in any dictionary. It is highly revealing of Hemidactylus's
*modus operandi*.

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:29:00 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
> > >blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
> > >of individual control.
>
>
> But the actions of sociopaths are well within their control. I'll
> have more to say about this in direct reply to Hemidactylus.
>
> >So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
> > >for such a condition seems quite misguided.
>
> I'll also have more to say about this, as well as to the following
> *tu quoque*:
>
> >But that is exactly something a
> > >sociopath could be expected to say.
> >
> >
> > Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
> > without having to justify said dismissal.
>
> Is that why you sometimes call Hsrshman a sociopath?
>
> Would you like to list, for the edification of interested readers [1],
> all the other people whom you've accused of being sociopaths?

[1] I doubt that Hemidactylus is one of them. That is because he
exemplifies one aspect of the concept of "spoof" but is very
careful to hide the revealing things that are said about "spoof"
in the following excerpt from a fascinating anthology for teachers
of English.

David Soestrom describes what he calls "spoof" as "a new kind of playful,
ironic attitude toward the old conflict between good and evil" in "An Animadversion upon Spoof," [_The Midwest Quarterly_ VIII (Spring 1967)
239-246] and with the words:

Spoof is not true to itself. It cheats at
its own game. It only pretends to take life
as a game, but then inadvertently lets
earnest break in and govern it. Although
pretending to be above and beyond it all,
spoof cares, and cares very much. This
unconscious hypocrisy lies at the root of
all that I find objectionable in spoof, with
its enchanting trick of protecting foolish
fantasy by pretending to expose it.

Robert Paul Dye commented on this in "The Death of Silence"
[2] with the following words:

...spoofers...lack the courage to be moral and
at the same time cannot deny the desire to be
moral. The result is that the audience is
cheated and deceived. It is neither shocked into
moral consciousness, nor freed, for the moment,
from moral considerations. It is mired in
ambivalence, and the result is malaise.

[2][_Journal of Broadcasting, vol. 12 no. 3 (Summer 1968).
Reprinted in _Language Awareness_,Paul Eschholtz, Alfred Rosa,
and Virginia Clark, ed., St. Martin's Press, 1978]

This malaise permeates talk.origins; every non-creationist who has
criticized me in December manifests it and also seems to indulge
in spoof to a greater or lesser degree.

This malaise permeates talk.origins; every non-creationist who has
criticized me in December (unless you count Bill Rogers's expression
of concern as criticism) manifests it and also seems to indulge
in spoof to a greater or lesser degree.


But Hemidactylus is the real master of this game of spoof.


Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

It is indeed the point, which you miss. Design not at issue, only the inference to the correct cause.

Ray

[jillery]

This post of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
brought to you by:

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:16:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:29:00 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
>> >blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
>> >of individual control.
>
>
>But the actions of sociopaths are well within their control. I'll
>have more to say about this in direct reply to Hemidactylus.
>
> >So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
>> >for such a condition seems quite misguided.
>
>I'll also have more to say about this, as well as to the following
>*tu quoque*:
>
>>But that is exactly something a
>> >sociopath could be expected to say.
>>
>>
>> Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
>> without having to justify said dismissal.
>
>Is that why you sometimes call Hsrshman a sociopath?

Since you asked, and assuming you meant Harshman, I have never done
so. Perhaps you're projecting the times you have called him a
sociopath. Or you misremember the many times I called you a
sociopath.

Of course, it's almost certain you won't back up your bald assertion
because it takes sooo much time to do so.

>Would you like to list, for the edification of interested readers [1],
>all the other people whom you've accused of being sociopaths?

You're so practiced at making lists, I suppose you already have one.
Be sure to include the people you have accused of sociopathy.


>> An irony here is it's

Thank dog for small favors.

>But it's nice to see how well you've reciprocated Hemidactylus's
>esteem for you.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Because the God of the Bible happens to be the only God that could exist. No other God taken seriously by scholars and other thinking persons because the Bible consists of writings that challenge the human mind and this challenge has never come close to becoming exhausted: seen clearly in the staggering amount of books published about the Bible, whether theological, historical, philosophical, or scientific. The gods of the trinity are the only deities that scholars have studied almost exclusively in the West; and the same God is the only God Western society has ever worshiped. How many churches and synagogues exist in Western nations? And when I talk about scholars don't forget that the same includes Atheist scholars. They too have contributed greatly in mining the depths of textual exegesis. Lastly, in Victorian England almost every practicing-publishing naturalist was also an ordained Christian-clergyman. IF the biblical claim that the canon represents the inspired word of God was not true then the preceding facts would not exist.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

Jillery your sociopathy is obvious. No one has to list you. I'm sorry I didn't catch the hints and warnings sooner.

[Peter Nyikos]

Note to readers:

Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
rubbing off onto Harshman. Details can be found here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/rkCcbdqDCwAJ
Subject: Re: John Harshman Shows His True Colors
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8233e834-48ca-45ba...@googlegroups.com>


Too cowardly to plead e.g. "not guilty" to this charge, Ray has
fled from the linked post, and is taking revenge for it
by following up to the most friendly and heartfelt post
that I've done on this thread; and by posting a highly
concentrated pack of lies and distortions, ending with a diabolically
cunning equivocation.



On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > I appreciate your concern, Bill, but I actually did go cold turkey
> > from ALL of Usenet for seven years, Aug 2001 to late October 2008, to
> > be exact. But, to make a long story short, I saw that my help was
> > urgently needed, first in talk.abortion to keep a clique of highly
> > dishonest abortion rights fanatics from driving every person with
> > a different point of view off it.
> >
> > And then I caught sci.bio.paleontology when it was on the verge
> > of extinction, and played a key role in gradually bringing it off
> > the "critically endangered" list.
> >
> > As for talk.origins, it is now perhaps the only robust forum of its kind
> > in the world where people of strongly differing viewpoints can still
> > have sincere interaction AND express themselves freely AND which has
> > an amazing continuity from year to year. And I see behaviors
> > which threaten that status in many ways. I think if you carefully read
> > the post to which you are replying, you will sense those kinds of
> > threats. Also try to look at some of the replies I do to others;
> > I think you will sense a lot more threats of various sorts.
> >
> >
> > In short, for all its dysfunctional aspects, I think talk.origins
> > is a very precious thing, and I aim to do the best I can for it.
> >
> >
> > You may be glad to know that I am planning to quit "cold turkey"
> > for about a month. I was hoping to start tonight, but some posts
> > have stubbornly failed to post, and so I will have to return on
> > Monday -- I never post on weekends except in the most extraordinary
> > circumstances -- to tie up a few loose ends before our ten-day
> > family reunion for Christmas goes into high gear.
> >
> > I wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season. If you
> > are one of those old-fashioned enough to celebrate Christmas,
> > in however secular or religious a fashion, I wish y'all a merry
> > Christmas too; in any case, a happy new year.
> >
> > Here's to more frequent pleasant (for me at least -- I hope for you too)
> > encounters like this between us in the coming year.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Dear Audience:

Ray, I'll have plenty to say about the following un-Christian paragraph
by you after making a comment on how I expect you to behave in
reaction to this post of mine.

> Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist. Peter completely rejects design existing in nature. He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth. And he has been known to label himself as an Agnostic, Deist, and even a Christian from time to time. But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world. He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.
>
> Ray (Christian; anti-evolutionary)

I expect you to either run away from this post like you've run
away from the post I've linked above; or to post another pack of
lies and distortions, then sign off with "Will reply to the rest ASAP."

As I've found out, "ASAP" can mean "half a year from now, in reply
to a challenge to behave responsibly about it, and to instead
post another irresponsible claim."

OK, let's take your paragraph slowly, from the top:

> Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist.

"Atheist" is a lie that I have refuted at great length many times, while
in your jargon, "Evolutionist" means someone who is convinced that the
common descent of all animals from a single eukaryote took place with no
supernatural input at all.

And I am far from convinced of that.


> Peter completely rejects design existing in nature.

A lie to "support" the lie of "Atheist." And when I attack your
latest "support" for a previous lie, you simply "support" it with
another lie, in what would be an infinite regress if it didn't
become eventually obvious that you are arguing in a circle,
using previously refuted lies to "support" other previously
refuted lies.

But to make that eventually obvious, I have to leave all
the previous lies in place. And in our last long running
artument, you employed what might be called "The Nuclear
Option for All liars Who Have Been Cornered."

This was your claim that the post was too long for anyone
to follow, and hence not worth replying to. On that
last occasion you exited the thread, and started a new thread
in which you shed crocodile tears over how I accuse you
of lying and how I never support my claims of you lying.

And you never quoted a single thing out of the post from
which you were fleeing.


> He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth.

Not an advocate; only someone who takes the Crick-Orgel hypothesis
of directed panspermia seriously. And I do it without making any
commitments about whether the technological civilization that
seeded earth with probes carrying only microorganisms [1] evolved
with or without supernatural intervention.

[1] Thereby disqualifying the misleading label "space aliens".

Your lies and distortions are reminiscent of the old
saying, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is
putting on its shoes" -- and those shoes have to be very carefully
designed and put on, thus leading to the inordinate difference in
length between dishonest allegation and correction.


Concluded in next reply. This post has already become quite long.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS The next reply will perforce have to include some context
from this one, again in line with that old proverb.

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery has given me some homework to do during my posting break which
(hopefully) starts some time this evening.

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> This post of repetitive

"repetitive" is your Martinez-like term for something I can
only guess at.

Your previous comments on it lead me to think
that it means "criticizing myself or people I, jillery, like, rather
than talking about issues relevant to the purposes for which
talk.origins was set up -- issues that I have adamantly
refused to talk to Peter about."

> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
> brought to you by:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:16:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:29:00 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> >> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> >If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
> >> >blame on us or judge us for our actions? Sociopathy is a condition outside
> >> >of individual control.
> >
> >
> >But the actions of sociopaths are well within their control. I'll
> >have more to say about this in direct reply to Hemidactylus.
> >
> > >So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
> >> >for such a condition seems quite misguided.
> >
> >I'll also have more to say about this, as well as to the following
> >*tu quoque*:
> >
> >>But that is exactly something a
> >> >sociopath could be expected to say.
> >>
> >>
> >> Labeling others as sociopaths is a way to dismiss their points of view
> >> without having to justify said dismissal.
> >
> >Is that why you sometimes call Hsrshman a sociopath?
>
>
> Since you asked, and assuming you meant Harshman, I have never done
> so.

Your recollection differs from mine. It will be quite a challenge
to go back over your many tiffs with Harshman to find something
I'm pretty sure I've seen.

Of course, I don't think Hemidactylus will lift a finger to
look for such instances, let alone Harshman.

That reminds me: Harshman has claimed that he finds arguments between you and
me "extremely painful" to read. I believe that this is because
he still has a rudimentary conscience and sees your behavior
as a caricature of his, but with enough similarity that he is
in the position Stalin found himself while viewing a production
of the play (Or movie? I forget) about Ivan the Terrible.

Stalin had to leave because he couldn't bear to see how
much the portrayal of Ivan was like a fair portrayal of himself would be.

It was a long time ago that I read about this, so I can't be
sure of the "had to leave" detail but Stalin's discomfort was quite
evident one way or another.

> Perhaps you're projecting the times you have called him a
> sociopath.

Perish the thought. Harshman is way down the list of people of
whom I have that kind of evidence. Yes, he sometimes thumbs his
nose at accusations, like you saw in the OP if you read it.
But that's a symptom of his domineering control freak nature,
which you share with him. You manifest it every time you do
a post with the words "puckered sphincter" in it.

> Or you misremember the many times I called you a
> sociopath.

PAGING HEMIDACTYLUS! ! !

In case you read this, Hemi, you can add me to your list of
"the identified sociopaths here". Of course, "identified"
was made in sarcasm, but that should not deter you from adding
me to the list, unless you are too fond of jillery to put
her on an obviously sarcastic list that heretofore only had
yourself and Erik on it.

> Of course, it's almost certain you won't back up your bald assertion
> because it takes sooo much time to do so.

It does indeed. I usually only keep copies of my replies to posts,
and I tend to stay out of tiffs between yourself and Harshman
because replying to them is a sure fire way to put and end to them.
You two can be counted on to drop your quarrel as surely as Tweedledum
and Tweedledee dropped their agreed-upon battle when a monstrous
crow came into sight.

>
> >Would you like to list, for the edification of interested readers [1],
> >all the other people whom you've accused of being sociopaths?
>
>
> You're so practiced at making lists, I suppose you already have one.

Actually I am badly out of practice, but thanks for reminding me.
I promised Hemidactylus a list utterly different from the ones
he keeps teasing me about. I don't think I am giving away any
secrets by saying that Bill Rogers is on it.

But that list, and much else, has to wait until this evening
and/or tomorrow.

Talk.origins is lovely [2], dark and deep, but I have promises to keep,
and miles to go before I sleep.

[2] Read my reply to Bill Rogers on this thread for a clue
as to how I use that word in this context, despite having used
the words "cesspool" and "godforsaken" in reference to talk.origins.

> Be sure to include the people you have accused of sociopathy.
>
>
> >> An irony here is it's
> >> another one of rockhead's repetitive tu quoques.
> >
> >...that if Hemidactyus were really serious about learning of people
> >besides himself and Erik Simpson who have been labeled sociopaths,
> >he'd have been on your case long ago. As it is, his comment,
> >
> > Do we have a running headcount on the identified sociopaths here? Hemi,
> > Erik, ...?
> >
> >is beyond clueless: he obviously likes you much more than he likes me,
> >yet he ignores the most likely source for additions to his list.
> >
> >The cluelessness is inherent in him not realizing that the two
> >people on his list are the ONLY people in talk.origins whom I
> >EVER suggested as being sociopaths.
> >
> >> it's
> >> another one of rockhead's repetitive tu quoques.
> >
> >Quite the contrary: the strongest evidence of Hemi's sociopathic
> >nature is the way he has completely ignored the demolitions
> >of his claims in three successive posts, issuing flippant taunts
> >to cover up for the way he left the crickets chirping.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:43:45 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm sorry I didn't catch the hints and warnings sooner.

Really? Me too! So do you still have a gun to your head?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:31:06 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

>Jillery has given me some homework to do during my posting break which
>(hopefully) starts some time this evening.

I apologize for making you revise your previous priorities. I hold
such power over you, I should take more care.

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

>> This post of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
>> brought to you by:
>

>"repetitive" is your Martinez-like term for something I can
>only guess at.

In addition to your usual repetitive irrelevant spew, apparently you
didn't notice that you copied a large block of them twice.


<snip remaining repetitive spew>

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:43:45 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry I didn't catch the hints and warnings sooner.
>
>
> Really? Me too! So do you still have a gun to your head?

No just a sicko who will follow me around screaming "Coward!" like a maniac if I don't respond to her sophomoric musings.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip from my corner]
>
> PAGING HEMIDACTYLUS! ! !
>
I thought you had put me on one month of time out.

>
> In case you read this, Hemi, you can add me to your list of
> "the identified sociopaths here". Of course, "identified"
> was made in sarcasm, but that should not deter you from adding
> me to the list, unless you are too fond of jillery to put
> her on an obviously sarcastic list that heretofore only had
> yourself and Erik on it.
>

Isn’t it counterproductive to put someone on time out then continue
attempts to interact with them.

[*Hemidactylus*]

This alleged hiatus of his is our version of the midseason finales of TV
shows. We are left in suspense wondering what he will come back with next.
Will he return with a vengeance swinging simultaneously at the diabolical
triumvirate Mark, Wolffan, and Hemi or deal with them one after the other?
Will he fess up his sneaky crypto creationism to Ron O? And will we find
out why he has developed such a morbid obsession with people getting run
over by buses? Stay tuned.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:07:33 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

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

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:43:45 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sorry I didn't catch the hints and warnings sooner.
>>
>>
>> Really? Me too! So do you still have a gun to your head?
>
>
>No just a sicko who will follow me around screaming "Coward!" like a maniac if I don't respond to her sophomoric musings.

If your comments above refer to me, they're just more of your obvious
lies. I don't follow you around. I don't scream. I don't post
sophomoric musings. These are all things YOU do. Which shows you're
as much in love with your mirror image as is your old friend.

OTOH I freely admit that I note your refusal to back up or retract
your pointless personal insults and bald assertions. It's no surprise
that someone as dishonest and cowardly as you would confuse my
behavior with your own. There are other posters who behave similarly,
so I'm used to your willful stupidity.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 18, Peter Nyikos squeaked

[more paranoia, deleted]
generic insult #57, Petey!

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip from my corner]
> >
> > PAGING HEMIDACTYLUS! ! !
> >
> I thought you had put me on one month of time out.

A completely illogical thought, on the level of Martinez-illogic.
And similarly self-serving.

I told you specifically, in reply to two posts of yours in which
you gleefully pursued a deceitful guilt by association, that
I would take those two posts apart with tweezers come January,
respectively February. That was all I ever told YOU directly.

I did tell Mark Isaak that I would put him on time-out "too" if he
publicly denied having libeled me, but by that time you
had already voiced your deceitful/illogical take on what
I had written. And since Isaak was following up to where
you had voiced it, I didn't feel like going into a long explanation
to HIM about the distinction.

> > In case you read this, Hemi, you can add me to your list of
> > "the identified sociopaths here". Of course, "identified"
> > was made in sarcasm, but that should not deter you from adding
> > me to the list, unless you are too fond of jillery to put
> > her on an obviously sarcastic list that heretofore only had
> > yourself and Erik on it.

I should have said, "to put her in charge of an entry of myself
on your list, as the identifier".

That was a double misspeaking of mine. Keep reading for why.

> Isn’t it counterproductive to put someone on time out then continue
> attempts to interact with them.

Cute dodge. Have you put me on your list, or not?

Here is someone else to put on your list of those who have
been accused of "sociopathy" : jillery herself, with Joe
LyonLayden as the "identifier".


I'm sure you'll be delighted to put JILLERY on your list of
"identified sociopaths here"
since that serves to discredit the whole list in the POV
of everyone who has posted to this "Harshman Shows His True Colors"
subject line -- except for Joe, myself, and (I hope he is an
exception) Bill Rogers. But you are definitely NOT an exception,
you old master of "spoof" *sensu* David Soestrom and Robert Paul Dye.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

NOTE to readers: This is my second reply to a thoroughly deceitful
post by Martinez. As I said in my first reply, Ray is in headlong flight from
a post where he was charged with dishonest favoritism towards John Harshman.
He lied about Harshman's use of "paranoid" in order to deflect attention
from the fact that I had compared him, Ray, FAVORABLY with Harshman.

Ray knows he is too much of a pariah in this newsgroup to want
any of the contempt for him to rub off on Harshman, whom he
makes a full beneficiary of the command to "love one's enemies."

With me, he manifests the mindset which Jesus specifically repudiated:
"Love your friends and hate your enemies."




Now I turn to you, Ray, in this second look at your despicable post.

First I repeat the beginning and an abbreviated version of my first
reply to it:

> Dear Audience:

> Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist.

"Atheist" is a lie that I have refuted at great length many times, while
in your jargon, "Evolutionist" means someone who is convinced that the
common descent of all animals from a single eukaryote took place with no
supernatural input at all.

And I am far from convinced of that.


> Peter completely rejects design existing in nature.

A lie to "support" the lie of "Atheist."

> He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth.

Not an advocate; only someone who takes the Crick-Orgel hypothesis
of directed panspermia seriously. And I do it without making any
commitments about whether the technological civilization that
seeded earth with probes carrying only microorganisms [1] evolved
with or without supernatural intervention.

[1] Thereby disqualifying the misleading label "space aliens".

And now, on to the rest of your despicable post.

> And he has been known to label himself as an Agnostic, Deist, and even a Christian from time to time.

I never called myself a Deist. However, I have identified myself as
a Christian by YOUR definition as someone who follows [the exhortations
and example of] Christ. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that I
am also an agnostic in the sense of not claiming to know that God exists,
but ALSO not (perish the thought!) of claiming God does not exist.


And I strive far more to follow Christ than you do. For you,
Christianity is like a shirt you put on and take off many times
a day as you post on talk.origins. You cease to follow Christ
every time you violate his commandment, "Do not bear false witness,
while I scrupulously try to avoid bearing false witness even
by accident.

> But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world.

That is a bare faced lie. I know of more evidence for the existence
of God than your cosmology-challenged brain can ever understand.
But I ALSO know of various arguments for interpreting that evidence
in naturalistic ways. This is the hypothesis of the existence of
a multiverse with an incomprehensibly large number of universes
like the one we know about.

And your mind is utterly incapable of grasping this hypothesis,
and so with profound ignorance, you claim there is enough evidence
pro and con to come down on one side or the other.

> He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.

This is a diabolically cunning equivocation. It can be read either
in the lying way you said it up there, or it can be interpreted
to mean "decisive evidence" in line with your profoundly ignorant
"up or down" claim.

>
> Ray (Christian; anti-evolutionary)

This sign-off is PROFOUNDLY revealing of your on-again, off-again
Christianity. You didn't even wait until after you hit the button to
post your false witness against me to put your "shirt of Christianity"
back on by YOUR standards. Instead you put it on IMMEDIATELY after
your diabolically deceitful paragraph was finished.

Had you just signed off with "Ray," as you sometimes do, I would
have used the analogy "suit of clothes" instead of "shirt".

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

at the original USC, in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:43:57 -0800 (PST), the following

>It is indeed the point, which you miss. Design not at issue, only the inference to the correct cause.

And without objective evidence, the "correct cause" cannot
be determined, only opinions, which is the point *you* miss.
Repeatedly.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:31:06 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>Jillery has given me some homework to do during my posting break which
>(hopefully) starts some time this evening.

Souds like a winner to me. Do you intend to come back?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <2a069f95-1da2-4418...@googlegroups.com>,

Wotan would strongly disagree with this claim, as, I'm quite sure, would
over a billion Hindus.

> No
> other God taken seriously by scholars and other thinking persons because the
> Bible consists of writings that challenge the human mind and this challenge
> has never come close to becoming exhausted: seen clearly in the staggering
> amount of books published about the Bible, whether theological, historical,
> philosophical, or scientific. The gods of the trinity are the only deities
> that scholars have studied almost exclusively in the West; and the same God
> is the only God Western society has ever worshiped. How many churches and
> synagogues exist in Western nations? And when I talk about scholars don't
> forget that the same includes Atheist scholars. They too have contributed
> greatly in mining the depths of textual exegesis. Lastly, in Victorian
> England almost every practicing-publishing naturalist was also an ordained
> Christian-clergyman. IF the biblical claim that the canon represents the
> inspired word of God was not true then the preceding facts would not exist.
>
> Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
> blame on us or judge us for our actions?

I can and do judge your objectively unjust actions. You and
Erik seem to think of "justice" as having meaning only in the most
narrow legal senses, or in the context of things your fellow lefitists [1]
call "unjust" because it stands in the way of their desire to radically
restructure society.

But that has no effect on the wider meaning
of "unjust" which extends it to the unjust way Harshman treated
Joe LyonLayden, as documented in the OP. And NOBODY here dares
to face that injustice, not even people I never suspected of sociopathy.


[1] Perhaps don't think you are a leftist because you are
comfortably outflanked on the Left by Mark Isaak and by Sean Dillon.
But your paranoia-simulating reaction to Trump's election the day
after it happened is second only to that of Mark Isaak. You were
both only frustrated by the way the juggenraut of political correctness
set into high gear by Obama couldn't be put into overdrive by Clinton,
weren't you?

> Sociopathy is a condition outside
> of individual control.

There is a lot of truth to that, but that is all the more reason to
let people know that you are essentially impervious to reason and to appeals
to your (seemingly nonexistent) better nature. You amply demonstrate
that in the way you thumb your nose at all refutations of your
snarky attempts to discredit me.

One of them had to do with your characterization of an upcoming "list"
as having to do with bootlickers of me. You breezed past my revelation
that it would include Earle Jones and Arkalen. In effect, you implicitly
slandered the two of them by not retracting your sneers.

That reminds me: I'll be posting that "list" before I call it quits
for tonight.

> So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
> for such a condition seems quite misguided.

With your knowledge of what sorts of behavior normal people
condemn, one might think you would avoid those behaviors,
but you obviously don't care about avoiding them.

> But that is exactly something a
> sociopath could be expected to say.

You are ignoring the mountains of evidence I have for sociopathic
attitudes by yourself. So I don't think for a moment that you mean
for this last sentence to be taken seriously.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> If those of us Peter labels as sociopaths are truly that way, could he cast
>> blame on us or judge us for our actions?
>
> I can and do judge your objectively unjust actions. You and
> Erik seem to think of "justice" as having meaning only in the most
> narrow legal senses, or in the context of things your fellow lefitists [1]
> call "unjust" because it stands in the way of their desire to radically
> restructure society.
>

Would you say your current position or status in society is purely a result
of your hard work to become a professor in a *public* university? Was your
success at any point the result of luck or happenstance? Do you believe in
a world of just deserts where merit outweighs circumstance? Do you believe
in at least a Rawlsian minimax baseline (contra Nozickian libertarianism).

In a libertarian system would you have a job at a public university? You
realize you are sucking at the teat of taxpayer largesse, no? Are you more
deserving than a single black mother getting measly benefits who is
struggling to overcome the obstacles of de facto segregation and white
privilege?

Do you ever consider Rawls’ veil of ignorance where you are that welfare
mother or that person born homosexual or trans? Where is *your* empathy?
Shouldn’t society be restructured to bring “is” into better alignment with
“ought”? Or are your evaluative starting points completely out of whack?

I think a quote from this article apt:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/why-luck-matters-more-than-you-might-think/476394/

“When you’re running or bicycling into the wind, you’re very aware of it.
You just can’t wait till the course turns around and you’ve got the wind at
your back. When that happens, you feel great. But then you forget about it
very quickly—you’re just not aware of the wind at your back. And that’s
just a fundamental feature of how our minds, and how the world, works.
We’re just going to be more aware of those barriers than of the things that
boost us along.”

What are your tailwinds you might be overlooking in your personal
narrative?

> But that has no effect on the wider meaning
> of "unjust" which extends it to the unjust way Harshman treated
> Joe LyonLayden, as documented in the OP. And NOBODY here dares
> to face that injustice, not even people I never suspected of sociopathy.
>

Why do I have to be drafted into some tribunal that determines the fate of
Harshman v Layden? That’s why I snip gratuitously. What happens in
talk.origins is trivial compared to wider society. You might feel
otherwise. But I am not assuming you are normal in a humane sense.

Don’t be this guy:

https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/396956105869250561

>
> [1] Perhaps don't think you are a leftist because you are
> comfortably outflanked on the Left by Mark Isaak and by Sean Dillon.
> But your paranoia-simulating reaction to Trump's election the day
> after it happened is second only to that of Mark Isaak. You were
> both only frustrated by the way the juggenraut of political correctness
> set into high gear by Obama couldn't be put into overdrive by Clinton,
> weren't you?
>

I am still in disbelief that jackass is (gag...vomit) president. And Disney
just unveiled his animatronic likeness. I wonder what verbal atrocities
come out of its mouth. They should connect it live to his Twitter feed. He
is the epitome of the narcissist who thinks he is a self-made man and shits
on the untermenschen from a golden toilet seat.

>
>> Sociopathy is a condition outside
>> of individual control.
>
> There is a lot of truth to that, but that is all the more reason to
> let people know that you are essentially impervious to reason and to appeals
> to your (seemingly nonexistent) better nature. You amply demonstrate
> that in the way you thumb your nose at all refutations of your
> snarky attempts to discredit me.
>

You are just using sociopathy as your polemic weapon de jour. Law of the
instrument.

>
> One of them had to do with your characterization of an upcoming "list"
> as having to do with bootlickers of me. You breezed past my revelation
> that it would include Earle Jones and Arkalen. In effect, you implicitly
> slandered the two of them by not retracting your sneers.
>
> That reminds me: I'll be posting that "list" before I call it quits
> for tonight.
>

That reminds me aren’t you supposed to be not posting here for a while?

>
>> So calling someone a sociopath and harping on them
>> for such a condition seems quite misguided.
>
> With your knowledge of what sorts of behavior normal people
> condemn, one might think you would avoid those behaviors,
> but you obviously don't care about avoiding them.
>

Then you attribute a conscience to me after-all? How do you know I lack a
functioning amygdala? Have you brainscanned me?

>
>> But that is exactly something a
>> sociopath could be expected to say.
>
> You are ignoring the mountains of evidence I have for sociopathic
> attitudes by yourself. So I don't think for a moment that you mean
> for this last sentence to be taken seriously.
>

I think you are gratuitously abusing the term.