OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
"third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
dishonest attacks on Martin.

In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
later.

The analogue of the subpoena was Martin's two word accusation
"Liar, yet again" in reaction to an earlier stage of the cover-up.

Perhaps hoping to make hay of that word "again," Jillery
gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.

But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly
aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the
outcome of her forgery.

In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
and so forth:


*************************************************
>>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>you tell about me.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.


I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
universe.


>Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>starters.
******************************************************

I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>


I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
jillery's repost and to ask themselves:

(1) What impression would it create in you if this were
a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?

(2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
if this were the only thing you had to go on?


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

You as a highly motivated and biased third party are elevating a relatively
minor (and in my eyes trivial) dispute between posters on an ongoing thread
to full thread status. I took issue with jillery's regressive left thread
and I take issue with this. Do you have anything better to do with your
time than foment conflict between others on usenet?

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
> dishonest attacks on Martin.

You're giving me a heart attack with all the insane blathering of yours,
Petey, cut it out. I`m laughing myself to death, troll.

>
> In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
> doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
> the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
> the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
> later.

Weird, because I don't recall Usenet bickering between an insane
narcissist and someone else as being of the same importance as the
Watergate scandal, jackass. If this doesn't seal your fate in a
psych-ward, I don't know what does.

>
> The analogue of the subpoena was Martin's two word accusation
> "Liar, yet again" in reaction to an earlier stage of the cover-up.

You need help, Peter.

>
> Perhaps hoping to make hay of that word "again," Jillery
> gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
> the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.

Jillery, this man has long since lost his marbles, the best we could
hope for is that he gets the treatment he deserves.

>
> But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
> bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly
> aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the
> outcome of her forgery.

Near the end of this long, insane spiel, Peter finally realized he was
an insane narcissist and went to get help. (If only).

>
> In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
> and so forth:
>
>
> *************************************************
>>>> I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>> you tell about me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>> universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>> I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>> me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>>
>> Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>> you live in a different universe.
>
>
> I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
> universe.

What, that you're a paranoid freak, or that you're a mental train wreck?

>
>
>> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>> starters.
> ******************************************************
>
> I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
> jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
> Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
> Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
>
>
> I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
> is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>
> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>
> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the
only animal that has the True Religion — several of them. He is the only
animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his
theology isn't straight." - Mark Twain

[Peter Nyikos]

Thanks for indirectly letting Martin Harran know that I am not
just a busybody who doesn't let him fight his own battles.

Yes, I have a personal stake in this too. Why didn't you try
to explain what it is? Were you unable to come up with a
sufficiently derogatory misrepresentation?

> are elevating a relatively
> minor (and in my eyes trivial) dispute between posters on an ongoing thread
> to full thread status.

Admit it: you too are a highly motivated and biased third party.
Hours before I began this thread, you snipped at my heels like a jackal
on the thread "OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason"?

With it, you distanced yourself from your earlier attacks on jillery on
the thread where her forgery took place. And now that I've
begun to expose her forgery in earnest, you are behaving like
and orc in _Lord of the Rings_, breaking off your justifiable
attacks on a more evil "orc" than yourself (jillery), just as
two orcs broke off their squabble when Frodo's friend Sam showed up.

But you did more than just attack me; you lumped me together with
your fellow "orc" jillery, and with two others:

You have fun on that thread with your soul mates Glenn and jillery.
Drag Kalk along too. If I were a listmaker I would call you the
Circle Jerks.

Why did you leave Martin Harran off your list? He's attacking
jillery more vigorously and effectively than either Glenn or Kalkidas.

> I took issue with jillery's regressive left thread

Is that the opposite of a "right thread"?

> and I take issue with this. Do you have anything better to do with your
> time than foment conflict between others on usenet?

How quick you are to change allegiances! On that original
thread, you attacked jillery for driving Sean Dillon from
talk.origins with her relentless attacks on him. Was that
sincere, or were you just trying to score debating points
against her?

Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

^^This. These petty interpersonal feuds just don't matter, and they drag down the entire tenor of discussion on this group (which, let's face it, doesn't need the help). Whether or not the allegations above pan out or are refuted, the only "useful" purpose in participating in the argument to foster the narrative that the other person is somehow less creditable. Trying to discredit people, rather than their ideas, is the essence of ad hominem argument.

And I don't say this just to Peter, but to the several parties here who seem to delight in cultivating this noisesome drama. Listen... none of us is perfect. We all from time to time find ourselves in these petty, meaningless conversations. But for some, it seems to be a modus operandi.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:14:53 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 6/14/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
> > "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
> > to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
> > attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
> > with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
> > dishonest attacks on Martin.
>
> You're giving me a heart attack with all the insane blathering of yours,
> Petey, cut it out. I`m laughing myself to death, troll.

NOTE to other readers: "Oxyaena" is the new moniker of "Thrinaxodon",
who was well known to talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology as
a mentally unbalanced person, perhaps in the form of a severe case of
bipolar disorder.

To show how imbalanced Thrinaxodon was, one need only note that
[s]he is deeply fond of paleontology, yet almost destroyed
sci.bio.paleontology with incredibly copious insane-appearing
spam theads.

Unfortunately, "Oxyaena" doesn't seem to have sufficiently recovered
from that behavior and may even be suffering a partial relapse.

> > In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
> > doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
> > the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
> > the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
> > later.

> Weird, because I don't recall Usenet bickering between an insane
> narcissist and someone else

Who is which? Is Martin Harran the "insane narcissist" and jillery
the "someone else"? That would be the shrewd way to hedge your
bets between the two of them.

> as being of the same importance as the
> Watergate scandal, jackass.

Did the "In this" go over your head, "Thrinaxodon"? The repercussions
of the two scandals are on utterly different scales, but once
you factor in the difference in importance between talk.origins
and the office of President of the United States, the analogy
seems pretty darn good.

>If this doesn't seal your fate in a
> psych-ward, I don't know what does.

Physician, heal thyself!

You are really out of it, "Thrinaxodon". You are mistaking
jillery for me!

> >> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
> >> starters.
> > ******************************************************
> >
> > I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
> > jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
> > Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
> > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
> > Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
> >
> >
> > I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
> > is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
> > jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
> >
> > (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
> > a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
> >
> > (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
> > if this were the only thing you had to go on?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.

Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents,
is duly noted, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2017 11:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:14:53 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 6/14/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
>>> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
>>> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
>>> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
>>> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
>>> dishonest attacks on Martin.
>>
>> You're giving me a heart attack with all the insane blathering of yours,
>> Petey, cut it out. I`m laughing myself to death, troll.
>
> NOTE to other readers: "Oxyaena" is the new moniker of "Thrinaxodon",
> who was well known to talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology as
> a mentally unbalanced person, perhaps in the form of a severe case of
> bipolar disorder.

NOTE to other readers: Peter is well known to talk.origins and
sci.bio.paleontology as a severely mentally unbalanced individual,
perhaps in the form of a severe case of narcissistic personality
disorder crossed with severe paranoia and borderline sociopathy.

>
> To show how imbalanced Thrinaxodon was, one need only note that
> [s]he is deeply fond of paleontology, yet almost destroyed
> sci.bio.paleontology with incredibly copious insane-appearing
> spam theads.

To show how unbalanced "Dr." Nyikos is, one only needs to read his OP or
any other post of his.

>
> Unfortunately, "Oxyaena" doesn't seem to have sufficiently recovered
> from that behavior and may even be suffering a partial relapse.

Bullshit, I have long since moved on from that behavior, and you're one
to talk, what with you deliberately instigating a fight between posters.

>
>>> In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
>>> doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
>>> the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
>>> the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
>>> later.
>
>> Weird, because I don't recall Usenet bickering between an insane
>> narcissist and someone else
>
> Who is which? Is Martin Harran the "insane narcissist" and jillery
> the "someone else"? That would be the shrewd way to hedge your
> bets between the two of them.

You're the insane narcissist, dipshit.

>
>> as being of the same importance as the
>> Watergate scandal, jackass.
>
> Did the "In this" go over your head, "Thrinaxodon"? The repercussions
> of the two scandals are on utterly different scales, but once
> you factor in the difference in importance between talk.origins
> and the office of President of the United States, the analogy
> seems pretty darn good.

The analogy seems pretty damn bad in my opinion. Talk.origins is an
otherwise obscure newsgroup whose heyday has long since past, and the
office of POTUS is hundreds of orders of magnitude above the posters of
t.o. The analogy is a flawed analogy, if it even counts as an analogy,
and not a showcase into the bizarre workings of your mind.

>
>> If this doesn't seal your fate in a
>> psych-ward, I don't know what does.
>
> Physician, heal thyself!

You need help, Peter.

Not really, it was in the same lines.

>
>
>>>> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>>>> starters.
>>> ******************************************************
>>>
>>> I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
>>> jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
>>> Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
>>> Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
>>> is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
>>> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>>>
>>> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>>> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>>>
>>> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>>> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>> I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.
>
>
> Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents,
> is duly noted, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

So you acknowledge that you need help, Peter?

[Martin Harran]

Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf and, to be
honest, I have no wish for him to drag me into any of his long running
battles with other people.

Peter, I told you before, I have no need or desire for you to take up
arms on my behalf, I am fully capable of and quite happy to fight my
own battles; I really wish you would refrain from trying to drag me
into yours.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:10:52 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I agree. He has on occasion tacitly admitted his problems, which is a
necessary first step. Apparently he never took the necessary second
step, of seeking help.

>> But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
>> bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly
>> aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the
>> outcome of her forgery.
>
>
>Near the end of this long, insane spiel, Peter finally realized he was
>an insane narcissist and went to get help. (If only).
>
>
>>
>> In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
>> and so forth:
>>
>>
>> *************************************************
>>>>> I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>>> you tell about me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>>> universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>>> I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>>> me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>>>
>>> Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>>> you live in a different universe.
>>
>>
>> I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
>> universe.
>
>What, that you're a paranoid freak, or that you're a mental train wreck?

The above are my words, which refer to Harran's perhaps deliberate
mangling of the meaning of my word above his. Typical of rockhead's
strange bedfellows, Harran even now runs away from backing up his
asinine assertions.

>>> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>>> starters.
>> ******************************************************
>>
>> I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
>> jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
>> Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
>> Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
>>
>>
>> I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
>> is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
>> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>>
>> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>>
>> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.

--

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

Your demurral above would have been more credible if you hadn't
previously enabled him by responding to his request for GG URLs. Just
sayin'.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:39:54 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

[...]

>> You as a highly motivated and biased third party are elevating a relatively
>> minor (and in my eyes trivial) dispute between posters on an ongoing thread
>> to full thread status. I took issue with jillery's regressive left thread
>> and I take issue with this. Do you have anything better to do with your
>> time than foment conflict between others on usenet?
>
>^^This. These petty interpersonal feuds just don't matter, and they drag down the entire tenor of discussion on this group (which, let's face it, doesn't need the help). Whether or not the allegations above pan out or are refuted, the only "useful" purpose in participating in the argument to foster the narrative that the other person is somehow less creditable. Trying to discredit people, rather than their ideas, is the essence of ad hominem argument.
>
>And I don't say this just to Peter, but to the several parties here who seem to delight in cultivating this noisesome drama. Listen... none of us is perfect. We all from time to time find ourselves in these petty, meaningless conversations. But for some, it seems to be a modus operandi.

Your words above would have been more credible if you had explicitly
included yourself, and if you hadn't previously posted petty personal
attacks and snark for expressly similar motives you describe above.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:29 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>You as a highly motivated and biased third party are elevating a relatively
>minor (and in my eyes trivial) dispute between posters on an ongoing thread
>to full thread status. I took issue with jillery's regressive left thread
>and I take issue with this. Do you have anything better to do with your
>time than foment conflict between others on usenet?

Typical of rockhead's strange bedfellows, you pretend to walk the
moral high ground even after you willingly jumped into the cesspool
along with everybody else.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised?


>Jillery's forgery


One can only wonder how one commits forgery to one's own words.

>against Martin Harran was like the
>"third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
>to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
>attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
>with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
>dishonest attacks on Martin.

Your arrogant, deceitful insults against me disqualify you from
complaining about my alleged arrogant, deceitful insults. Tu quoque
back atcha, bozo.

>In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
>doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
>the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
>the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
>later.
>
>The analogue of the subpoena was Martin's two word accusation
>"Liar, yet again" in reaction to an earlier stage of the cover-up.
>
>Perhaps hoping to make hay of that word "again," Jillery
>gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
>the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.
>
>But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
>bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly
>aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the
>outcome of her forgery.
>
>In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
>and so forth:

<snip spam>

>I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
>is based in a separate post.

Only in your wet dreams.

>I invite readers to carefully read
>jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>
>(1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>
>(2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>if this were the only thing you had to go on?

Of course, your question is pointless, as the above isn't the only
thing anybody has to go on. Unlike you, most people know how to
follow threads.


>Peter Nyikos


The lack of your "official" sig is your tacit admission that you know
your comments above are irrelevant to this newsgroup, or to anything
anybody said in any topic in this newsgroup. You never learn.

[Oxyaena]

I don't think he has, either. You know, I've seen him steadily get
better, than all the sudden plunge back into his insane narcissist
phase. Is this a cyclical disorder of his? At times, he can be quite
affable (affable insomuch as not being an insane spammer), and at other
times he's, well, this.

>
>
>>> But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
>>> bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly
>>> aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the
>>> outcome of her forgery.
>>
>>
>> Near the end of this long, insane spiel, Peter finally realized he was
>> an insane narcissist and went to get help. (If only).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
>>> and so forth:
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************************************
>>>>>> I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>>>> you tell about me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>>>> universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>>>> I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>>>> me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>>>>
>>>> Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>>>> you live in a different universe.
>>>
>>>
>>> I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
>>> universe.
>>
>> What, that you're a paranoid freak, or that you're a mental train wreck?
>
>
> The above are my words, which refer to Harran's perhaps deliberate
> mangling of the meaning of my word above his. Typical of rockhead's
> strange bedfellows, Harran even now runs away from backing up his
> asinine assertions.

As I said in my reply to Peter in which he conveniently ignored, it's on
him that I misread who the lines came from, since he oh-so loves to post
irrelevant snippets into posts of his.

>
>
>>>> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>>>> starters.
>>> ******************************************************
>>>
>>> I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
>>> jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
>>> Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
>>> Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
>>> is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
>>> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>>>
>>> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>>> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>>>
>>> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>>> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>> I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"If you find yourself in a hole, keep digging it 'till you hit rock
bottom." - Me

"I'd rather betray the world, than have the world betray me." - Cao Cao

"It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance." - Attila

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:14:53 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
> discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf

I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
is just about the worst evil that can exist.

> and, to be
> honest, I have no wish for him to drag me into any of his long running
> battles with other people.

How would you behave if forgeries like jillery's became commonplace here?
Would you simply abandon talk.origins to the forgers, without putting
up a fight against them?

I believe you would: you already abandoned the thread where the forgery
took place:

_____________________repost______________________________________
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:18:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:


[...]

>More to the point, you *still* argue this asinine assertion you
>plucked from your puckered sphincter

I can't be bothered trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who regards foul-mouthed inanities as an acceptable form of debate.
Back in the ignore box where you properly belong - and no apologies
from me for "running away" from such puerile behaviour.

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/w-Il4QqBAAAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Message-ID: <8oo4kc1hl30n6vjd1...@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:38:26 +0100

> Peter, I told you before, I have no need or desire for you to take up
> arms on my behalf, I am fully capable of and quite happy to fight my
> own battles;

People who read the above repost can judge for themselves how
fully capable you are. Not that I care: the issue of forgery
transcends individuals, no matter how highly they think of themselves.

> I really wish you would refrain from trying to drag me
> into yours.

At this point, I think the best thing I could say is something
I said to jillery in reply to item 1) of her 6-item screed
from her 166 line post:

_________________ excerpt____________________________________

> 1) The above quotes do *not* show my lies you allege in them.

The weren't meant to do that, but to show that you lied when
you said you "snipped nothing".

However, what you post near the end does seem to exonerate
you of THAT lie. And note, I did NOT claim that you had
snipped something; I mentioned the alternative that
Martin had committed forgery.

Hard as it is for you to stomach, I care about truth and justice.

Even if Martin hadn't been nasty to me in the past,
I would STILL note that possible loophole. OTOH if Martin
had been as abusive in the past as you are to me, I would
STILL have mentioned the alternative, that you are lying
about having snipped nothing.

_________________end of excerpt_____________________

Is my concern for truth and justice just as hard for you
to stomach as it is for jillery? The above was writtten
when I was still confused by her forgery,
the one documented in the OP. As I said near the end of the
post from which the above excerpt is taken:

In my spare time, I'll see whether your repost --
which was done without even giving a Message-ID --
really tells the whole story.

You made it easy by including urls to the two posts.
This thread was begun on the following morning.

Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip everything]

Sorry, Peter, I have neither interest in nor intention of debating any
of this stuff with you.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:31:34 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>

My impression is rockhead uses "affable" as bait for his spam hook.

Yes, rockhead loves to post irrelevant snippets, and the above
qualifies as one of them. I interpret your comment as referring to
said behavior, and not to the contents of said snippet.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?

>On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:14:53 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
>> discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf
>
>I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
>over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
>talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
>is just about the worst evil that can exist.

You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
committed forgery with Jillery's own words.

[jillery]

Well, at least you said you're sorry. OTOH that and $4 will get him a
latté.

[Peter Nyikos]

I never asked you to be interested. Like I said, the issue
of forgery transcends individuals. Including yourself. And myself.

HLVB

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery shows how she can ask loaded questions to fool readers
who've forgotten what was documented in the OP.

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:04:53 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
> Is anybody surprised?
>
>
> >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:14:53 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
> >> discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf
> >
> >I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
> >over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
> >talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
> >is just about the worst evil that can exist.
>
>
> You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
> committed forgery with Jillery's own words.

One can only wonder why you are pretending the repost of your
own proud display only included your words.

The forgery consisted of a snip and a repaste, the effect of which
was to have a bunch of words by you -- which followed Martin's
"Well, at least.." in Martin's post -- to above Martin's.

Here is your proud display of the results of your forgery:

*************************************************
>>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>you tell about me.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.


I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
universe.


>Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>starters.
******************************************************

I leave it as an exercise for readers to figure out just why the
portion,

>> you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

is now above

>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.

whereas that portion was below it in Martin's post -- without the extra
attribution line, of course.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

You interpreted correctly.

>
>
>>>>>> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>>>>>> starters.
>>>>> ******************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
>>>>> jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
>>>>> Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
>>>>> Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery
>>>>> is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read
>>>>> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>>>>> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>>>>> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>
>>>> I am of the opinion that you are in serious need of help, Peter.
>>>
>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?

>Jillery shows how she can ask loaded questions to fool readers
>who've forgotten what was documented in the OP.

Of course, you documented nothing in your OP. At most, you posted a
promise of future documentation. Based on your past post, your
promise is as valuable as Harran's "sorry".

>On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:04:53 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>>
>> Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:14:53 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
>> >> discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf
>> >
>> >I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
>> >over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
>> >talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
>> >is just about the worst evil that can exist.
>>
>>
>> You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
>> committed forgery with Jillery's own words.
>
>One can only wonder why you are pretending the repost of your
>own proud display only included your words.

Of course, I make no such pretense. That was *your* argument.

>The forgery consisted of a snip and a repaste, the effect of which
>was to have a bunch of words by you -- which followed Martin's
>"Well, at least.." in Martin's post -- to above Martin's.

Since you now claim that my alleged "forgery" applies to Harran's
words, then one can only wonder how you ignore Harran's equivalent
"forgery" of my words.

Since it has been explained and documented in detail, there is no need
for anybody to "figure it out".

And of course, you *still* completely ignore how your spam, which is a
copy of Harran's spam, shows that Harran utterly failed to even try to
back up his lies against me. Papering over their lies and cowardice
is what strange bedfellows do.

[zencycle]

Peter may just have well have posted "ME ME ME PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!!"

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't know whether this was what Martin had in mind, but I've changed
the Subject: line from

Subject: OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up

by removing all reference to his name. However, I reserve the
right to continue replying to various posts that continue
to appear under the original subject line, and under offshoots
like those in which jillery frequently indulges.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
> dishonest attacks on Martin.

The last phrase may be obsolete: Martin has quit trying to defend
himself against jillery's attacks, which may have ceased.

[...]

> Jillery gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
> the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.
>

> But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release [...]

This is that "separate post". I use "at" symbols where jillery used asterisks:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>you tell about me.
>
>
>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>universe,

Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
you live in a different universe.

>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
starters.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Note how Martin's "Well, at least..." is a logical rejoinder to the
FIRST part of jillery's paragraph. Jillery made Martin look (AT BEST)
foolish by having it appear at the END of jillery's original
paragraph instead of BEFORE the place where Martin had it.

As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
came BEFORE:

>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
jillery's challenge,

So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,

Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.

is like a fish out of water.


I again make the invitation that I made earlier:

[Peter Nyikos]

NOTE to people with threaded newsreaders: the 'new thread'

OT: Jillery's Forgery and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up

shows Martin's original text which jillery mangled in producing
the forgery which I documented in the OP. In New Google Groups
it appears in its natural place as a direct follow-up to that OP.

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 10:04:53 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> Peter may just have well have posted "ME ME ME PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!!"

Like Martin himself, you ignore the real topic, the dangerous
precedent set by the forgery and elaborate cover-up. As
I told him, this is a topic that transcends indivduals,

Including yourself. And myself.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/gjiBLoOeAAAJ

Does your screed have any purpose besides showing solidarity
with jillery and Oxyaena?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery continues her elaborate attempts at cover-up, thereby
lessening the need for me to document earlier elaborate
attempts that took place on the thread:

Subject: OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason

and especially on the thread where the forgery and main attempts
at cover-up took place,

Subject: The Creationist minority
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q[176-200]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:24:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
> Is anybody surprised?
>
>
> >Jillery shows how she can ask loaded questions to fool readers
> >who've forgotten what was documented in the OP.
>
>
> Of course, you documented nothing in your OP.

A lie. I documented the results of your forgery, and I thank
you for not snipping my repost below of the documentation.

Also in the OP, I gave plenty of information on how to
access your own proud repost of the results of the forgery:

I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>

Do you now claim that someone forged that entire 166 line post which
I've linked here?

> At most, you posted a
> promise of future documentation. Based on your past post, your
> promise is as valuable as Harran's "sorry".

And thus the elaborate attempts at cover-up continue.

>
> >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:04:53 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued
> >>

> >> >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:14:53 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> >> Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
> >> >> discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf
> >> >
> >> >I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
> >> >over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
> >> >talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
> >> >is just about the worst evil that can exist.
> >>
> >>
> >> You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
> >> committed forgery with Jillery's own words.
> >
> >One can only wonder why you are pretending the repost of your
> >own proud display only included your words.
>
> Of course, I make no such pretense. That was *your* argument.

I never claimed the repost included *only* your words, liar.
It was the net outcome of your forgery.

And I leave it up to the readers, to whom you pay lip service,
to decide whether you made the pretense by saying,

You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
committed forgery with Jillery's own words.

READERS: scroll up a few lines, and you'll see these same words about
which jillery is stonewalling. But be sure to access THIS post for
them. Only jillery knows what jillery will do with the above text
in any reply she makes.

>
> >The forgery consisted of a snip and a repaste, the effect of which
> >was to have a bunch of words by you -- which followed Martin's
> >"Well, at least.." in Martin's post -- to above Martin's.
>
>
> Since you now claim that my alleged "forgery" applies to Harran's
> words,

I made no such claim, liar.

> then one can only wonder how you ignore Harran's equivalent
> "forgery" of my words.

True to your sociopathic nature, you put "alleged" in front of "forgery"
in the first case but not in the second.

And I challenge you to demonstrate the allegedly "equivalent" forgery
by Martin, and to show why the two are equivalent.

Repost the alleged explanation and documentation, liar.

> there is no need
> for anybody to "figure it out".
>
> And of course, you *still* completely ignore how your spam, which is a
> copy of Harran's spam,

Just where did that "copy" take place, obfuscator?

You sure are creative with your elaborate attempts at cover-up,
I'll give you that. Unlike Martin, and probably unlike anyone
else in this newsgroup, I know not to underestimate your cunning.


Part of that cunning is to use creative definitions of clauses
like "try to back up":

> shows that Harran utterly failed to even try to
> back up his lies against me.

He tried to back up what you call "lies," but he finally threw in the towel,
as I documented in direct reply to Martin, right on the sub-thread he began
by replying directly to my OP.

> there is no need
> for anybody to "figure it out".
>
> And of course, you *still* completely ignore how your spam, which is a
> copy of Harran's spam,

Just where did that "copy" take place, obfuscator?

You sure are creative with your elaborate attempts at cover-up,
I'll give you that. Unlike Martin, and probably unlike anyone
else in this newsgroup, I know not to underestimate your cunning.

> Papering over their lies and cowardice
> is what strange bedfellows do.

Your strange bedfellow Oxyaena is certainly doing that on this thread,
papering over your lies AND forgery. Oxyaena is thus an accessory to
your enduring attempts at cover-up.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?

Once again, you apparently failed to notice that your latest spam
topic failed to provide any evidence of your alleged forgery, or of
any alleged cover-up by me. To the contrary, your OP provides plenty
of evidence of a cover-up by Harran and yourself, where both of you
paper over Harran's failure to back up his asinine assertions against
me. That's what strange bedfellows do.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?


>Jillery continues her elaborate attempts at cover-up, thereby
>lessening the need for me to document earlier elaborate
>attempts that took place on the thread:
>
>Subject: OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason
>
>and especially on the thread where the forgery and main attempts
>at cover-up took place,
>
>Subject: The Creationist minority
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q[176-200]
>
>On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:24:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>>
>> Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> >Jillery shows how she can ask loaded questions to fool readers
>> >who've forgotten what was documented in the OP.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you documented nothing in your OP.
>
>A lie.

Nope. All one has to do is read your OP to see it's just an empty
promise.

>I documented the results of your forgery,

Once again, you failed to provide any evidence of your alleged

forgery, or of any alleged cover-up by me. To the contrary, your OP
provides plenty of evidence of a cover-up by Harran and yourself,
where both of you paper over Harran's failure to back up his asinine
assertions against me. That's what strange bedfellows do.

>you for not snipping my repost below of the documentation.

I can't possibly do that, since I see no documentation, but only your
spam of Harran's quotemine, which is repeated multiple times. So in
the interest of making these posts shorter...

>Also in the OP, I gave plenty of information on how to
>access your own proud repost of the results of the forgery:

To be accurate, I previously posted an accurate description of what
actually happened. But thanks for helping to prove my point for me.
You do that so often.

>> >> >I am not speaking on your behalf. I am expressing my concern
>> >> >over what may be a dangerous precedent. In a medium like
>> >> >talk.origins, where the written word is all we have to go on, forgery
>> >> >is just about the worst evil that can exist.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
>> >> committed forgery with Jillery's own words.
>> >
>> >One can only wonder why you are pretending the repost of your
>> >own proud display only included your words.
>>
>> Of course, I make no such pretense. That was *your* argument.
>
>I never claimed the repost included *only* your words, liar.
>It was the net outcome of your forgery.

What is with you and your strange bedfellows that you automatically
escalate everything into a lie.

Your *original* claim was that I did an unmarked snip. And only when
it was obvious that your "evidence" instead showed that you and Harran
were covering up his running away from backing up his pointless
personal attacks against me, did you move the goalpost to this
invented argument about alleged forgery and cover-up.

>And I leave it up to the readers, to whom you pay lip service,
>to decide whether you made the pretense by saying,
>
> You got to be kidding. One can only wonder how you think Jillery
> committed forgery with Jillery's own words.
>
>READERS: scroll up a few lines, and you'll see these same words about
>which jillery is stonewalling. But be sure to access THIS post for
>them. Only jillery knows what jillery will do with the above text
>in any reply she makes.

Assuming there are any other readers, one can only wonder why you make
such a point of the fact that I said the same thing twice. This is
just more of your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

>> >The forgery consisted of a snip and a repaste, the effect of which
>> >was to have a bunch of words by you -- which followed Martin's
>> >"Well, at least.." in Martin's post -- to above Martin's.

Even if true, that wouldn't even begin to qualify a "forgery". And
all of your characterizations are simply made up. There was no
"snip". The rearrangement of text to which you take such umbrage
restored my comments contextual integrity.

>> Since you now claim that my alleged "forgery" applies to Harran's
>> words,
>
>I made no such claim, liar.

That's odd, since you explicitly admitted just a few paragraphs above
that they did. Let me know when you know when you're through arguing
with yourself.

>> then one can only wonder how you ignore Harran's equivalent
>> "forgery" of my words.
>
>True to your sociopathic nature, you put "alleged" in front of "forgery"
>in the first case but not in the second.

Of course, there's nothing sociopathic about using "alleged". OTOH
there's a lot of sociopathy in denying your own explicit allegations,
and in covering up your own lies.

>And I challenge you to demonstrate the allegedly "equivalent" forgery
>by Martin, and to show why the two are equivalent.

Already did, before you even asked. You even cited my post where I
did it. To refresh your convenient lapse in memory:

******************************************************

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>

*******************************************************

Of course, I don't expect you to admit Harran's "forgery" is
equivalent. You're too deep into your manufactured argument to think
coherently.

Once again, I already did before you even asked. This shows again you
have no idea what you're talking about. That makes you the liar here.

Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>> there is no need
>> for anybody to "figure it out".
>>
>> And of course, you *still* completely ignore how your spam, which is a
>> copy of Harran's spam,
>
>Just where did that "copy" take place, obfuscator?

"Obfuscation"???? Do you think that's better or worse than "liar"? Of
course, obfuscating is what your repetitive rants are all about.
That's what strange bedfellows do. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>You sure are creative with your elaborate attempts at cover-up,
>I'll give you that. Unlike Martin, and probably unlike anyone
>else in this newsgroup, I know not to underestimate your cunning.

Of course, you and your strange bedfellow *still* haven't backed up
his pointless personal attacks against me. Odd you never mention
that.

>Part of that cunning is to use creative definitions of clauses
>like "try to back up":

I suppose, if you think "try to back up" means something other than
"try to back up".

>> shows that Harran utterly failed to even try to
>> back up his lies against me.
>
>He tried to back up what you call "lies,"

Of course, you put the lie to that claim every time you post your
alleged "proof" of my alleged forgery and cover-up.

>but he finally threw in the towel,
>as I documented in direct reply to Martin, right on the sub-thread he began
>by replying directly to my OP.

Which only shows that Harran is smarter than you are. Of course,
that's a low bar, but still, one must give credit where one can.

>> there is no need
>> for anybody to "figure it out".
>>
>> And of course, you *still* completely ignore how your spam, which is a
>> copy of Harran's spam,
>
>Just where did that "copy" take place, obfuscator?

You got to be kidding. Every time you post a copy of your alleged
"proof", it is a copy of Harran's spam.

>You sure are creative with your elaborate attempts at cover-up,
>I'll give you that. Unlike Martin, and probably unlike anyone
>else in this newsgroup, I know not to underestimate your cunning.

To paraphrase someone whom you hold in high regard:

******************************************

READERS: scroll up a few lines, and you'll see these same words about

which rockhead is stonewalling. But be sure to access THIS post for
them. Only rockhead knows what rockhead will do with the above text
in any reply it makes.
******************************************

Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>> Papering over their lies and cowardice
>> is what strange bedfellows do.
>
>Your strange bedfellow Oxyaena is certainly doing that on this thread,
>papering over your lies AND forgery. Oxyaena is thus an accessory to
>your enduring attempts at cover-up.

And you *still* haven't proved your allegations of forgery or
cover-up. Will you run away from that too by claiming you don't have
to follow my time-table?

What a maroon.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?

>I don't know whether this was what Martin had in mind, but I've changed
>the Subject: line from
>
>Subject: OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
>
>by removing all reference to his name. However, I reserve the
>right to continue replying to various posts that continue
>to appear under the original subject line, and under offshoots
>like those in which jillery frequently indulges.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
>> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
>> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
>> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
>> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
>> dishonest attacks on Martin.
>
>The last phrase may be obsolete: Martin has quit trying to defend
>himself against jillery's attacks, which may have ceased.

They certainly have ceased, in the sense they never existed. Instead,
I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
spamming of his cowardly lies.

Apparently the world is forever deprived of knowing how Harran thinks
my noting his cowardly lies qualifies as lies.

>[...]
>
>> Jillery gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
>> the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have identified how
I insulted the intelligence of the readers. OTOH I can't insult
Harran's intelligence, since he showed none in these multi-topic
multi-threaded rants, courtesy of you and your strange bedfellow.

Actually, the phrase to which you refer is not a logical rejoinder,
but instead a likely deliberate and twisted evasion of the meaning of
my words. Odd you post no moral revulsion again that.

>Jillery made Martin look (AT BEST)
>foolish by having it appear at the END of jillery's original
>paragraph instead of BEFORE the place where Martin had it.

And once again you ignore Harran's breaking the context of my
paragraph.

And once again you lie that restoring my paragraph altered anything
Harran posted.

And once again you fail to notice that Harran made himself look
foolish by replying with his infantile evasions.

>As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
>came BEFORE:
>
> >you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
> >I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
> >me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
>for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
>jillery's challenge,

Of course, it is easily seen either way.

> So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,
>
> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.
>
>is like a fish out of water.

Since Harran's comments asserted facts not in evidence, they were
nonsensical and irrelevant as soon as he thought of them. That's what
strange bedfellows do.

>I again make the invitation that I made earlier:
>
>> I invite readers to carefully read
>> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>>
>> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>>
>> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>> if this were the only thing you had to go on?

Since you ignored my answer the last time you posted them, I again
point out that your questions are pointless, as the above isn't the

only thing anybody has to go on. Unlike you, most people know how to
follow threads.

So, in summary, you reposted your spam "evidence", and used it to
rationalize your irrational personal attacks against me. Not once
did you justify any of your claims. You posted no evidence of
"forgery" or cover-up, attempted or otherwise.

To the contrary, your spam shows:

1) Harran running away from backing up his lies against me,

2) You copying Harran's quotemines (plural),

3) You spamming your irrelevant and asinine manufactured argument.

That's what strange bedfellows do. You never learn.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:10:59 +0100, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
> >discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf and, to be
> >honest, I have no wish for him to drag me into any of his long running
> >battles with other people.

As I have repeatedly told Martin, the real issue here is the dangerous
precedent set by jillery's forgery and relentless attempts at cover-up
which have, if anything, escalated since I documented the existence of
the forgery.

> >Peter, I told you before, I have no need or desire for you to take up
> >arms on my behalf, I am fully capable of and quite happy to fight my
> >own battles; I really wish you would refrain from trying to drag me
> >into yours.

Martin's "battles" may just be play-acting, and Martin may be resenting
the fact that lies told in talk.origins are real lies, and forgeries
committed on talk.origins are forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

>
> Your demurral above would have been more credible if you hadn't
> previously enabled him by responding to his request for GG URLs. Just
> sayin'.

I believe Martin has amply demonstrated that he wishes he had never
posted those urls which made it much easier [1] for me to track down
the two most relevant posts: Martin's original post,

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>

and your post during whose composition and posting you committed forgery [2]:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/UXMBoqJDBwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <f6fcjc9nqeqsi0s1m...@4ax.com>

[1] Actually, dates and times would have speeded up the process
almost as quickly, and Martin posted these (second and third lines
in the above documentations) along with the urls; he had already
posted the Message-IDs in direct reply to you.

[2] I am using the word "forgery" here in the sense of "the act of
forging a document". Most of the time I have been using it as meaning,
"a part of the document which was altered in the committing of forgery."

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-4, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:39:54 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
> > > "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
> > > to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
> > > attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
> > > with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
> > > dishonest attacks on Martin.
> > >

> > > In this, they resemble the elaborate cover-up that ultimately
> > > doomed the Nixon presidency. There is even an analogue to
> > > the subpoena of the Nixon tapes and Nixon's release of
> > > the tape that precipitated Nixon's resignation a few days
> > > later.
> > >

> > > The analogue of the subpoena was Martin's two word accusation
> > > "Liar, yet again" in reaction to an earlier stage of the cover-up.
> > >

> > > Perhaps hoping to make hay of that word "again," Jillery

> > > gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
> > > the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.
> > >

> > > But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release a
> > > bit of the evidence that the subpoena-analogue was implicitly

> > > aimed towards. It consisted of a repost of the relevant part of the

> > > outcome of her forgery.
> > >
> > > In it, words from Martin come first, then words from jillery,
> > > and so forth:
> > >
> > >
> > > *************************************************
> > >>>> I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
> > >>>> you tell about me.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
> > >>> universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
> > >>> I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
> > >>> me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> > >>
> > >> Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
> > >> you live in a different universe.
> > >
> > >
> > > I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
> > > universe.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
> > >> starters.
> > > ******************************************************
> > >
> > > I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
> > > jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ

> > > Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

> > > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
> > > Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > I will show the relevant part of Martin's post on which this forgery

> > > is based in a separate post. I invite readers to carefully read

> > > jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
> > >
> > > (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
> > > a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
> > >
> > > (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
> > > if this were the only thing you had to go on?
> > >

> > You as a highly motivated and biased third party are elevating a relatively
> > minor (and in my eyes trivial) dispute between posters on an ongoing thread
> > to full thread status. I took issue with jillery's regressive left thread
> > and I take issue with this. Do you have anything better to do with your
> > time than foment conflict between others on usenet?

Don't be fooled by Hemidactylus's "above it all" facade in the one
paragraph you've left in from his post. Take a look at my own reply to
this same post of Hemidactylus to see where he is really coming from.

And on top of everything else, Hemidactylus does not hesitate to
team up with people making petty personal attacks. He is a hypocrite
who is far more "highly biased and motivated" than I am.

> ^^This. These petty interpersonal feuds just don't matter,
> and they drag down the entire tenor of discussion on this
> group (which, let's face it, doesn't need the help).

As I've repeatedly tried to make clear, especially to Martin Harran,
the issue of forgery transcends petty personal feuding.

And you yourself are guilty of an extended "personal feud" with jillery.
You even accused her of "character assassination" at one point, and
you've alluded to that "character assassination" on another thread
just this past Friday.

But did you know that "character assassination" necessarily involves
slander, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionaries? Many Usenet
participants do not know that. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me
to learn that many talk.origins regulars think I am just as guilty
of "character assassination" in documenting jillery's forgery as
she is in having committed the forgery and then viciously attacking
Martin Harran for accusing her of "snipping."

> Whether or not the allegations above pan out or are refuted, the only >"useful" purpose in participating in the argument to foster the
> narrative that the other person is somehow less creditable.

Not in this case. I ask the same question of you that I asked Martin:
if forgery were to become commonplace in talk.origins, would you
try to fight it, or would you just stop posting and thus abandon
the newsgroup to the forgers?

> Trying to discredit people, rather than their ideas, is the essence
> of ad hominem argument.

The trouble is, one sometimes has to fight fire with fire: jillery
has tried to discredit numerous people using the same kind of "character
assassination" that she committed against you. Martin Harran was
only the latest in a long line of such targets.

>
> And I don't say this just to Peter, but to the several parties
> here who seem to delight in cultivating this noisesome drama.
> Listen... none of us is perfect.

Jillery is only one of several unscrupulous people who prey
on the widespread slogan that says people are pretty much
everywhere the same.

Are you trying to create that impression too? The next time
someone dear to you gets burned by a con artist, or has his/her
car damaged by a hit and run driver, I do NOT
recommend that you try that slogan on him or her.

> We all from time to time find ourselves in these petty, meaningless
> conversations.

So far from being meaningless, they are the basis of undeserved
negative reputations.

> But for some, it seems to be a modus operandi.

Fighting back against cyberbullies is a modus operandi that you engaged
in against jillery. Just be glad that she is the only cyberbully who
has targeted you so far.

Are you singling me out for criticism because I am fighting against an
injustice done against someone besides myself? Someone who,
to boot, is (belatedly !) perfectly happy to have that injustice
go unpunished?

Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


[...]

>Martin's "battles" may just be play-acting, and Martin may be resenting
>the fact that lies told in talk.origins are real lies, and forgeries
>committed on talk.origins are forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

I really wish you would stop acting as if you can read my mind. Just
about everything you have written so far about how I think has been
100% wrong.

[...]

>I believe Martin has amply demonstrated that he wishes he had never
>posted those urls which made it much easier [1] for me to track down
>the two most relevant posts: Martin's original post,

Where have I *demonstrated* that?

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery continues her attempts at cover-up, but she is beginning to
slip into empty repartee mode in what you see below, beginning with
her amending the attribution line to me like a guttersnipe.

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
> Is anybody surprised?
>
>
> >I don't know whether this was what Martin had in mind, but I've changed
> >the Subject: line from
> >
> >Subject: OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
> >
> >by removing all reference to his name. However, I reserve the
> >right to continue replying to various posts that continue
> >to appear under the original subject line, and under offshoots
> >like those in which jillery frequently indulges.
>
>
> And how 'bout them Mets.

The first display of empty repartee.

>
> >On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
> >> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
> >> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
> >> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
> >> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
> >> dishonest attacks on Martin.
> >
> >The last phrase may be obsolete: Martin has quit trying to defend
> >himself against jillery's attacks, which may have ceased.
>
>
> They certainly have ceased, in the sense they never existed.

You are here denying that comments like the following were attacks:

Your repetitive, gratuitous lies and dishonest cowardly behavior
disqualify you from complaining about my alleged inanities and puerile
behavior.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/yibaZd2KAAAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:34:59 -0400
Message-ID: <j635kcpblov2sdam6...@4ax.com>

What kind of definition of "attacks" are you using? Are you
saying that something is an "attack" only if it is slanderous?
I'd like to see a reliable dictionary which sanctions that usage.

[Not every dictionary with "Webster" in the title is reliable;
some are only good for propping open doors and windows.]

Some readers would perhaps think that the following qualifies as
an "attack" in the Merriam-Webster or OED sense of the word (YMMV):

You remind me of a Spanish Inquisitor, who complained to an accused
witch, freshly torn by torture, that her blood was staining the floor.
--*ibid*

Perhaps some would think that this second excerpt is an example of
"shedding crocodile tears." Again, YMMV.

> Instead,
> I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
> spamming of his cowardly lies.

I have yet to see anything that I would identify as a lie
by Martin Harrell. And I do believe that you are just as
reluctant to document one of them as Martin is to exonerate
himself of them.

Until you do, your charge of me "spamming his cowardly lies" is
just empty repartee.

> Apparently the world is forever deprived of knowing how Harran thinks
> my noting his cowardly lies qualifies as lies.

Empty repartee [or should I say histrionics?] without giving a
blessed clue as to where that "noting" took place or what
"cowardly lies" you are alleging.

>
> >[...]
> >
> >> Jillery gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
> >> the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to have identified how
> I insulted the intelligence of the readers.

You are insulting theirs right in this post, with your misuse of
the word "attack". You also insulted it in your reply to my OP
on the original subject line, with your claim that I had
"documented nothing": I actually documented the end result
of your act of forgery and documented, complete with url,
Subject: line, Date and time, and Message ID of the post where
you actually reposted it.

The readers to whom you regularly pay lip service could have
quickly found Martin's thorough documentation of the posts
where your forgery had appeared and the post of his which told
a very different story than your forgery did.

As to what you had done earlier, identification will be given
when I have more time. To update an old saying,

The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

[The original has "God" where I put "justice," but you sneer at the
concept of God involved, whereas you do have to pay lip service
to justice while denying it to sundry people, of whom Martin Harran
is just one of many.]

> OTOH I can't insult
> Harran's intelligence, since he showed none in these multi-topic
> multi-threaded rants, courtesy of you and your strange bedfellow.

Martin showed a good bit, but made the mistake of underestimating
your cunning. I haven't made the same mistakes he did, and I defy
you to try and prove otherwise.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow if not today.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> >Martin's "battles" may just be play-acting, and Martin may be resenting
> >the fact that lies told in talk.origins are real lies, and forgeries
> >committed on talk.origins are forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

Believe it or not, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

> I really wish you would stop acting as if you can read my mind. Just
> about everything you have written so far about how I think has been
> 100% wrong.

Like John Harshman, you allege failure to read your mind while not
giving a blessed clue as to what makes you do stupid-looking things,
like running away from jillery's relentless attacks on you and
using the flimsy excuse that she frequently talks like a guttersnipe
[you used different words].

> [...]
>
> >I believe Martin has amply demonstrated that he wishes he had never
> >posted those urls which made it much easier [1] for me to track down
> >the two most relevant posts: Martin's original post,
>
> Where have I *demonstrated* that?

With your persistent complaints to the effect that you wish I would
leave you out of my campaign against the dangerous precedent posed
by jillery's forgery. And your washing your hands of the whole
issue of the forgery jillery committed against you.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Get down off the table, Peter. People are staring.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> And on top of everything else, Hemidactylus does not hesitate to
> team up with people making petty personal attacks. He is a hypocrite
> who is far more "highly biased and motivated" than I am.
>

Am I more biased toward you or jillery? Please explain with copious
reference to posts over an extended time period to prove beyond reasonable
doubt your point. And how motivated am I when this is pretty much all I
care to contribute to this passé nonsense anymore. Yawn.

Bored.

[jillery]

That's why he's up there, silly. Rockhead is nothing if not an
exhibitionist.

[jillery]

Your complaints above would have been more credible if you had gone
out of your way to say how you have no interest in discussing anything
with him.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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


Is anybody surprised?

At least Harran figured out your argument is asinine. Why can't you?

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Rockhead had an entire weekend to recover from his orgy of spew last
week, but on his return Monday the very first post to T.O. is the
following nonsense:

>On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:10:59 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to this
>> >discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf and, to be
>> >honest, I have no wish for him to drag me into any of his long running
>> >battles with other people.
>
>As I have repeatedly told Martin, the real issue here is the dangerous
>precedent set by jillery's forgery and relentless attempts at cover-up
>which have, if anything, escalated since I documented the existence of
>the forgery.

It shouldn't surprise you that even your strange bedfellows don't
accept you as an authoritative source.

>> >Peter, I told you before, I have no need or desire for you to take up
>> >arms on my behalf, I am fully capable of and quite happy to fight my
>> >own battles; I really wish you would refrain from trying to drag me
>> >into yours.
>
>Martin's "battles" may just be play-acting, and Martin may be resenting
>the fact that lies told in talk.origins are real lies, and forgeries
>committed on talk.origins are forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

Of course, your concept of "forgery" is entirely made up, and so too
your documentation of it, and so too your accusations of same. You
are like Joseph McCarthy, who saw Communists in every closet and under
every bed, and used a standard so broad even his own staff qualified.
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

>> Your demurral above would have been more credible if you hadn't
>> previously enabled him by responding to his request for GG URLs. Just
>> sayin'.
>
>I believe Martin has amply demonstrated that he wishes he had never
>posted those urls which made it much easier [1] for me to track down
>the two most relevant posts: Martin's original post,
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ
>Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
>Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>
>
>and your post during whose composition and posting you committed forgery [2]:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/UXMBoqJDBwAJ
>Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:31:50 -0400
>Message-ID: <f6fcjc9nqeqsi0s1m...@4ax.com>

Don't worry, it's almost certain Harran will come crawling back when
he again gets the itch to go out of his way to remind everybody how he
has no interest in discussing anything with me. I still haven't
figured out why it takes him dozens of posts to do that. Perhaps it's
just me.

>[1] Actually, dates and times would have speeded up the process
>almost as quickly, and Martin posted these (second and third lines
>in the above documentations) along with the urls; he had already
>posted the Message-IDs in direct reply to you.
>
>[2] I am using the word "forgery" here in the sense of "the act of
>forging a document".

Of course, your meaning above applies to everyone who posts Usenet
messages, including you. So you're saying I committed forgery in the
process of committing forgery. That's remarkably incoherent even for
you, and so makes your comments here spew-worthy.

>Most of the time I have been using it as meaning,
>"a part of the document which was altered in the committing of forgery."

BZZT! You have multiple times baldly accused me of committing forgery,
a verb. What you describe above is a noun, which is again remarkably
incoherent, even for you.

One might charitably interpret your comments above to mean you accuse
me of altering documents, which again applies to everyone who replies
to posts on Usenet, including you, (*especially* you) and so makes
your comments here spew-worthy.

Another irony are your Humpty-Dumptyesque unique and multiple
definitions which say nothing about what really qualifies a forgery,
which you would know if you bothered to use a dictionary.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

Yes, I hope everybody looks at your own reply above, as it puts you in
a very bad light, as I have noted previously.

>And on top of everything else, Hemidactylus does not hesitate to
>team up with people making petty personal attacks. He is a hypocrite
>who is far more "highly biased and motivated" than I am.

Don't worry, it's almost certain Hemidactylus will come crawling back

when he again gets the itch to go out of his way to remind everybody

what a terrible person I am.

>> ^^This. These petty interpersonal feuds just don't matter,
>> and they drag down the entire tenor of discussion on this
>> group (which, let's face it, doesn't need the help).
>
>As I've repeatedly tried to make clear, especially to Martin Harran,
>the issue of forgery transcends petty personal feuding.

It shouldn't surprise you that even your strange bedfellows don't
accept you as an authoritative source.

>And you yourself are guilty of an extended "personal feud" with jillery.
>You even accused her of "character assassination" at one point, and
>you've alluded to that "character assassination" on another thread
>just this past Friday.

It shouldn't surprise you that your strange bedfellows ape even this
habit of your, and talk out of both sides of their mouths.

>But did you know that "character assassination" necessarily involves
>slander, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionaries? Many Usenet
>participants do not know that.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>In fact, it wouldn't surprise me
>to learn that many talk.origins regulars think I am just as guilty
>of "character assassination" in documenting jillery's forgery as
>she is in having committed the forgery and then viciously attacking
>Martin Harran for accusing her of "snipping."

It shouldn't surprise you to learn that Jillery posted no forgery, but
apparently it will.

>> Whether or not the allegations above pan out or are refuted, the only >"useful" purpose in participating in the argument to foster the
>> narrative that the other person is somehow less creditable.
>
>Not in this case. I ask the same question of you that I asked Martin:
>if forgery were to become commonplace in talk.origins, would you
>try to fight it, or would you just stop posting and thus abandon
>the newsgroup to the forgers?

Your delusional.. Your claims of "forgery" are asinine.

>> Trying to discredit people, rather than their ideas, is the essence
>> of ad hominem argument.
>
>The trouble is, one sometimes has to fight fire with fire: jillery
>has tried to discredit numerous people using the same kind of "character
>assassination" that she committed against you. Martin Harran was
>only the latest in a long line of such targets.

So it's ok for you to justify your Big Lies against me by saying
"fighting fire with fire, but not for me. That's the kind of
self-serving claim of privilege that is the real danger to T.O., of
posters like you who accuse me of doing things they do themselves, and
then pretend they float on angelic wings above the cesspool they
helped to create.

>> And I don't say this just to Peter, but to the several parties
>> here who seem to delight in cultivating this noisesome drama.
>> Listen... none of us is perfect.
>
>Jillery is only one of several unscrupulous people who prey
>on the widespread slogan that says people are pretty much
>everywhere the same.

Your lack of scruples disqualify you from complaining about my alleged
lack of scruples. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>Are you trying to create that impression too? The next time
>someone dear to you gets burned by a con artist, or has his/her
>car damaged by a hit and run driver, I do NOT
>recommend that you try that slogan on him or her.

This is just more of your repetitive irrelevant spew from your

puckered sphincter, all of which you post to paper over your lies and
Harran's lies and cowardice.

>> We all from time to time find ourselves in these petty, meaningless
>> conversations.
>
>So far from being meaningless, they are the basis of undeserved
>negative reputations.

Point of order: your reputation is entirely deserved.

>> But for some, it seems to be a modus operandi.
>
>Fighting back against cyberbullies is a modus operandi that you engaged
>in against jillery. Just be glad that she is the only cyberbully who
>has targeted you so far.

*YOU* are the alpha cyberbully here. Dillon aped your behavior by
accusing me without basis or relevance, which he continues to do. I
remind him again I am prepared to document this on his request.

>Are you singling me out for criticism because I am fighting against an
>injustice done against someone besides myself? Someone who,
>to boot, is (belatedly !) perfectly happy to have that injustice
>go unpunished?

When you post comic book dialog like the above, it comes out in a high
squeaky voice. Apparently your knickers are bunched way too tight.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Jillery continues her attempts at cover-up, but she is beginning to
>slip into empty repartee mode in what you see below, beginning with
>her amending the attribution line to me like a guttersnipe.

Your cover-ups, empty repartee, and guttersnipes disqualify you from
complaining about my alleged posting of same. Tu quoque back atcha,
bozo.

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>>
>> Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> >I don't know whether this was what Martin had in mind, but I've changed
>> >the Subject: line from
>> >
>> >Subject: OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
>> >
>> >by removing all reference to his name. However, I reserve the
>> >right to continue replying to various posts that continue
>> >to appear under the original subject line, and under offshoots
>> >like those in which jillery frequently indulges.
>>
>>
>> And how 'bout them Mets.
>

>The first display of empty repartee...


...in response to empty repartee.

>> >On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> Jillery's forgery against Martin Harran was like the
>> >> "third-rate burglary" Watergate break-in. It would be easy
>> >> to make light of it, were it not for jillery's elaborate
>> >> attempts at cover-up. These are still going on, replete
>> >> with arrogant, deceitful insults against me and vicious,
>> >> dishonest attacks on Martin.
>> >
>> >The last phrase may be obsolete: Martin has quit trying to defend
>> >himself against jillery's attacks, which may have ceased.
>>
>>
>> They certainly have ceased, in the sense they never existed.
>
>You are here denying that comments like the following were attacks:

Unlike you, I deny nothing I have written, as that's a stupid way to
lie and easy to disprove. Instead, I deny the veracity of your
characterizations. They are part of your Big Lie, which you spew from
your puckered sphincter.

> Your repetitive, gratuitous lies and dishonest cowardly behavior
> disqualify you from complaining about my alleged inanities and puerile
> behavior.
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/yibaZd2KAAAJ
>Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:34:59 -0400
>Message-ID: <j635kcpblov2sdam6...@4ax.com>
>
>What kind of definition of "attacks" are you using?

It's your word, define it yourself. And this time, use a standard
dictionary, instead of plucking a definition from your puckered
sphincter, like you did for "forgery".

>Are you
>saying that something is an "attack" only if it is slanderous?

Nope. On what basis do you gratuitously label the above "attacks"?

>I'd like to see a reliable dictionary which sanctions that usage.
>
>[Not every dictionary with "Webster" in the title is reliable;
>some are only good for propping open doors and windows.]
>
>Some readers would perhaps think that the following qualifies as
>an "attack" in the Merriam-Webster or OED sense of the word (YMMV):
>
> You remind me of a Spanish Inquisitor, who complained to an accused
> witch, freshly torn by torture, that her blood was staining the floor.
> --*ibid*
>
>Perhaps some would think that this second excerpt is an example of
>"shedding crocodile tears." Again, YMMV.

Some readers would recognize that it's a metaphor, designed to counter
the asinine accusations repeatedly made against me. And typical of
cyber bullies, you trivialize my defense while ignoring said
accusations. That's what you do. That's how you turned this froup
into a cesspool.

>> Instead,
>> I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
>> spamming of his cowardly lies.
>
>I have yet to see anything that I would identify as a lie
>by Martin Harrell.

I presume you don't see Harran's lies either. I don't expect you to,
except when you think he's lying about you, of course. Then his lies
are very obvious to you. Is anybody surprised?

>And I do believe that you are just as
>reluctant to document one of them as Martin is to exonerate
>himself of them.

Of course, your "beliefs" almost never have any connection with
reality. As with your lies, I have documented Harran's lies as they
occurred. Perhaps if you hadn't jumped into the middle of the thread,
you might have known that.

>Until you do, your charge of me "spamming his cowardly lies" is
>just empty repartee.

Your empty repartee disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged
empty repartee.

And to paraphrase someone whom you regard so highly, I don't have to
follow your timetable for complying, which you keep a closely guarded
secret.

>> Apparently the world is forever deprived of knowing how Harran thinks
>> my noting his cowardly lies qualifies as lies.
>
>Empty repartee [or should I say histrionics?] without giving a
>blessed clue as to where that "noting" took place or what
>"cowardly lies" you are alleging.

Your empty repartee and histrionics disqualify you from complaining
about your alleged same by me. Apparently you don't like it when the
roles are reversed. Poor baby.

>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> Jillery gambled with a huge cover-up, replete with insults against
>> >> the integrity of Martin and the intelligence of the readers.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have identified how
>> I insulted the intelligence of the readers.
>
>You are insulting theirs right in this post, with your misuse of
>the word "attack".

Nope. Once again, that's your word, for you to defend your use of in
this context.

And now you also get to define "insult" and "misuse" and defend your
use of them here.

Keep digging that hole you find yourself in.

And of course, you *still* haven't identified how I insulted the
intelligence of the readers.

>You also insulted it in your reply to my OP
>on the original subject line, with your claim that I had
>"documented nothing": I actually documented the end result
>of your act of forgery and documented, complete with url,
>Subject: line, Date and time, and Message ID of the post where
>you actually reposted it.

As I noted previously, all that your OP "documented" was your opening
statement, a promise of what you intended to do, a promise you have
yet to keep.

At best, you "documented" your opinion, a claim. As much as you treat
your opinions as facts, they are not. You *still* haven't actually
documented anything that shows what you quoted is a forgery. OTOH
your posts have documented that you have no idea what forgery really
means.

>The readers to whom you regularly pay lip service

That's what you do. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

> could have
>quickly found Martin's thorough documentation of the posts
>where your forgery had appeared and the post of his which told
>a very different story than your forgery did.

You post above the same stupid line of reasoning as Harran did
earlier, that merely pointing to the alleged forgery shows that it's
*in fact* a forgery.

I can only hope that whatever cognitive dissonance you two share isn't
also present in too many legal professionals, else all those near a
dead body would be automatically convicted of murder.

>As to what you had done earlier, identification will be given
>when I have more time. To update an old saying,
>
> The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

You don't have a clue what justice means. You're just a troll with a
big ego and an even bigger mouth, perhaps a consequence of putting
both feet into it.

>[The original has "God" where I put "justice," but you sneer at the
>concept of God involved,

More of your asinine assertions.

>whereas you do have to pay lip service
>to justice while denying it to sundry people, of whom Martin Harran
>is just one of many.]

And more of your Big Lie against me, which you continue to spew from
your puckered sphincter.

>> OTOH I can't insult
>> Harran's intelligence, since he showed none in these multi-topic
>> multi-threaded rants, courtesy of you and your strange bedfellow.
>
>Martin showed a good bit, but made the mistake of underestimating
>your cunning. I haven't made the same mistakes he did, and I defy
>you to try and prove otherwise.

OTOH he did have the intelligence to drop his asinine argument. Of
course, I don't expect you to wake up enough brain cells to do the
same.

>Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow if not today.

That's what you do. You can't help yourself.

[Peter Nyikos]

Evidently you want to be seen as an accessory after the fact
of the forgery that someone [it's immaterial who] committed.

Martin denied being like this, but it's pretty safe to
assume, based on your unscrupulous posting record,
that you really do think that lies told in talk.origins
are NOT real lies, and forgeries committed on talk.origins
are NOT forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

For that matter: your flippant one-liner is, all by itself, pretty
strong evidence for this.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I see now, in hindsight, that I made things more difficult for myself
by not posting the two excerpts in chronological order: first the
excerpt from Martin Harran that was altered by jillery to create
the forgery, and then the forged excerpt itself.

So now I begin with the excerpt from Martin's post:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>you tell about me.
>
>
>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>universe,

Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
you live in a different universe.

>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
starters.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

end of repost from Martin's post


NOTE TO READERS: Observe how Martin's "Well, at least we are getting
somewhere..." is a logical rejoinder to the FIRST part of jillery's
paragraph. However, Martin underestimated jillery's cunning, and thus
neglected to add something like the following:

Unfortunately for you, you've mixed up the universes in what
you wrote next:

>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

Jillery made Martin look at best foolish, and at worst self-incriminating,
by having Martin's "Well, at least..." appear at the END of jillery's
original paragraph instead of BEFORE the place where Martin had it:

*************************************************
>>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>you tell about me.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.


I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
universe.

>Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>starters.
******************************************************

NOTE TO READERS: Observe, too, how Martin's last sentence now looks
like a fish out of water, whereas in the original it was a logical,
direct meeting of jillery's challenge,

So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.

Here is where you can find Martin's post from which the first
excerpt was taken:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>

And here is where you can find the post in which the second excerpt
was taken:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/UXMBoqJDBwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Lines: 246

Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <f6fcjc9nqeqsi0s1m...@4ax.com>

I've included the information on the number of lines to show you
why jillery is so much in love with the word "quotemine":
it is impossible to completely thwart its use without reposting
something so long. It's a real chore to find the incriminating
portion for anyone whose newsreader/netserver does not have a
"Find" option.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Picking up where I left off in yesterday's first reply.

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>

"likely" is your hedging of your bets. Like I said in my new
post, where the excerpts come in chronological order, Martin
underestimated your cunning [1] by neglecting to post something
MORE after that phrase, something like,

Unfortunately for you, you've mixed up the universes in what
you wrote next:

[1] Or overestimating the perspicacity of his readers. Like I
told you on another thread, Martin is deficient in the survival
instincts one needs for a cesspool, replete with political animals,
like talk.origins.

> Odd you post no moral revulsion again that.

All this comment does is to add to the mountain of evidence that
morality is not a part of your mental apparatus. You pay lip
service to that which you do not understand.

>
> >Jillery made Martin look (AT BEST)
> >foolish by having it appear at the END of jillery's original
> >paragraph instead of BEFORE the place where Martin had it.
>
>
> And once again you ignore Harran's breaking the context of my
> paragraph.

I've remedied that purely temporary omission above.

> And once again you lie that restoring my paragraph altered anything
> Harran posted.

It altered YOUR reply to it, you shameless obfuscator,in a way
that made Martin's "Well, at least..." look foolish at best
and self-incriminating at worst.

And so you have slandered me by attributing to me something
I never claimed, and then calling the nonexistent claim a lie.


Continued in next reply, to be done soon after I have seen
that this one has posted.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>

Repeating the crucial excerpt from Martin's post:

> >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >
> >>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
> >>>you tell about me.
> >>
> >>
> >>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
> >>universe,
> >
> >Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
> >you live in a different universe.
> >
> >>you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
> >>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
> >>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> >
> >Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
> >starters.
> >
> >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> And once again you fail to notice that Harran made himself look
> foolish by replying with his infantile evasions.

What evasionS [you used the plural]? And why are they supposed
to be infantile?

>
> >As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
> >came BEFORE:
> >
> > >you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
> > >I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
> > >me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> >
> >And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
> >for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
> >jillery's challenge,
>
>
> Of course, it is easily seen either way.

One way in Martin's original, a different way in your forgery.

Of course, I am using a more relevant meaning of the word "seen"
than "easily visible" -- the one I used in the sentence to which
you are reacting here.

> > So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> >
> >In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,
> >
> > Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.
> >
> >is like a fish out of water.
>
>
> Since Harran's comments asserted facts not in evidence,

What "facts not in evidence"? Your allegations about spamming,
and Martin's original reaction, can be found in the original
post, but NOT in your quote-mine which is reproduced between
two rows of asterisks in several posts, including the OP
of the original thread and the OP of what might be called
the new-for-some-people-with-threaded-newsreaders thread.

Here is where Martin's post can be found:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Lines: 195

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>

Note the number of lines. You browbeat people into not snipping
anything, with your "Thanks for the precedent" juvenile excuse
for snipping everything relevant from your reply, frequently followed
by the oft-false "You never learn."

> they were
> nonsensical and irrelevant as soon as he thought of them. That's what
> strange bedfellows do.

Look who's making claims about things that are not only not
in evidence, but about things that are impossible to find
simply because the description is so blatantly fragmentary.

TO BE CONCLUDED

[But only tomorrow; I've got some urgent things to attend to today.]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Picking up where I left off in yesterday's first reply.

Why bother? You just repeat the same kind of irrelevant spew that you
posted before. That's what you do.

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
>> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> >> But near the end of this spiel, jillery did release [...]
>> >> a repost of the relevant part of the outcome of her forgery.

Since you have shown that you consider the meaning of "forgery" to be
irrelevant to this topic, all comments which refer to same are also
irrelevant, and so snip-worthy. You never learn.

>> Actually, the phrase to which you refer is not a logical rejoinder,
>> but instead a likely deliberate and twisted evasion of the meaning of
>> my words.
>
>"likely" is your hedging of your bets.

Even if your comment above is correct, you still tacitly accept the
substance of my comment, that Harran's comments are a twisted evasion
of the meaning of my words. You must love proving me right, you do it
so often.

>Like I said in my new
>post, where the excerpts come in chronological order, Martin
>underestimated your cunning [1] by neglecting to post something
>MORE after that phrase, something like,
>
> Unfortunately for you, you've mixed up the universes in what
> you wrote next:

Something like? Apparently you have conveniently forgotten how to
copy-and-paste.

>> Odd you post no moral revulsion again that.
>
>All this comment does is to add to the mountain of evidence that
>morality is not a part of your mental apparatus. You pay lip
>service to that which you do not understand.

And once again you don't deny the substance of my comment, which by
your own asinine line of reasoning means that you tacitly accept it.

>> >Jillery made Martin look (AT BEST)
>> >foolish by having it appear at the END of jillery's original
>> >paragraph instead of BEFORE the place where Martin had it.
>>
>>
>> And once again you ignore Harran's breaking the context of my
>> paragraph.
>
>I've remedied that purely temporary omission above.

Nope. You merely added more of your irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter to justify your previous irrelevant spew. With
your posts, it's irrelevant spew all the way down.

>> And once again you lie that restoring my paragraph altered anything
>> Harran posted.
>
>It altered YOUR reply to it, you shameless obfuscator,in a way
>that made Martin's "Well, at least..." look foolish at best
>and self-incriminating at worst.

Your shameless obfuscations disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged obfuscations, shameless or otherwise. The above is more of
your Big Lie, where you just repeat the same irrelevant spew over and
over, without even trying to show how what I did to restore the
context which Harran mangled, to which you tacitly admitted, altered
Harran's comments in the way you described.

>And so you have slandered me by attributing to me something
>I never claimed, and then calling the nonexistent claim a lie.

I posted no slander. That's what you do. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>Continued in next reply, to be done soon after I have seen
>that this one has posted.
>
>Peter Nyikos

MOTS

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>I see now, in hindsight, that I made things more difficult for myself
>by not posting the two excerpts in chronological order: first the
>excerpt from Martin Harran that was altered by jillery to create
>the forgery, and then the forged excerpt itself.

Actually, the fact that you're arguing an irrelevant delusion would be
a fatal flaw for anybody else. But since your posts almost never have
anything to do with reality, details like relevance and substance
don't concern you.


<snip remainder of repetitive irrelevant spew>

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
>
>Repeating the crucial excerpt from Martin's post:

<snip repetition for the sake of brevity>

>> And once again you fail to notice that Harran made himself look
>> foolish by replying with his infantile evasions.
>
>What evasionS [you used the plural]? And why are they supposed
>to be infantile?

Idiot questions.

>> >As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
>> >came BEFORE:
>> >
>> > >you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>> > >I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>> > >me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>> >
>> >And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
>> >for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
>> >jillery's challenge,
>>
>>
>> Of course, it is easily seen either way.
>
>One way in Martin's original, a different way in your forgery.

I posted no forgery. The above is more of your Big Lie, where you

just repeat the same irrelevant spew over and over, without even

trying to show how my post qualifies as a forgery.

And even if it were a forgery, whatever you think that means, it
doesn't alter the fact that you *still* haven't explained how whatever
I did altered the spirit or substance of Harran's comment.

>Of course, I am using a more relevant meaning of the word "seen"
>than "easily visible" -- the one I used in the sentence to which
>you are reacting here.

Whatever that means.

>> > So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>> >
>> >In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,
>> >
>> > Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.
>> >
>> >is like a fish out of water.
>>
>>
>> Since Harran's comments asserted facts not in evidence,
>
>What "facts not in evidence"?

You really need to read for comprehension. What part of "your most
recent one" do you not understand?

>Your allegations about spamming,
>and Martin's original reaction, can be found in the original
>post, but NOT in your quote-mine which is reproduced between
>two rows of asterisks in several posts, including the OP
>of the original thread and the OP of what might be called
>the new-for-some-people-with-threaded-newsreaders thread.


>
>Here is where Martin's post can be found:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ
>Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
>Lines: 195
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
>Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>
>
>Note the number of lines. You browbeat people into not snipping
>anything, with your "Thanks for the precedent" juvenile excuse
>for snipping everything relevant from your reply, frequently followed
>by the oft-false "You never learn."

Your browbeating people into not snipping irrelevant text disqualifies
you from complaining about my alleged browbeating. Tu quoque back
atcha, bozo. You never learn.

The comments you complain about missing in my quote you falsely allege
to be a quotemine, refer to comments Harran made against Jerry Coyne,
said comments being irrelevant to my OP and to Coyne's article I
cited, and which Harran posted multiple times.

That is not the point of my quote, but instead to show that Harran had
failed to show that my description of his comments qualified as a lie,
but merely continued to assert it. This is something you do also,
which explains why you remain blind to Harran aping your behavior.

Of course, I explained this to Harran, which you would have known if
you hadn't jumped into the middle of the thread. Your nonsense above
is what comes out of your puckered sphincter when you don't know what
you're talking about.

>> they were
>> nonsensical and irrelevant as soon as he thought of them. That's what
>> strange bedfellows do.
>
>Look who's making claims about things that are not only not
>in evidence, but about things that are impossible to find
>simply because the description is so blatantly fragmentary.

Since you complain about fragmentation, you should review your own
fragmentation of posts, and your ejaculation of irrelevant spew from
your puckered sphincter. You also might want to learn how to use a
real newsreader.


>TO BE CONCLUDED


Promises, promises. It's almost certain you will continue to spam
this newsgroup to your death with references to your many topics and
threads and posts about this irrelevant and asinine delusion of yours.

>[But only tomorrow; I've got some urgent things to attend to today.]

You would have plenty of time to deal with "urgent things" if you
stopped ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.



>Peter Nyikos


MOTS

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

And apparently you think what forgery actually means is also
immaterial.

>Martin denied being like this, but it's pretty safe to
>assume, based on your unscrupulous posting record,
>that you really do think that lies told in talk.origins
>are NOT real lies, and forgeries committed on talk.origins
>are NOT forgeries in the legal sense of the word.

What you call lies and forgeries, are not lies and forgeries by any
accepted meaning of the those words.

>For that matter: your flippant one-liner is, all by itself, pretty
>strong evidence for this.

That doesn't make sense even from you, which is, all by itself, pretty
strong evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>>

[snip]

>>
>> Evidently you want to be seen as an accessory after the fact
>> of the forgery that someone [it's immaterial who] committed.
>
>
> And apparently you think what forgery actually means is also
> immaterial.
>
>
>> Martin denied being like this, but it's pretty safe to
>> assume, based on your unscrupulous posting record,
>> that you really do think that lies told in talk.origins
>> are NOT real lies, and forgeries committed on talk.origins
>> are NOT forgeries in the legal sense of the word.
>
>
> What you call lies and forgeries, are not lies and forgeries by any
> accepted meaning of the those words.
>

You clearly altered Martin's post in your reply to him. The point of
contention I suppose would be if such alteration rises to the level of
false and fraudulent.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgery

[snip]

[Peter Nyikos]

The change in Subject: line by jillery is a good sign that
this thread is in a state like "garbage time" in basketball:
the team that is behind resorts to deliberate personal fouls
in the hope that the players on the other team will mess up
the free throws and give the fouling team a chance to rebound
the ball and score some baskets.

The first personal foul was the new Subject line and the
second is the boringly repetitious garbage that jillery
added to the retribution line to me:

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:39:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised?
>
>
> >I see now, in hindsight, that I made things more difficult for myself
> >by not posting the two excerpts in chronological order: first the
> >excerpt from Martin Harran that was altered by jillery to create
> >the forgery, and then the forged excerpt itself.
>
>
> Actually, the fact that you're arguing an irrelevant delusion would be
> a fatal flaw for anybody else.

You must really feel contempt for most of the readers of this thread,
if you think they are fooled by:

(1) This unsupported claim and

(2) the fact that you snipped the damning evidence while
indulging in more unsupported TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion):

Of course, some people are only following your posts and not mine,
and some (like Burkhard, who has killfiled me but perhaps not you)
MIGHT be fooled, but you can't really tell because the f-word
"forgery" is something these participants are carefully avoiding.

> But since your posts almost never have
> anything to do with reality, details like relevance and substance
> don't concern you.

What's really relevant here is that irrefutable evidence of
an act of forgery is being treated by you with a blatant
snip-n-snark:

>
> <snip remainder of repetitive irrelevant spew>

It is also snip-n-deceive, because you lied yesterday that I made
a promise I have yet to keep, and I kept it even before you told
your lie.

And you are lending credence to my opening words up there by
your cowardice in snipping the improvement on that first
keeping-of-the-promise:

_________________________ repost ________________________________

====================== end of repost ================================

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:09:53 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > And on top of everything else, Hemidactylus does not hesitate to
> > team up with people making petty personal attacks. He is a hypocrite
> > who is far more "highly biased and motivated" than I am.
> >
> Am I more biased toward you or jillery?

Before jillery's recent binge of nasty replies to you, it was no
contest. You even teamed up with jillery to mock an "award" I made
along the lines of "Chez Watt" but more tightly focused on "low IQ
simulation."

Do you have a perennial feud with jillery the way you have with me
and jillery has with me? I've seen no sign of it.

> Please explain with copious
> reference to posts over an extended time period to prove beyond reasonable
> doubt your point. And how motivated am I when this is pretty much all I
> care to contribute to this passé nonsense anymore. Yawn.

You certainly didn't yawn when Mitchell Coffey brought trumped-up
charges of homophobia against me. You egged him on with,

Hold his feet to the fire and make it fucking burn!

I can't locate the url or thread title right now, but
here is the attribution line:

On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:08:21 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>
> Bored.

You certainly weren't bored when you berated John Harshman for
encouraging me to stay in talk.origins by discussing scientific
issues that were RELEVANT to the evolution-creationist issue.

You know, the very issue that talk.origins is MOST associated with.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

As during basketball "garbage time," jillery keeps fouling in hopes
that I will muff my "free throws."

I mentioned the dictionary below, one of the two most
prestigious [the other being the OED]. Google it yourself.

You can even save the trouble by clicking on the url
Hemidactylus gave you for the definition of "forgery."
It's to the selfsame dictionary.

That's far more help than you give me when you lambast me
(sometimes for hundreds of lines) for not looking up things
that take far more time to look up.

> instead of plucking a definition from your puckered
> sphincter, like you did for "forgery".

IMO, your forgery qualifies as a misdemeanor legally, if only
because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

Click on the url Hemidactylus gave you for "forgery". And don't
get stuck into the word "crime." The same dictionary has:

1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government;

and misdemeanors are punishable by the government.

> >Are you
> >saying that something is an "attack" only if it is slanderous?
>
>
> Nope. On what basis do you gratuitously label the above "attacks"?

The part that has specifically to do with verbal attacks goes:

2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words

Again, it's the same dictionary Hemidactylus used.

>
> >I'd like to see a reliable dictionary which sanctions that usage.
> >
> >[Not every dictionary with "Webster" in the title is reliable;
> >some are only good for propping open doors and windows.]
> >
> >Some readers would perhaps think that the following qualifies as
> >an "attack" in the Merriam-Webster or OED sense of the word (YMMV):

In fact, if the following don't qualify as "bitter words," I don't
know what does:

> > You remind me of a Spanish Inquisitor, who complained to an accused
> > witch, freshly torn by torture, that her blood was staining the floor.
> > --*ibid*
> >
> >Perhaps some would think that this second excerpt is an example of
> >"shedding crocodile tears." Again, YMMV.
>
>
> Some readers would recognize that it's a metaphor, designed to counter
> the asinine accusations repeatedly made against me.

Poor baby. How about letting people see the metaphorical
"torture" that Martin the Ogre inflicted on you?

> And typical of
> cyber bullies, you trivialize my defense while ignoring said
> accusations.

"Said accusations" were not in evidence, only the "complaining
to the accused witch."

> That's what you do. That's how you turned this froup
> into a cesspool.

...glass houses... stones.

>
>
> >> Instead,
> >> I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
> >> spamming of his cowardly lies.
> >
> >I have yet to see anything that I would identify as a lie
> >by Martin Harrell.
>
>
> I presume you don't see Harran's lies either.

How about QUOTING one for a change?

> I don't expect you to,
> except when you think he's lying about you, of course. Then his lies
> are very obvious to you.

Misuse of the word "are" noted.

Continued in next reply, after about two or so hours, assuming
this one shows up in the meantime.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I alluded on another thread to jillery's nasty habit of insulting people
in Subject: lines, as she is doing here:

_________________________excerpt_______________________________

One such flamewar generated so many [Subject lines] that the tables
of contents of that newsgroup carried little else but nasty comments
and requests like, "Keegan, take the fucking bet!"

Mindful of that, I refuse to change thread titles that begin
with "yet another rockhead rant" because I don't want to
get into that kind of duel. I just bear with them the way
bears bear with bee stings because the honey they get more
than makes up for them.

Here is an example of that kind of honey, hot off the "presses":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/7l6t7bh9AQAJ
Subject: Re: yet another rockhead rantL Re: OT: Jillery's Forgery and
Elaborate Attempted Cover-up
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <da682520-8eaa-45bc...@googlegroups.com>

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

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued

Picking up where I left off:

> >And I do believe that you are just as
> >reluctant to document one of them as Martin is to exonerate
> >himself of them.
>
>
> Of course, your "beliefs" almost never have any connection with
> reality. As with your lies, I have documented Harran's lies as they
> occurred.

You are implying out of one side of your mouth, figuratively
speaking, that slapping the label "lie" on a statement
is "documenting a lie."

You are thereby indulging in a flagrant double standard.
When you talked about my OP out of the other side of your mouth,
you lied according to the very standards you are using above:

___________________ excerpt ___________________________________

> >Jillery shows how she can ask loaded questions to fool readers
> >who've forgotten what was documented in the OP.
>
>
> Of course, you documented nothing in your OP.

A lie. I documented the results of your forgery, and I thank
you for not snipping my repost below of the documentation.

Also in the OP, I gave plenty of information on how to
access your own proud repost of the results of the forgery:

I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
jillery's 166-line attempted cover-up, asterisks and all:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ

Subject: Re: The Creationist minority

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>

======================= end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1VyTCUQBHVQ/uwu3QorgAAAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Jillery's Forgery Against Martin Harran and Elaborate
Attempted Cover-up
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2009f99c-b2d8-453d...@googlegroups.com>

> Perhaps if you hadn't jumped into the middle of the thread,
> you might have known that.

Oh, I've known about your nonstandard keeganite use of "documented a lie"
for a long time, but it wasn't until you lied according to
THOSE standards on this thread that I saw that it is also hypocritical.

>
> >Until you do, your charge of me "spamming his cowardly lies" is
> >just empty repartee.
>
>
> Your empty repartee disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged
> empty repartee.

The empty repartee you allege of me is nowhere in evidence, and so
you are just indulging in more empty repartee here.

And you still haven't documented any spamming by your
standards for documentation that you used in the excerpt above.

> And to paraphrase someone whom you regard so highly, I don't have to
> follow your timetable for complying, which you keep a closely guarded
> secret.

Oh, I do believe that years will pass before you jump
totally out of character and document not only what you
allege to be a lie by me, but actually SHOW that it is a lie.

In fact, have you EVER tried to clear the high bar that you
set with your words, "You documented nothing in your OP."??


As for Martin: I may have innocently spammed something you
called a lie by Martin, and perhaps I don't have to wait
for years before you SHOW Martin lied, but I am certainly innocent
of spamming [whatever that means in the jillery dictionary]
anything I know to be a lie by Martin.

Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. Sean Dillon
ignorantly thought I am still defending Martin, but
you know better, don't you?

>
> >> Apparently the world is forever deprived of knowing how Harran thinks
> >> my noting his cowardly lies qualifies as lies.
> >
> >Empty repartee [or should I say histrionics?] without giving a
> >blessed clue as to where that "noting" took place or what
> >"cowardly lies" you are alleging.
>
>
> Your empty repartee and histrionics disqualify you from complaining
> about your alleged same by me.

Alleged empty repartee and histrionics by me is nowhere in evidence
in the post to which you are replying.

> Apparently you don't like it when the
> roles are reversed.

GIGO.

> Poor baby.

GIGO redux.

And you still haven't given a blessed clue as to where that
alleged "noting" took place. Will I have to wait until
one of us dies before even a QUOTING of that noting
appears in talk.origins?

TO BE CONTINUED

[but only tomorrow: there are other fish in the sea besides you]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:03:07 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> Evidently you want to be seen as an accessory after the fact
>>> of the forgery that someone [it's immaterial who] committed.
>>
>>
>> And apparently you think what forgery actually means is also
>> immaterial.
>>
>>
>>> Martin denied being like this, but it's pretty safe to
>>> assume, based on your unscrupulous posting record,
>>> that you really do think that lies told in talk.origins
>>> are NOT real lies, and forgeries committed on talk.origins
>>> are NOT forgeries in the legal sense of the word.
>>
>>
>> What you call lies and forgeries, are not lies and forgeries by any
>> accepted meaning of the those words.
>>
>You clearly altered Martin's post in your reply to him.

One more time, I clearly did nothing to Harran's text that Harran
didn't do equivalently to mine. Deal with your cognitive dissonance
about this imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument.

>The point of
>contention I suppose would be if such alteration rises to the level of
>false and fraudulent.
>
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgery

You suppose incorrectly. The actual point of contention is if my
alleged "alterations" are distinctly different from what anybody else
does routinely, and has done since the beginning of Usenet.

An irony here is rockhead is well-known for his obsessive mangling of
posts. One can only wonder why you say nothing about that, and why
you obsess about my alleged "forgery" only now, after your buttbuddy
plucked this imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument from his
puckered sphincter.

But you get a gold star for citing a definition of "forgery", which is
more than your buttbuddy ever did. But you lose points for failing to
explain how you think it applies to my alleged "forgery".

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>The change in Subject: line by jillery is a good sign that
>this thread is in a state like "garbage time" in basketball:
>the team that is behind resorts to deliberate personal fouls
>in the hope that the players on the other team will mess up
>the free throws and give the fouling team a chance to rebound
>the ball and score some baskets.

To be accurate, the change in subject line reflects the nature of you
spamming this newsgroup with this imaginary and irrelevant and
delusional argument of yours.

>The first personal foul was the new Subject line and the
>second is the boringly repetitious garbage that jillery
>added to the retribution line to me:


>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:39:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> >I see now, in hindsight, that I made things more difficult for myself
>> >by not posting the two excerpts in chronological order: first the
>> >excerpt from Martin Harran that was altered by jillery to create
>> >the forgery, and then the forged excerpt itself.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the fact that you're arguing an irrelevant delusion would be
>> a fatal flaw for anybody else.
>
>You must really feel contempt for most of the readers of this thread,
>if you think they are fooled by:

To be accurate, I feel contempt for you and your strange bedfellows
for spamming this newsgroup with this imaginary and irrelevant and
delusional argument of yours.

And if anybody else reads past the subject line, they were forewarned.

>(1) This unsupported claim and

Are you denying said claim? If not, by your own asinine argument, I
have no need to support it.

>(2) the fact that you snipped the damning evidence while
>indulging in more unsupported TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion):

Since you have shown that you consider the meaning of "forgery" to be
irrelevant to this topic, all comments which refer to same are also
irrelevant, and so snip-worthy. You never learn.

>Of course, some people are only following your posts and not mine,
>and some (like Burkhard, who has killfiled me but perhaps not you)
>MIGHT be fooled, but you can't really tell because the f-word
>"forgery" is something these participants are carefully avoiding.
>
>
>> But since your posts almost never have
>> anything to do with reality, details like relevance and substance
>> don't concern you.
>
>What's really relevant here is that irrefutable evidence of
>an act of forgery is being treated by you with a blatant
>snip-n-snark:

To be accurate, what's really relevant here is that you're spamming
this newsgroup with this imaginary and irrelevant and delusional
argument of yours.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>I alluded on another thread to jillery's nasty habit of insulting people

Not people. Just you.

>in Subject: lines, as she is doing here:

Your nasty habit of insulting people disqualifies you from complaining
about my alleged nasty habit. Just read the above Subject to remind
yourself how you open mouth, insert foot, shoot it off.

>On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued
>
>Picking up where I left off:

MOTS

>> >And I do believe that you are just as
>> >reluctant to document one of them as Martin is to exonerate
>> >himself of them.
>>
>>
>> Of course, your "beliefs" almost never have any connection with
>> reality. As with your lies, I have documented Harran's lies as they
>> occurred.
>
>You are implying out of one side of your mouth, figuratively
>speaking, that slapping the label "lie" on a statement
>is "documenting a lie."

Of course, I make no such implication. That's what you do. Tu quoque
back atcha, bozo.

>You are thereby indulging in a flagrant double standard.
>When you talked about my OP out of the other side of your mouth,
>you lied according to the very standards you are using above:

Since you have shown that you consider the meaning of "forgery" to be
irrelevant to this topic, all comments which refer to same are also
irrelevant, and so snip-worthy. You never learn.

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery ducks the first two questions, and the rest of what she writes is
no better, only different.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:44:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised?
>
>
> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >Repeating the crucial excerpt from Martin's post:
>
> <snip repetition for the sake of brevity>
>

For the sake of hiding the context of the crap you post below,
you mean.

>
> >> And once again you fail to notice that Harran made himself look
> >> foolish by replying with his infantile evasions.
> >
> >What evasionS [you used the plural]? And why are they supposed
> >to be infantile?
>
>
> Idiot questions.

Hypocritical evasion(!) by you noted.

>
> >> >As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
> >> >came BEFORE:
> >> >
> >> > >you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
> >> > >I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
> >> > >me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> >> >
> >> >And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
> >> >for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
> >> >jillery's challenge,
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, it is easily seen either way.
> >
> >One way in Martin's original, a different way in your forgery.
>
>
> I posted no forgery.

Now that I have made it plain that I use a standard definition
of forgery -- and you had no good reason for assuming otherwise --
your snip above takes on major significance.

> The above is more of your Big Lie, where you
> just repeat the same irrelevant spew over and over,

You fail to give a credible justification of these labels.
You keep evading the plain evidence, so I have to keep
showing it to you to make my points come across to you.

> without even
> trying to show how my post qualifies as a forgery.

Unlike you, I don't insult the intelligence of my
readers. I assume they can see just how your forgery
fraudulently made Martin look "foolish at best,
and self-incriminating at worst." I am quoting words
I've posted before, words that you are running away
from.

Will you run true to form, and delete the preceding
two sentences, and claim that you are "snipping
repetition for the sake of brevity"?

> And even if it were a forgery, whatever you think that means, it
> doesn't alter the fact that you *still* haven't explained how whatever
> I did altered the spirit or substance of Harran's comment.

Like Ray Martinez, you love to lie when the clear evidence of
your statement *being* a lie is no longer in plain
sight.

And, for the sake of readers [1] I point out that I have
repeated the explanation that you are lying about.

[1] even Burkhard and anyone else who has killfiled me and not
you, PROVIDED you have the minimal backbone not to delete the
preceding eight paragraphs from any reply you make. [Here
I use "paragraphs" as shorthand for "pieces of text that
do not have blank lines in them".]

>
> >Of course, I am using a more relevant meaning of the word "seen"
> >than "easily visible" -- the one I used in the sentence to which
> >you are reacting here.
>
>
> Whatever that means.

Feigning the 'tard does you no more credit than it does Harshman,
who is notorious for this kind of behaviour.

>
> >> > So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
> >> >
> >> >In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,
> >> >
> >> > Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.
> >> >
> >> >is like a fish out of water.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since Harran's comments asserted facts not in evidence,
> >
> >What "facts not in evidence"?
>
>
> You really need to read for comprehension. What part of "your most
> recent one" do you not understand?

Then you lied, because I identified where the "most recent one"
can be found IMMEDIATELY:

>
> >Your allegations about spamming,
> >and Martin's original reaction, can be found in the original
> >post, but NOT in your quote-mine which is reproduced between
> >two rows of asterisks in several posts, including the OP
> >of the original thread and the OP of what might be called
> >the new-for-some-people-with-threaded-newsreaders thread.

<crickets>

And, unlike you who didn't even post a message-ID for the quote-mine
to which I alluded in the paragraph you are ignoring, I posted
AMPLE information on where what I call "Martin's original reaction"
can be found:

>
> >
> >Here is where Martin's post can be found:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/l0T6amwFBwAJ
> >Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
> >Lines: 195
> >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:32:51 +0100
> >Message-ID: <1ibajc9vtajjcm3in...@4ax.com>
> >
> >Note the number of lines. You browbeat people into not snipping
> >anything, with your "Thanks for the precedent" juvenile excuse
> >for snipping everything relevant from your reply, frequently followed
> >by the oft-false "You never learn."
>
>
> Your browbeating people into not snipping irrelevant text

I only browbeat people for snipping highly relevant text,
and my browbeating you at the beginning of this post
can be amply justified if you dare to assert otherwise.

> disqualifies
> you from complaining about my alleged browbeating. Tu quoque back
> atcha, bozo. You never learn.

Pure GIGO, and a Pee Wee Hermanism three times over. A sure
sign that you are behind, and are in the analogue of "garbage
time" in basketball.


Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after
I see that this one has posted.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery has taken to doing the equivalent of what some ancient
warriors did besides doing "Parthian shots": throwing gold
coins in the path of pursuers so that they will pick them
up and lose sight of their quarry.

Her equivalent is to reply to posts, such as her reply to
my reply to the only post Sean Dillon has done so far to
this thread, and to pepper her reply with easily refuted
garbage so as to distract me from dealing with her
more substantive lies and obfuscations.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:44:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued

> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>

> The comments you complain about missing in my quote you falsely allege
> to be a quotemine, refer to comments Harran made against Jerry Coyne,
> said comments being irrelevant to my OP and to Coyne's article I
> cited, and which Harran posted multiple times.

How many "multiple times"? Your "coincidental" omission of such
details suggests you never attempted to justify what Martin
called a lie.

> That is not the point of my quote, but instead to show that Harran had
> failed to show that my description of his comments qualified as a lie,

...and you failed to show that they do not, despite multiple
entreaties by me to do so, and so the two of you are
in stalemate, and Martin is quite happy to leave it that way.

More relevantly, so are you.

> but merely continued to assert it. This is something you do also,
> which explains why you remain blind to Harran aping your behavior.

You attribute to me an influence on Martin that borders on the insane.

> Of course, I explained this to Harran,

Then all you had to do was to repeat the explanation to exonerate
yourself from the charge of a lie.

Did you avoid doing it because you enjoy the feel of power that
comes to you when you realize you've made people waste hours and
hours in refuting things that you refuse to provide evidence for?

> which you would have known if
> you hadn't jumped into the middle of the thread. Your nonsense above
> is what comes out of your puckered sphincter when you don't know what
> you're talking about.

You are just making an ass of yourself in a perfect display of GIGO.

You never really thought I'd let you get away with your flimsy
excuses, did you? Did you think I would be permanently distracted
by your "gold coins" including not just what I wrote in the preamble
but also your latest reply to Hemidactylus?

>
> >> they were
> >> nonsensical and irrelevant as soon as he thought of them. That's what
> >> strange bedfellows do.
> >
> >Look who's making claims about things that are not only not
> >in evidence, but about things that are impossible to find
> >simply because the description is so blatantly fragmentary.

Oops, I slipped into the mathematical "shop talk" usage of "fragmentary"
here. What I meant was: so inadequate as to be meaningless.
>
>
> Since you complain about fragmentation,you should review your own
> fragmentation of posts,

made necessary by your loading of so much spew into even short paragraphs,
as here:

>and your ejaculation of irrelevant spew from
> your puckered sphincter. You also might want to learn how to use a
> real newsreader.

NGG is both a de facto newsreader and a de facto netserver,
and when everything I've seen about newsreaders and netservers
is weighed in the balance, superior to all combinations that
have been explained to me.

>
> >TO BE CONCLUDED
>
>
> Promises, promises.

I was referring to replies to your post immediately upstream
from this one. So you wasted a bunch of keystrokes below.

> It's almost certain you will continue to spam
> this newsgroup to your death with references to your many topics and
> threads and posts about this irrelevant and asinine delusion of yours.
>
>
> >[But only tomorrow; I've got some urgent things to attend to today.]
>
>
> You would have plenty of time to deal with "urgent things" if you

stopped trying to keep forgeries from proliferating in talk.origins
like they proliferated in the abortion newsgroups, ultimately dooming them.

> stopped ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter.

This unintelligible bilge of yours is even worse than Hemidactylus
complaining about how I make his head feel ready to explode, yet never
giving a clue as to what it is I am doing that is responsible. He
might as well claim everybody's posts make his head explode, for all
the clues he has given me.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Now comes the reply to the part of jillery's post that remained
after the first three replies.

Jillery has replied to each of those, but only her reply to the first
needed careful attention, because that was the one where she finally
clarified a bunch of insults which up to then lacked apparent support.

My first reply to that "clarifying" post was over a full day
ago, and it gives the lie to jillery claiming I don't know
what a forgery is, and what "attack" [in the sense of "verbal
attack] is. At the end of my reply, I turned the tables on her
by catching her misusing the simple everyday word "are."

Is it "just a coincidence" that jillery has avoided replying to
that post, and gone on lying that I am "spamming and delusional,"
in more recent posts?

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued

> >I again make the invitation that I made earlier:

> >
> >> I invite readers to carefully read
> >> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
> >>
> >> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
> >> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
> >>
> >> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
> >> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>
>

> Since you ignored my answer the last time you posted them, I again
> point out that your questions are pointless,

Actually, they are so much the opposite of pointless that no
one has dared to try and post answers. That's because any
attempt to soft-pedal the effect of your forgery would have
made them wide open to rebuttal.

Even Sean Dillon only said, from a safe distance (the thread about
same sex marriage) that he didn't think it misrepresented Martin
too badly. But when I cross-examined him, he got out while the
getting was good.

After a "decent interval" of time, I gave my own answers, which you
are also avoiding like the plague, as is your self-appointed toady,
Oxyaema, as is everyone else who has participated on this thread.


> as the above isn't the
> only thing anybody has to go on.

The only missing thing was the proof that you had altered the
placement of Martin's words, in order to create an impression
that was wildly different than the impression any normal
person gets from the original placement of words.

> Unlike you, most people know how to
> follow threads.

Unlike you [1], I make it unnecessary for them to wade through thousands
of lines of text in over a dozen posts to find something that may
not be there in the first place.

My frequent comment to dedicated obscurers of reality like yourself
is, "I don't like hunting through large haystacks for possibly
nonexistent needles." You try to force me to do just that so
often, I don't even bother to say it, and that may be a mistake
that I'm now rectifying.

[1] Your "unlike you" is pure bullshit. PROBABLY unlike you, I have a paying
job that keeps me quite occupied a good part of the day, and a large
family by today's standards that does the same. For all I know (or anyone
else in talk.origins besides you knows?) you could be a spoiled,
filthy rich person who has enough money to live in comfort for the
rest of his/her life.

And if so, you can devote all but an hour of your waking time to posting
the kind of crap that makes you one of the three most voluminously
dishonest and unscrupulous people in talk.origins.




> So, in summary, you reposted your spam "evidence", and used it to
> rationalize your irrational personal attacks against me.

WRONG. I posted incontrovertible evidence, and with that post
that has remained untouched by you or anyone else for over a day,
you are the one rationalizing irrational personal attacks.


> Not once
> did you justify any of your claims.

Back when you posted this, you probably made a mental reservation
like the following:

Peter hasn't posted the definitions of "attack" and "forgery"
yet, and so I can always assume that he isn't using the right
ones, so I'll just assume it now without telling him I am doing it.

If not, just what flimsy justification can you have for your
grossly false allegation that I did not justify my claims,
or the completely false allegation that you made next?

> You posted no evidence of
> "forgery" or cover-up, attempted or otherwise.
>
> To the contrary, your spam shows:
>
> 1) Harran running away from backing up his lies against me,

The excerpts I posted show nothing of the sort, liar.


> 2) You copying Harran's quotemines (plural),

Stop talking about what happened long ago. Beginning with my OP here,
I've been copying YOUR quote mine, which included MORE than what Harran
posted, and the corresponding text frpm Harran's post.

And that is how I've been able to charge you with forgery, and
not just the minor snip-n-deceive that Martin naively posted.


> 3) You spamming your irrelevant and asinine manufactured argument.

> That's what strange bedfellows do.

A multiple lie. That's what YOU and your all too unstrange [to this
cesspool of a newsgroup] fellow character assassins do, along
with other things that make all of you dedicated perpetrators of
injustice.

> You never learn.

Wishful thinking of the worst head-in-the-sand sort. You made a fatal
mistake in posting a long propaganda piece about my interaction
with you and George Kaplan, on a different thread than where that
interaction happened.

It taught me that your frequent juvenile behavior is a front designed to
lull people into carelessness and thus enable you, a seasoned propagandist,
to spring one trap after another on them. Martin fell for it; I haven't
since then, and won't.

HLVB

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Now comes the reply to the part of jillery's post that remained
>after the first three replies.
>
>Jillery has replied to each of those, but only her reply to the first
>needed careful attention, because that was the one where she finally
>clarified a bunch of insults which up to then lacked apparent support.
>
>My first reply to that "clarifying" post was over a full day
>ago, and it gives the lie to jillery claiming I don't know
>what a forgery is, and what "attack" [in the sense of "verbal
>attack] is. At the end of my reply, I turned the tables on her
>by catching her misusing the simple everyday word "are."

Your alleged victories are easily refuted:

You *still* haven't said what you mean by forgery.

You *still* haven't explained how you think forgery applies
distinctively to my post.

*You* were the one who demanded a definition of "attack".

Your table-turning is an infantile grammar flame.

>Is it "just a coincidence" that jillery has avoided replying to
>that post, and gone on lying that I am "spamming and delusional,"
>in more recent posts?

Liar. Of course, you conveniently fail to identify the specific post
to which you refer, which is ironic, since you make such a point of
doing so when it suits you.

But your description sounds familiar, so I know I replied to it in a
timely way. But I'm not going to take the time with your vague
description above to wade through your spew. Prove me wrong.

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued
>
>> >I again make the invitation that I made earlier:
>> >
>> >> I invite readers to carefully read
>> >> jillery's repost and to ask themselves:
>> >>
>> >> (1) What impression would it create in you if this were
>> >> a true reflection of what went on between jillery and Martin?
>> >>
>> >> (2) What kind of an opinion would you tend to form of the two
>> >> if this were the only thing you had to go on?
>>
>>
>> Since you ignored my answer the last time you posted them, I again
>> point out that your questions are pointless,
>
>Actually, they are so much the opposite of pointless that no
>one has dared to try and post answers.

Liar. I replied to your questions here:

**********************************************
<5835kcpec4omrmaf9...@4ax.com>
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:36:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, your question is pointless, as the above isn't the only
thing anybody has to go on. Unlike you, most people know how to
follow threads.
**********************************************

An irony here is *you* never replied to my reply. Tu quoque back
atcha, bozo.

And like your strange bedfellows, you will never do the right thing
and admit your lie. That puts the lie to your feigned concerns for
honesty and integrity.

> That's because any
>attempt to soft-pedal the effect of your forgery would have
>made them wide open to rebuttal.

Since you have shown that you consider the meaning of "forgery" to be

irrelevant to this issue, all comments which refer to same are also

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:10:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Jillery has taken to doing the equivalent of what some ancient
>warriors did besides doing "Parthian shots": throwing gold
>coins in the path of pursuers so that they will pick them
>up and lose sight of their quarry.
>
>Her equivalent is to reply to posts, such as her reply to
>my reply to the only post Sean Dillon has done so far to
>this thread, and to pepper her reply with easily refuted
>garbage so as to distract me from dealing with her
>more substantive lies and obfuscations.

Of course, you haven't refuted a single thing I posted. To the
contrary, you prove me right almost every time you post. Tu quoque
back atcha, bozo.

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:44:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued
>
>> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
>
>> The comments you complain about missing in my quote you falsely allege
>> to be a quotemine, refer to comments Harran made against Jerry Coyne,
>> said comments being irrelevant to my OP and to Coyne's article I
>> cited, and which Harran posted multiple times.
>
>How many "multiple times"?

One can only wonder what relevant question you think depends on a
specific number.

>Your "coincidental" omission of such
>details suggests you never attempted to justify what Martin
>called a lie.

Your convenient omission of giving a reason for posting such details
shows how you yammer on and on about irrelevant details in order to
paper over your evasion of your lies and Harran's evasions.

>> That is not the point of my quote, but instead to show that Harran had
>> failed to show that my description of his comments qualified as a lie,
>
>...and you failed to show that they do not, despite multiple
>entreaties by me to do so, and so the two of you are
>in stalemate, and Martin is quite happy to leave it that way.

You assert a false equivalence. Harran asserted a claim against me.
It's his job to back up his claim. Which he *still* hasn't done.

And your "entreaties" are just part of your spamming this newsgroup
with this imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument.

>More relevantly, so are you.

Wrong on both counts, which is also irrelevant, except that it once
again shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

>> but merely continued to assert it. This is something you do also,
>> which explains why you remain blind to Harran aping your behavior.
>
>You attribute to me an influence on Martin that borders on the insane.

On these threads at least, he does as you do. It's insane of you to
deny it.

>> Of course, I explained this to Harran,
>
>Then all you had to do was to repeat the explanation to exonerate
>yourself from the charge of a lie.

Of course, I did repeat the explanation. You even cited my post where
I explained it to Harran. You are immune to explanation.

>Did you avoid doing it because you enjoy the feel of power that
>comes to you when you realize you've made people waste hours and
>hours in refuting things that you refuse to provide evidence for?

You attribute to me a power I do not have. Unless you and your
strange bedfellows had guns to your heads, you willingly decided to
spam this newsgroup with your imaginary and irrelevant and delusional
argument. In fact, you jumped into the middle of it just so you could
ejaculate your spew from your puckered sphincter.

Take responsibility for your own behavior, if only for the novelty of
the experience.

>> which you would have known if
>> you hadn't jumped into the middle of the thread. Your nonsense above
>> is what comes out of your puckered sphincter when you don't know what
>> you're talking about.
>
>You are just making an ass of yourself in a perfect display of GIGO.

All of your spam to multiple threads and multiple topics in this
newsgroup is GIGO, part of the cesspool hellhole you brought to T.O.

>You never really thought I'd let you get away with your flimsy
>excuses, did you?

Since I posted no excuses, flimsy or otherwise, your question is just
more of your irrelevant repetitive spew from your puckered sphincter.

Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>Did you think I would be permanently distracted
>by your "gold coins" including not just what I wrote in the preamble
>but also your latest reply to Hemidactylus?

Based on your almost continuous posting of your repetitive Big Lies
against me, I think you're immune to reason. HTH but I doubt it.

>> >> they were
>> >> nonsensical and irrelevant as soon as he thought of them. That's what
>> >> strange bedfellows do.
>> >
>> >Look who's making claims about things that are not only not
>> >in evidence, but about things that are impossible to find
>> >simply because the description is so blatantly fragmentary.
>
>Oops, I slipped into the mathematical "shop talk" usage of "fragmentary"
>here. What I meant was: so inadequate as to be meaningless.
>>
>>
>> Since you complain about fragmentation,you should review your own
>> fragmentation of posts,
>
>made necessary by your loading of so much spew into even short paragraphs,
>as here:

Your loaded spew and short paragraphs disqualify you from complaining
about the alleged same from me. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>>and your ejaculation of irrelevant spew from
>> your puckered sphincter. You also might want to learn how to use a
>> real newsreader.
>
>NGG is both a de facto newsreader and a de facto netserver,
>and when everything I've seen about newsreaders and netservers
>is weighed in the balance, superior to all combinations that
>have been explained to me.

You're entitled to your opinion, but try to remember it the next time
you whine about your willful stupidity keeping your from doing what
others do.

>> >TO BE CONCLUDED
>>
>>
>> Promises, promises.
>
>I was referring to replies to your post immediately upstream
>from this one. So you wasted a bunch of keystrokes below.

Your wasted keystrokes disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged wasted keystrokes. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>> It's almost certain you will continue to spam
>> this newsgroup to your death with references to your many topics and
>> threads and posts about this irrelevant and asinine delusion of yours.
>>
>>
>> >[But only tomorrow; I've got some urgent things to attend to today.]
>>
>>
>> You would have plenty of time to deal with "urgent things" if you
>
>stopped trying to keep forgeries from proliferating in talk.origins
>like they proliferated in the abortion newsgroups, ultimately dooming them.

Of course, based on your posts, you have no idea what forgery means or
how it applies to anything I posted.

>> stopped ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
>> sphincter.
>
>This unintelligible bilge of yours is even worse than Hemidactylus
>complaining about how I make his head feel ready to explode, yet never
>giving a clue as to what it is I am doing that is responsible.

Of course I have done so repeatedly. You're immune to "clues"

>He
>might as well claim everybody's posts make his head explode, for all
>the clues he has given me.

And how 'bout them Mets.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Jillery ducks the first two questions, and the rest of what she writes is
>no better, only different.

Of course, Jillery "ducks" nothing, but your two questions show that
you're an "ass".

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:44:53 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:04:55 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
>> >
>> >Repeating the crucial excerpt from Martin's post:
>>
>> <snip repetition for the sake of brevity>
>>
>
>For the sake of hiding the context of the crap you post below,
>you mean.

You and your strange bedfellows have spammed this newsgroup beyond all
reason. There are copies of copies of your alleged context in
multiple threads and topics. There is no way to get away from your
spam.

That you continue to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from
your puckered sphincter puts the lie to your feigned concerns for
keeping posts short.

>> >> And once again you fail to notice that Harran made himself look
>> >> foolish by replying with his infantile evasions.
>> >
>> >What evasionS [you used the plural]? And why are they supposed
>> >to be infantile?
>>
>>
>> Idiot questions.
>
>Hypocritical evasion(!) by you noted.

Unlike you, I don't make infantile arguments about pluralizing words.

>> >> >As you can see, Martin's original placement of "Well, at least..."
>> >> >came BEFORE:
>> >> >
>> >> > >you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>> >> > >I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>> >> > >me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>> >> >
>> >> >And his "Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do
>> >> >for starters." is now easily seen to have been a logical reaction to
>> >> >jillery's challenge,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, it is easily seen either way.
>> >
>> >One way in Martin's original, a different way in your forgery.
>>
>>
>> I posted no forgery.
>
>Now that I have made it plain that I use a standard definition
>of forgery -- and you had no good reason for assuming otherwise --
>your snip above takes on major significance.

Of course, you have made nothing plain. You *still* haven't cited a
standard definition. You *still* haven't explained how you think my
post qualifies as "forgery". The only thing you have done is to
repeat your bald assertion and your quotemines, which in fact show me
to be correct. AOTA are good reasons to conclude that you have no
idea what you're talking about.

>> The above is more of your Big Lie, where you
>> just repeat the same irrelevant spew over and over,
>
>You fail to give a credible justification of these labels.
>You keep evading the plain evidence, so I have to keep
>showing it to you to make my points come across to you.

To the contrary, *you* keep failing to show how your spam is even
evidence, nevermind shows what you allege it to show. This is just
the latest of your Big Lies against me.

>> without even
>> trying to show how my post qualifies as a forgery.
>
>Unlike you, I don't insult the intelligence of my
>readers.

To the contrary, every time you ejaculate your repetitive
irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter, you insult the entire
newsgroup.

>I assume they can see just how your forgery
>fraudulently made Martin look "foolish at best,

I posted no forgery. I did nothing to make Harran look foolish,
fraudulently or otherwise. To the contrary, he did that all by
himself. Just as you make yourself look foolish with your imaginary
and irrelevant and delusional argument you use to spam this newsgroup.

>and self-incriminating at worst." I am quoting words
>I've posted before, words that you are running away
>from.

Liar. You are quotemining words and baldly asserting your claims. And
I document same as they occur.

>Will you run true to form, and delete the preceding
>two sentences, and claim that you are "snipping
>repetition for the sake of brevity"?

Will you?

>> And even if it were a forgery, whatever you think that means, it
>> doesn't alter the fact that you *still* haven't explained how whatever
>> I did altered the spirit or substance of Harran's comment.
>
>Like Ray Martinez, you love to lie when the clear evidence of
>your statement *being* a lie is no longer in plain
>sight.

What was posted is not in dispute, so there never was any need for you
post it multiple times over multiple threads.

Lies are what you do. Your spam is just the latest iteration of your
Big Lies against me. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>And, for the sake of readers [1] I point out that I have
>repeated the explanation that you are lying about.

Yes, you have spammed your Big Lies over multiple posts and multiple
threads and multiple topics.

No, you *still* haven't posted anything that qualifies as an
explanation. My impression is you don't dare, lest doing so makes
your lies obvious even to you.

>[1] even Burkhard and anyone else who has killfiled me and not
>you, PROVIDED you have the minimal backbone not to delete the
>preceding eight paragraphs from any reply you make. [Here
>I use "paragraphs" as shorthand for "pieces of text that
>do not have blank lines in them".]

To the contrary, I make a point of keeping your preceding eight
paragraphs, to document what a blatant liar you are.

>> >Of course, I am using a more relevant meaning of the word "seen"
>> >than "easily visible" -- the one I used in the sentence to which
>> >you are reacting here.
>>
>>
>> Whatever that means.
>
>Feigning the 'tard does you no more credit than it does Harshman,
>who is notorious for this kind of behaviour.

I am not responsible for your incoherent comments. Grow up.

>> >> > So let me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>> >> >
>> >> >In the forged text which jillery proudly reposted, Martin's reaction,
>> >> >
>> >> > Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for starters.
>> >> >
>> >> >is like a fish out of water.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since Harran's comments asserted facts not in evidence,
>> >
>> >What "facts not in evidence"?
>>
>>
>> You really need to read for comprehension. What part of "your most
>> recent one" do you not understand?
>
>Then you lied, because I identified where the "most recent one"
>can be found IMMEDIATELY:

Liar. It can't be found, because nowhere at no time has anybody
showed that what I wrote is a lie. Like you, they merely assert it.
*That's* what you identified, not any facts, not any explanation. Like
Harran, you elevate assertions of your opinions into facts.

>> >Your allegations about spamming,
>> >and Martin's original reaction, can be found in the original
>> >post, but NOT in your quote-mine which is reproduced between
>> >two rows of asterisks in several posts, including the OP
>> >of the original thread and the OP of what might be called
>> >the new-for-some-people-with-threaded-newsreaders thread.
>
><crickets>

I see nothing to chirp about here.

>And, unlike you who didn't even post a message-ID for the quote-mine
>to which I alluded in the paragraph you are ignoring, I posted
>AMPLE information on where what I call "Martin's original reaction"
>can be found:

And how 'bout them Mets. What was actually posted in not in dispute.

And of course, you didn't post any identifying information in your
first post. Apparently you think better late than never. Or in the
case of your explanations, better never at all.

>> Your browbeating people into not snipping irrelevant text
>
>I only browbeat people for snipping highly relevant text,

You wouldn't recognize what was relevant if it bit you on your
puckered sphincter. All of your posts to these multiple threads and
topics are about an imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument
you use to spam this newsgroup.

>and my browbeating you at the beginning of this post
>can be amply justified if you dare to assert otherwise.
>
>> disqualifies
>> you from complaining about my alleged browbeating. Tu quoque back
>> atcha, bozo. You never learn.
>
>Pure GIGO,

All of your spamming posts are GIGO.

>and a Pee Wee Hermanism three times over. A sure
>sign that you are behind, and are in the analogue of "garbage
>time" in basketball.

Your Pee Wee Hermanisms disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged Pee Wee Hermanisms.

>Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after
>I see that this one has posted.
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Two whole days have elapsed since I did this post, and still
jillery has not replied to it.

And no wonder: in it, I took away the last explicit reason jillery
had for claiming that she had not committed forgery -- her
claim that I was using a private definition instead of the
standard one.

I point out where I took it away below, and why this constitutes meeting
the objection.

Here is where I broached the topic of the definition of "forgery".
I deal with it a bit later.

By the way, note how I've ignored all the "gold coins" jillery
strewed in my path above to get to the heart of this issue.
[That's an allusion to an ancient and medieval trick to
distract people in hot pursuit and cause them to lose sight of their quarry.]

> That's far more help than you give me when you lambast me
> (sometimes for hundreds of lines) for not looking up things
> that take far more time to look up.
>
>
> > instead of plucking a definition from your puckered
> > sphincter, like you did for "forgery".
>
> IMO, your forgery qualifies as a misdemeanor legally, if only
> because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

^^^^
Here is where I gave my opinion, in conformity to jillery's
own words to Martin Harran, which you can find in the forged
passage documented in the OP:

Where I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts.

It is my opinion that the *legal* concept of forgery is involved.
There can be no question about it being the moral equivalent to
the legal concept.

This newsgroup, talk.origins, is perhaps the last great forum
in Usenet where just about anything under the sun can be discussed
intelligently -- and often is. Its destruction by frequent use
of "morally felonious forgery" [1] would be an appalling atrocity.

[1] Legally, there is no chance of it being more than a misdemeanor.
Defendants can point to innumerable people in the big outside world
already having abandoned talk.origins as a hopeless mess. I haven't,
and I'm sure most people aren't.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> <...>

> This newsgroup, talk.origins, is perhaps the last great forum
> in Usenet where just about anything under the sun can be discussed
> intelligently -- and often is. Its destruction by frequent use
> of "morally felonious forgery" [1] would be an appalling atrocity.
>
> [1] Legally, there is no chance of it being more than a misdemeanor.
> Defendants can point to innumerable people in the big outside world
> already having abandoned talk.origins as a hopeless mess. I haven't,
> and I'm sure most people aren't.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

TO is, at least in some respects, a hopeless mess. Thank you for your
contribution. But despite that (or perhaps because of that) it's sometimes
pretty amusing in a sick sort of way. Are you acquainted with the legal
concept of 'injured party'? Before you contemplate bringing legal action over
the atrocities you perceive, you should consider it. Your 'case' would likely
be thrown out summarily, but you could make yourself vulnerable to counter
suits.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > <...>
>
> > This newsgroup, talk.origins, is perhaps the last great forum
> > in Usenet where just about anything under the sun can be discussed
> > intelligently -- and often is. Its destruction by frequent use
> > of "morally felonious forgery" [1] would be an appalling atrocity.

> > [1] Legally, there is no chance of it being more than a misdemeanor.
> > Defendants can point to innumerable people in the big outside world
> > already having abandoned talk.origins as a hopeless mess. I haven't,
> > and I'm sure most people aren't.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
> TO is, at least in some respects, a hopeless mess.

You and your role model Harshman and some of your benefactors (including
Camp, Hemidactylus, and Isaak) have helped to make it so.

[For more information, see

But the two biggest culprits AFAIK are Ray Martinez and the cowardly forger.

> Thank you for your
> contribution. But despite that (or perhaps because of that) it's sometimes
> pretty amusing in a sick sort of way.

Sure. But its good points still outweigh the bad. I may have been too
modest in saying "last great forum in Usenet..." It may actually be
the last great forum on the internet with BOTH a great deal of continuity
spanning decades AND a place where people of just about every persuasion
have a chance to make their voices heard on a tremendous variety of
topics, some of them of great importance and even urgency, like global
warming.

> Are you acquainted with the legal
> concept of 'injured party'?

Certainly, and I am also acquainted with the flip side, "The victim
has no recompense."

Both are historical accidents that work to the benefit of perpetrators.
The one you mention is that the authorities will not prosecute anyone
unless there is an injured party filing a formal complaint.

[Murder, and maiming resulting in a permanent coma are two of the few
exceptions I know of to this rule.]

The other is that the injured party has no say-so in any plea-bargaining
that goes on between the authorities and the perpetrator.

> Before you contemplate bringing legal action over
> the atrocities you perceive, you should consider it. Your 'case' would likely
> be thrown out summarily, but you could make yourself vulnerable to counter
> suits.

I would LOVE for jillery to make a counter-suit against me. I am almost
certain not only to be acquitted, but to have a good case for a
counter-counter-suit for "frivolous lawsuit."

Before you commit yourself even more to solidarity with jillery,
I would also remind you that I would name Oxyaena as an
accessory before the fact to the frivolous lawsuit, and
also as an accessory after the fact to a forgery that is
only unpunished because of non-rational [1] legal technicalities.

[1] NOT irrational--we live in a wildly imperfect world where
all kinds of compromises and arbitrary choices are necessary.

A good example: if evidence is illegally seized by the police,
one system might punish the police severely for it, but also use
it as evidence against the perpetrator. Our system took the
other reasonable route of making the evidence inadmissible.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>As during basketball "garbage time," jillery keeps fouling in hopes
>that I will muff my "free throws."

To be accurate, you foul every time you spam this newsgroup with this
imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument of yours.

[...]

>> >What kind of definition of "attacks" are you using?
>>
>>
>> It's your word, define it yourself. And this time, use a standard
>> dictionary,
>
>I mentioned the dictionary below,

To be accurate, you allude to a dictionary, but don't cite one.
Hemidactylus did. I suppose you think he should feel grateful that
you let him carry your water.

>one of the two most
>prestigious [the other being the OED]. Google it yourself.

You're the one who asked for a definition, retardo.

>You can even save the trouble by clicking on the url
>Hemidactylus gave you for the definition of "forgery."
>It's to the selfsame dictionary.

Even if you say you accept that definition, you *still* don't say how
you think said definition applies distinctly to anything I did. Don't
get "buttsore" that I don't wait for you to do so.

>That's far more help than you give me when you lambast me
>(sometimes for hundreds of lines) for not looking up things
>that take far more time to look up.

Even if that were true, it only shows that you don't take
responsibility for your own actions. It's as if you were to stand in
the rain and blame me for you getting wet. Grow up.

>> instead of plucking a definition from your puckered
>> sphincter, like you did for "forgery".
>
>IMO, your forgery qualifies as a misdemeanor legally, if only
>because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

You *still* haven't said how you think what I did qualifies as a
forgery, so your comments above are just more of your self-serving

spew from your puckered sphincter.

>Click on the url Hemidactylus gave you for "forgery". And don't
>get stuck into the word "crime." The same dictionary has:
>
> 1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government;
>
>and misdemeanors are punishable by the government.

So your claim is that what I did is an illegal act. What alternate
universe did you come from?

>> >Are you
>> >saying that something is an "attack" only if it is slanderous?
>>
>>
>> Nope. On what basis do you gratuitously label the above "attacks"?
>
>The part that has specifically to do with verbal attacks goes:
>
> 2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
>
>Again, it's the same dictionary Hemidactylus used.

What makes gratuitous your use of words, is that you don't apply them
equally to yourself. You assail me with unfriendly and bitter words
but make no mention of that. Such behavior puts the lie to your
claims of integrity and honesty.

>> >I'd like to see a reliable dictionary which sanctions that usage.
>> >
>> >[Not every dictionary with "Webster" in the title is reliable;
>> >some are only good for propping open doors and windows.]
>> >
>> >Some readers would perhaps think that the following qualifies as
>> >an "attack" in the Merriam-Webster or OED sense of the word (YMMV):
>
>In fact, if the following don't qualify as "bitter words," I don't
>know what does:
>
>> > You remind me of a Spanish Inquisitor, who complained to an accused
>> > witch, freshly torn by torture, that her blood was staining the floor.
>> > --*ibid*
>> >
>> >Perhaps some would think that this second excerpt is an example of
>> >"shedding crocodile tears." Again, YMMV.
>>
>>
>> Some readers would recognize that it's a metaphor, designed to counter
>> the asinine accusations repeatedly made against me.
>
>Poor baby.

You're projecting again.

>How about letting people see the metaphorical
>"torture" that Martin the Ogre inflicted on you?

How can I stop them? You're obsessed with spamming this newsgroup
with exactly that.

>> And typical of
>> cyber bullies, you trivialize my defense while ignoring said
>> accusations.
>
>"Said accusations" were not in evidence, only the "complaining
>to the accused witch."

You're conveniently blind to your behaviors that your strange
bedfellows ape, except of course, when they turn them back on you.

>> That's what you do. That's how you turned this froup
>> into a cesspool.
>
>...glass houses... stones.

Your comment above is just another one of your Big Lies against me.

>> >> Instead,
>> >> I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
>> >> spamming of his cowardly lies.
>> >
>> >I have yet to see anything that I would identify as a lie
>> >by Martin Harrell.
>>
>>
>> I presume you don't see Harran's lies either.
>
>How about QUOTING one for a change?

I have. You even cited some of the posts where I did. You just
ignored them, just like you ignore your own lies.

>> I don't expect you to,
>> except when you think he's lying about you, of course. Then his lies
>> are very obvious to you.
>
>Misuse of the word "are" noted.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>Continued in next reply, after about two or so hours, assuming
>this one shows up in the meantime.
>
>Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>As during basketball "garbage time," jillery keeps fouling in hopes
>that I will muff my "free throws."

To be accurate, you foul every time you spam this newsgroup with this
imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument of yours.

[...]

>> >What kind of definition of "attacks" are you using?
>>
>>
>> It's your word, define it yourself. And this time, use a standard
>> dictionary,
>
>I mentioned the dictionary below,

To be accurate, you allude to a dictionary, but don't cite one.
Hemidactylus did. I suppose you think he should feel grateful that
you let him carry your water.

>one of the two most
>prestigious [the other being the OED]. Google it yourself.

You're the one who asked for a definition, retardo.

>You can even save the trouble by clicking on the url
>Hemidactylus gave you for the definition of "forgery."
>It's to the selfsame dictionary.

Even if you say you accept that definition, you *still* don't say how
you think said definition applies distinctly to anything I did. Don't
get "buttsore" that I don't wait for you to do so.

>That's far more help than you give me when you lambast me
>(sometimes for hundreds of lines) for not looking up things
>that take far more time to look up.

Even if that were true, it only shows that you don't take
responsibility for your own actions. It's as if you were to stand in

the rain and blame me for you getting wet. Grow up.

>> instead of plucking a definition from your puckered
>> sphincter, like you did for "forgery".
>
>IMO, your forgery qualifies as a misdemeanor legally, if only
>because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

You *still* haven't said how you think what I did qualifies as a
forgery, so your comments above are just more of your self-serving

spew from your puckered sphincter.

>Click on the url Hemidactylus gave you for "forgery". And don't
>get stuck into the word "crime." The same dictionary has:
>
> 1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government;
>
>and misdemeanors are punishable by the government.

So your claim is that what I did is an illegal act. What alternate
universe did you come from?

>> >Are you
>> >saying that something is an "attack" only if it is slanderous?
>>
>>
>> Nope. On what basis do you gratuitously label the above "attacks"?
>
>The part that has specifically to do with verbal attacks goes:
>
> 2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
>
>Again, it's the same dictionary Hemidactylus used.

What makes gratuitous your use of words, is that you don't apply them
equally to yourself. You assail me with unfriendly and bitter words
but make no mention of that. Such behavior puts the lie to your
claims of integrity and honesty.

>> >I'd like to see a reliable dictionary which sanctions that usage.
>> >
>> >[Not every dictionary with "Webster" in the title is reliable;
>> >some are only good for propping open doors and windows.]
>> >
>> >Some readers would perhaps think that the following qualifies as
>> >an "attack" in the Merriam-Webster or OED sense of the word (YMMV):
>
>In fact, if the following don't qualify as "bitter words," I don't
>know what does:
>
>> > You remind me of a Spanish Inquisitor, who complained to an accused
>> > witch, freshly torn by torture, that her blood was staining the floor.
>> > --*ibid*
>> >
>> >Perhaps some would think that this second excerpt is an example of
>> >"shedding crocodile tears." Again, YMMV.
>>
>>
>> Some readers would recognize that it's a metaphor, designed to counter
>> the asinine accusations repeatedly made against me.
>
>Poor baby.

You're projecting again.

>How about letting people see the metaphorical
>"torture" that Martin the Ogre inflicted on you?

How can I stop them? You're obsessed with spamming this newsgroup
with exactly that.

>> And typical of
>> cyber bullies, you trivialize my defense while ignoring said
>> accusations.
>
>"Said accusations" were not in evidence, only the "complaining
>to the accused witch."

You're conveniently blind to your behaviors that your strange
bedfellows ape, except of course, when they turn them back on you.

>> That's what you do. That's how you turned this froup
>> into a cesspool.
>
>...glass houses... stones.

Your comment above is just another one of your Big Lies against me.

>> >> Instead,
>> >> I had merely defended myself against Harran's cowardly lies and your
>> >> spamming of his cowardly lies.
>> >
>> >I have yet to see anything that I would identify as a lie
>> >by Martin Harrell.
>>
>>
>> I presume you don't see Harran's lies either.
>
>How about QUOTING one for a change?

I have. You even cited some of the posts where I did. You just
ignored them, just like you ignore your own lies.

>> I don't expect you to,
>> except when you think he's lying about you, of course. Then his lies
>> are very obvious to you.
>
>Misuse of the word "are" noted.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>Continued in next reply, after about two or so hours, assuming
>this one shows up in the meantime.
>
>Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?

>Two whole days have elapsed since I did this post, and still
>jillery has not replied to it.
>
>And no wonder: in it, I took away the last explicit reason jillery
>had for claiming that she had not committed forgery -- her
>claim that I was using a private definition instead of the
>standard one.

That's not it.

First, you regularly take much longer than two days to reply, where
you claim that you have some urgent situation to take care of, or you
just can't find the time, or you don't have to reply to me whenever I
demand it. In fact, you have contributed to entire threads where you
spammed how you can reply any time you feel like it.

And AOTA are entirely separate from your typical weekend respites from
T.O. This is just another case of "do as I say, not as I do". Which
makes your outraged umbrage above just more of your spew you ejaculate
from your puckered sphincter.

Second, apparently T.O. dropped my reply, just as it apparently
dropped one of your replies. But unlike you, I didn't automatically
accuse anyone of canceling my posts, which is very unlikely in a
moderated newsgroup.

And unlike you, I use a real newsreader, which keeps copies of
everything I post. And once you finally provided enough information
for me to reliably identify what post you were talking about, I was
able to go back and send two new copies of it, one with the original
time and date, and one with the current time and date. That should
more than satisfy your need to spam this newsgroup with this imaginary

and irrelevant and delusional argument of yours.

The above is just another reason why you should stop rationalizing
your willful stupidity and learn to use a real newsreader and a real
newsserver.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > <...>
>>
>> > This newsgroup, talk.origins, is perhaps the last great forum
>> > in Usenet where just about anything under the sun can be discussed
>> > intelligently -- and often is. Its destruction by frequent use
>> > of "morally felonious forgery" [1] would be an appalling atrocity.
>
>> > [1] Legally, there is no chance of it being more than a misdemeanor.
>> > Defendants can point to innumerable people in the big outside world
>> > already having abandoned talk.origins as a hopeless mess. I haven't,
>> > and I'm sure most people aren't.
>> >
>> > Peter Nyikos
>> >
>>
>> TO is, at least in some respects, a hopeless mess.
>
>You and your role model Harshman and some of your benefactors (including
>Camp, Hemidactylus, and Isaak) have helped to make it so.
>
>[For more information, see
>
>But the two biggest culprits AFAIK are Ray Martinez and the cowardly forger.

Since there is no forger here, cowardly or otherwise, your statement
above is just more of your repetitive spew from your puckered
sphincter.

>> Thank you for your
>> contribution. But despite that (or perhaps because of that) it's sometimes
>> pretty amusing in a sick sort of way.
>
>Sure.

Of course, Simpson's thanks above can also be read as sarcasm, that
your contributions are the cause of the hopeless mess, which is
absolutely correct.

You have to be joking. Is that why you have been spamming this

newsgroup with this imaginary and irrelevant and delusional argument

of yours, in order to establish grounds for legal action? What
shyster lawyer(s) have you been talking to? They should be reported
to the Bar.