Okapi and Giraffes

[RonO]

There is a new genome paper that is free to download.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160517/ncomms11519/full/ncomms11519.html

It compares giraffe and Okapi genomes. They are their own closest
living relatives and the last remnants of that lineage.

Even though they look different and have evolved very different
physiologies 19.4% of their proteins have identical protein sequences.
They are around twice as divergent from each other as chimps are from
humans (this means that chimps and humans are more closely related).
The paper does identify proteins that have more than their share of
mutations that separate the two species, and no surprise, but they are
genes involved in things like bone development and cell metabolism.

Science progresses.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Camp]

Looks interesting, though I don't want to stick my neck out.

[RonO]

They both have similar tongues within their cheeks. Check it out.

[Robert Camp]

Sorry Ron. I did read it. Just offering a lame pun.

[jillery]

My impression is Ron responded in kind, and as appropriately.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:33:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

....which fact, given his reply, he clearly recognized.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Paul J Gans]

Thanks Ron. Nothing surprising there, but it does constitute yet
another verification of evolution.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:33:03 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
><rober...@hotmail.com>:

>>On 5/18/16 4:31 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2016 10:32 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/16 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> There is a new genome paper that is free to download.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160517/ncomms11519/full/ncomms11519.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It compares giraffe and Okapi genomes. They are their own closest
>>>>> living relatives and the last remnants of that lineage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though they look different and have evolved very different
>>>>> physiologies 19.4% of their proteins have identical protein sequences.
>>>>> They are around twice as divergent from each other as chimps are from
>>>>> humans (this means that chimps and humans are more closely related). The
>>>>> paper does identify proteins that have more than their share of
>>>>> mutations that separate the two species, and no surprise, but they are
>>>>> genes involved in things like bone development and cell metabolism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science progresses.
>>>>
>>>> Looks interesting, though I don't want to stick my neck out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They both have similar tongues within their cheeks. Check it out.
>>
>>Sorry Ron. I did read it. Just offering a lame pun.

>....which fact, given his reply, he clearly recognized.

It is all Wilkins' fault.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/18/16 12:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:33:03 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/18/16 4:31 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2016 10:32 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/16 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> There is a new genome paper that is free to download.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160517/ncomms11519/full/ncomms11519.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It compares giraffe and Okapi genomes. They are their own closest
>>>>> living relatives and the last remnants of that lineage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though they look different and have evolved very different
>>>>> physiologies 19.4% of their proteins have identical protein sequences.
>>>>> They are around twice as divergent from each other as chimps are from
>>>>> humans (this means that chimps and humans are more closely related). The
>>>>> paper does identify proteins that have more than their share of
>>>>> mutations that separate the two species, and no surprise, but they are
>>>>> genes involved in things like bone development and cell metabolism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science progresses.
>>>>
>>>> Looks interesting, though I don't want to stick my neck out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They both have similar tongues within their cheeks. Check it out.
>>
>> Sorry Ron. I did read it. Just offering a lame pun.
>
> ....which fact, given his reply, he clearly recognized.

He did, and it sailed right over my head.

[jillery]

You're welcome.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 20:05:26 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

Philosophically, you may have a point.

Let's let Howard Hershey decide...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 13:17:36 -0700, the following appeared

The offspring of subtle puns are sometimes easy to miss. ;-)

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:52:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

And, apparently, the replies of those who point them out.

[Paul J Gans]

We are all Howard Hershey. I have it on good authority.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:21:02 +0000 (UTC), the following

Point. OK, I (HH) have decided that you (HH) are correct,
and call on Wilkins (HH) to defend himself!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:21:02 +0000 (UTC), the following

BTW, I'm getting echoes of a '50s Aldiss SF story. "Let's Be
Frank". I even found some Gurgle references. One of them:

http://scifiwriter.blogspot.com/2009/03/classic-short-story-review-be-frank-by.html

[J. J. Lodder]

There is classic SF in 'Search he Sky' by Pohl and Kornbluth.
Not their best in satire, but still...

One of the episodes is on Planet Jones, populated by the Joneses,
who are all as identical as possible.
They are all Jones, even phenotypically identical,
and they are all keeping up.

As you may guess, it has some resemblance with a country
you are so fond of defending,

Jan

[jillery]

Not possible. There are very few Jones in Afghanistan.

[Paul J Gans]

Ah, but Howard Wilkins Hershey has made himself unreachable. This is
a curious philosophical question. Can an absent HwH defend himself?

[Paul J Gans]

Those were the heydays of my reading SF, but I don't think I ever
read that particular Aldiss story. I'll have to look it up.

[Mitchell Coffey]

He can defend himself easily: everyone is Howard Hershey. Or at least
everyone in on the conspiracy. Excuse me, Conspiracy.

Mitchell "Howard Wilkins Hershey" Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 21:36:13 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Yep. I even have a copy, along with quite a few of their
other collaborations.

>As you may guess

<snip garbage>

I guessed what your trailer would be, and I was correct.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 23:56:27 +0000 (UTC), the following

Worth reading, especially with the twist at the end. A bit
dated, of course.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 11:45:10 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

Prezackly.

>Mitchell "Howard Wilkins Hershey" Coffey

You need to restrict that; if you tried to use all the
available designators you'd probably crash the net with a
single post...

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course Bob, of course.
Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
just humanity in general,

Jan

[Walter Bushell]

In article <nhnh1u$ktr$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

I'm Howard Hershey and I approve this message.

--
To terrify children with the image of hell,
to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?
Christopher Hitchens

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Of course Bob, of course.
> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
> just humanity in general,
>
> Jan

But many Americans are humans.

[jillery]

How can I be Howard Hershey too?

[Mark Isaak]

The best defense is a strong absence.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[J. J. Lodder]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Of course Bob, of course.
> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
> > just humanity in general,
> >
> > Jan
>
> But many Americans are humans.

Of course, but some humans are more American than others,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> > Of course Bob, of course.
>> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> > just humanity in general,
>> >
>> > Jan
>>
>> But many Americans are humans.
>
>Of course, but some humans are more American than others,

And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
a political racist.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:33:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

>> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> just humanity in general,

>But many Americans are humans.

No, they are all Evil Incarnate. Hadn't you heard?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:19:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Careful; you're treading uncomfortably close to a charge of
"long toes".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 21:22:31 +0200, the following appeared

Pohl and Kornbluth had the chops to satirize any society,
but especially their own, which they did in multiple novels.

You don't, and as a non-member of that society are simply a
bigot.

HAND

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:21:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:19:37 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>>>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Of course Bob, of course.
>>>> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>>>> > just humanity in general,
>>>> >
>>>> > Jan
>>>>
>>>> But many Americans are humans.
>>>
>>>Of course, but some humans are more American than others,
>>
>>
>>And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
>>yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
>>distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
>>a political racist.
>
>Careful; you're treading uncomfortably close to a charge of
>"long toes".

I don't care about opinions from political racists.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

>> Of course Bob, of course.
>> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> just humanity in general,
>>
>> Jan

>But many Americans are humans.

Watched the election debates?

[Paul J Gans]

So am I.

[Paul J Gans]

That would certainly make one hard to pin down...

[Paul J Gans]

I believe that most of us, with names never presented, were told
that HH was a collective. It is quite possible that you were on
that secret list also.

[rsNorman]

(Back on the road. Sorry for the cell phone formatting.)

A leading expert in the field explained to me that HH is an emergent
property of us autonomous agents living on the edge of chaos. The
chaos part is quite obvious.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 00:02:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I love secret lists. That way I can be part of a group, but I don't
have to admit to it. Almost like being a Baptist.

[Tim Norfolk]

Well, that's why I became one.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 17:16:30 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:21:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:19:37 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>>>>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Of course Bob, of course.
>>>>> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>>>>> > just humanity in general,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jan
>>>>>
>>>>> But many Americans are humans.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, but some humans are more American than others,
>>>
>>>
>>>And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
>>>yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
>>>distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
>>>a political racist.
>>
>>Careful; you're treading uncomfortably close to a charge of
>>"long toes".
>
>
>I don't care about opinions from political racists.

Ummm, just a comment; YMMV:

I wouldn't call him a racist, since I've seen no indication
that he is bigoted against any particular race, and I prefer
to restrict the term to actual racial bigotry; while all
racists are necessarily bigots the reverse isn't true.
"Anti-American bigot" fits him quite well.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 20:09:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by rsNorman <fa...@fakeemail.com>:

If your "leading expert's" nom de post begins with a
lower-case"j", I suspect he doesn't actually know what
"chaos" means as a technical term.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:07 +0000 (UTC), the following

....and I.

[rsNorman]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:33:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Your suspicions are quite true. But both t.o. and my life are
chaotic enough in the old fashioned ordinary language sense.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:30:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

You make a distinction of very little difference. Apparently you have
nothing better to do. Have you tried navel gazing?

[J. J. Lodder]

Said Jillery Jones, an Ueber-American of the purest American race.
Not to mix metaphors, you are even crazier than Bob about it,

Jan

--
"Engage brain before putting keyboard into gear."

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

\begin{BoBandBobetteMode}
I fell over backwards with admiration on seeing this greatest of all
democracies in action.
This is -the- example for all the word to follow.
Americans really live in the best of all possible worlds.
\end{BoBandBobetteMode}
BTW, did you notice that another great democracy among American lines
is being established right now, by Erdogan in Turkey?

OT, for you only: I have often wondered how and why
The Netherlands and the USA evolved so very differently.
Both started as a bourgeois/civilian revolt against
excessive royal authority and taxation.
Jefferson's declaration of independence even reads in part
as a rewrite of the Dutch one of two centuries earlier.
Yet the resulting political systems are very different,
and the Duch seem much more content with their system
than the Americans with theirs,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Perhaps, but they didn't.
It's America and nothing but America with them.

> but especially their own, which they did in multiple novels.
> You don't, and as a non-member of that society are simply a
> bigot.

Not to mince words about it: you are just plain crazy about it.
Forbidding non-Americans to say anything less then flattering
about America on pain of acusations of anti-Americanism
is already crazy, but forbidding non-Americans
from quoting satirical American authors is really over the top,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

The Wilkins obviously is Frank.
He slipped up and gave the game away
when he invented the metric system under his own name,
three centuries ago,

Jan

[Paul J Gans]

I'd give this man an award if the process wasn't so chaotic.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <nhth89$5d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Why, if and I repeat if I watch TV, I prefer to watch shows
that at least try to portray humans.

--
To terrify children with the image of hell,
to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?
Christopher Hitchens

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Of course, the above is just more evidence that not all assholes are
from the USA (as if any more evidence was needed).

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

Let's focus on who's really over the top, shall we? Tell me, Jan, how
does anybody on Usenet forbid anybody from doing anything? Don't be
insulted that I don't wait for your answer.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>> >> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Of course Bob, of course.
>> >> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> >> > just humanity in general,
>> >> >
>> >> > Jan
>> >>
>> >> But many Americans are humans.
>> >
>> >Of course, but some humans are more American than others,
>>
>>
>> And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
>> yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
>> distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
>> a political racist.
>
>Said Jillery Jones, an Ueber-American of the purest American race.
>Not to mix metaphors, you are even crazier than Bob about it,

Then that would make Bob a Jillery-ette, rather than me a Bobette.
Make up your mind.

That I correctly point out the characterizations you make are shared
among all humanity is hardly an example of uber-Americanism. To
qualify for that, I would have to claim things like: anything USA is
the best, and anything non-USA isn't even comparable.

To show how irrational you're being here, what you say I say is in
fact closer to what you do say, that USA is distinctive or unique in
certain characteristics. The only difference between the two is you
focus on negative attributes. And I for one never claimed that my
country singlehandedly saved England and the world from Nazi
oppression.

Your expressed attitude enables jingoistic despots, and is as common
within ISIS as it is among Trump supporters.

>Jan
>
>--
>"Engage brain before putting keyboard into gear."

Wise words. If only you followed them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 15:46:14 -0400, the following appeared

We differ in that assessment. "Racist", which is a far more
emotionally loaded term than "bigot" (I don't recall riots
over claims of bigotry) seems to be bandied about far too
frequently for things which have nothing to do with race,
and I prefer precision (even though it sometimes eludes me).
"Racist" is specific as a subset of "bigot"; Jan is a
different sort of bigot.

> Apparently you have
>nothing better to do. Have you tried navel gazing?

I'm retired, so I take my pleasure where I can get it. And
navel-gazing is out, at least until the lint is cleared.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:10 +0200, the following appeared

Yes, as I noted. What do you suppose "but especially their
own" signified?

>> but especially their own, which they did in multiple novels.
>> You don't, and as a non-member of that society are simply a
>> bigot.
>
>Not to mince words about it: you are just plain crazy about it.
>Forbidding non-Americans to say anything less then flattering
>about America on pain of acusations of anti-Americanism
>is already crazy, but forbidding non-Americans
>from quoting satirical American authors is really over the top,

How about noting that a particular poster *never* mentions
the nationality of any but a single one, and that *always*
negatively? Think that might have something to do with my
assertion?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>>> >> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Of course Bob, of course.
>>> >> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>>> >> > just humanity in general,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Jan
>>> >>
>>> >> But many Americans are humans.
>>> >
>>> >Of course, but some humans are more American than others,
>>>
>>>
>>> And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
>>> yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
>>> distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
>>> a political racist.
>>
>>Said Jillery Jones, an Ueber-American of the purest American race.
>>Not to mix metaphors, you are even crazier than Bob about it,
>
>
>Then that would make Bob a Jillery-ette, rather than me a Bobette.
>Make up your mind.

Can I be a minion?

>That I correctly point out the characterizations you make are shared
>among all humanity is hardly an example of uber-Americanism. To
>qualify for that, I would have to claim things like: anything USA is
>the best, and anything non-USA isn't even comparable.

Jan consistently ignores what is actually posted in his
caricatures. Maybe it's something in the water...

>To show how irrational you're being here, what you say I say is in
>fact closer to what you do say, that USA is distinctive or unique in
>certain characteristics. The only difference between the two is you
>focus on negative attributes. And I for one never claimed that my
>country singlehandedly saved England and the world from Nazi
>oppression.

Nor would anyone rational, but Jan seems to miss that.

>Your expressed attitude enables jingoistic despots, and is as common
>within ISIS as it is among Trump supporters.

>>"Engage brain before putting keyboard into gear."

>Wise words. If only you followed them.

Yep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:10 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course Bob, of course.
>> >> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> >> just humanity in general,
>> >>
>> >> Jan
>>
>> >But many Americans are humans.
>>
>> Watched the election debates?
>
>\begin{BoBandBobetteMode}
>I fell over backwards with admiration on seeing this greatest of all
>democracies in action.
>This is -the- example for all the word to follow.
>Americans really live in the best of all possible worlds.

Nice caricature. Where's you get it? Certainly not from
anything I've posted.

>\end{BoBandBobetteMode}

....as interpreted by Jan...

>BTW, did you notice that another great democracy among American lines
>is being established right now, by Erdogan in Turkey?

What lines are those? Freedom of religion, speech and
assembly? Right to trial?

And BTW, the US is not a democracy, thank Bog; it's a
representative republic. France during the Terror was a
democracy.

>OT, for you only: I have often wondered how and why
>The Netherlands and the USA evolved so very differently.

It's really quite simple; see below. I've pointed out the
basic difference on previous occasions; you must have missed
it.

>Both started as a bourgeois/civilian revolt against
>excessive royal authority and taxation.
>Jefferson's declaration of independence even reads in part
>as a rewrite of the Dutch one of two centuries earlier.
>Yet the resulting political systems are very different,
>and the Duch seem much more content with their system
>than the Americans with theirs,

Since the Dutch are a very homogeneous society and have been
since their democracy was established, especially compared
to the US, that's hardly surprising to me. Is it to you?

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:32:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I assumed that you knew that adjectives can correctly be used to
extend and qualify words beyond their isolated meaning. For example,
the phrase "silent scream" remains correct even though technically
screams aren't silent. Apparently I assumed incorrectly.

More specifically, you started with an alleged technically correct
point above, that "racist" refers to bigotry against races. In reply,
I make the technically correct point there are no technically valid
races among humans. So technically there can be no racists. So any
use of either "race" or "racist" is technically incorrect, and so your
claim of grammatical precision is also technically incorrect.

More to the point, technical precision does not correctly negate the
validity of metaphor. That it's often used to ignore or dismiss or
distract from the actual point made by the metaphor, has it's place,
but IMO that place is not here. You are entitled to your own
opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

>> Apparently you have
>>nothing better to do. Have you tried navel gazing?
>
>I'm retired, so I take my pleasure where I can get it. And
>navel-gazing is out, at least until the lint is cleared.

Since you say you're also ex-Marine, I assumed you know how to clean
your own mess. Apparently I assumed incorrectly yet again.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:40:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>Can I be a minion?

Only if you're Howard Hershey.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <nhth89$5d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course Bob, of course.
>> >> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> >> just humanity in general,
>> >>
>> >> Jan
>>
>> >But many Americans are humans.
>>
>> Watched the election debates?

>Why, if and I repeat if I watch TV, I prefer to watch shows
>that at least try to portray humans.

Then the election is out. Perhaps you can find one of those nature
programs on TV, but I'd not bet on it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 14:45:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Too over-the-top to reply?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 03:41:08 -0400, the following appeared

Nope, simply no point, since it's apparent we see things
differently. As an example, while it's biologically correct
to say that there are no different races, the general
physical characteristics which distinguish a Bantu from an
Inuit or a Northern European are generally referred to as
"race", and prejudices regarding races (from many sides) are
generally known as "racism". To include anti-American
bigotry as racism doesn't follow the general pattern, since
one is a matter of biological inheritance and the other is
basically a matter of choice. Since we'll continue to
disagree about this there's little point in continuing to
discuss it, just as I abandoned previous discussions
regarding the "real" meaning of agnosticism, and for similar
reasons.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 17:00:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The historical use of "race" and its derivatives are a matter of
historical fact, not a matter of opinion.

>As an example, while it's biologically correct
>to say that there are no different races, the general
>physical characteristics which distinguish a Bantu from an
>Inuit or a Northern European are generally referred to as
>"race", and prejudices regarding races (from many sides) are
>generally known as "racism".

There are no physical characteristics of Bantu, either general or
specific, which are not also represented in other groups, to the point
that such characteristics are useless for identifying individuals as
belonging to any particular group, without making the group so small
as to be statistically meaningless. That's exactly the same problem
with JJ's "distinctions" of Americans, and that's exactly why my
choice of epithet is not only semantically correct, but contextually
apt.

>To include anti-American
>bigotry as racism doesn't follow the general pattern, since
>one is a matter of biological inheritance and the other is
>basically a matter of choice.

The point here is not whether "race" refers to physical
characteristics, but whether individuals from an alleged group are
reliably distinguishable by them from individuals in all other groups.
That's why "human races" are no longer considered to be a meaningful
concept. It's not a matter of opinion or choice. It's a matter of
fact.

>Since we'll continue to
>disagree about this there's little point in continuing to
>discuss it, just as I abandoned previous discussions
>regarding the "real" meaning of agnosticism, and for similar
>reasons.

I can't imagine how you equate the two situations. I didn't have
then, and still don't have now, any particular preferred definition of
"agnostic". My point then was only to understand your use of the
word. That you dropped that thread before I understood remains a point
of disappointment.

In this case, I understood your opinion from the beginning. I am
saying that your understanding of the word and its derivatives is
incorrect, and your misunderstanding invalidates your criticism of my
metaphor using it.

More important, the semantic distinction you make, whether valid or
not, remains utterly beside the substance of the original discussion.
Any alleged misuse on my part didn't get in the way of understanding
the point I conveyed. To the contrary, IMO the metaphor made my point
more clear, which IMO is the whole point of using metaphors. For you
to distract from the substance of the thread to dwell on what is at
best a tangential issue is a tactic more commonly seen among the troll
races.

[J. J. Lodder]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <nhth89$5d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > >> Of course Bob, of course.
> > >> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
> > >> just humanity in general,
> > >>
> > >> Jan
> >
> > >But many Americans are humans.
> >
> > Watched the election debates?
>
> Why, if and I repeat if I watch TV, I prefer to watch shows
> that at least try to portray humans.

You don't like reality-TV?

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 14:45:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Too over-the-top to reply?

[J. J. Lodder]

I am flattered that you have taken the trouble
to close-read all my postings for this.
Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 22 May 2016 10:00:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> >> >> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Of course Bob, of course.
> >> >> > Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
> >> >> > just humanity in general,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jan
> >> >>
> >> >> But many Americans are humans.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, but some humans are more American than others,
> >>
> >>
> >> And some 'merkins are more human than others, just like them
> >> yuropeens, and all other human beans, which is the point; you cite
> >> distinctions with no functional difference. To mix metaphors, you are
> >> a political racist.
> >
> >Said Jillery Jones, an Ueber-American of the purest American race.
> >Not to mix metaphors, you are even crazier than Bob about it,
>
>
> Then that would make Bob a Jillery-ette, rather than me a Bobette.
> Make up your mind.

Definitely not, you are too clearly second fiddle to Bob.
Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:48:10 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
> >> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Of course Bob, of course.
> >> >> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
> >> >> just humanity in general,
> >> >>
> >> >> Jan
> >>
> >> >But many Americans are humans.
> >>
> >> Watched the election debates?
> >
> >\begin{BoBandBobetteMode}
> >I fell over backwards with admiration on seeing this greatest of all
> >democracies in action.
> >This is -the- example for all the word to follow.
> >Americans really live in the best of all possible worlds.
>
> Nice caricature. Where's you get it? Certainly not from
> anything I've posted.
>
> >\end{BoBandBobetteMode}
>
> ....as interpreted by Jan...

Of course. It's my mode. Just trying to to spare your poor knees.

> >BTW, did you notice that another great democracy among American lines
> >is being established right now, by Erdogan in Turkey?
>
> What lines are those? Freedom of religion, speech and
> assembly? Right to trial?

Excessive executive power for the president.

> And BTW, the US is not a democracy, thank Bog; it's a
> representative republic. France during the Terror was a
> democracy.

That just your silly caricature.
Let's not discus that here.

> >OT, for you only: I have often wondered how and why
> >The Netherlands and the USA evolved so very differently.
>
> It's really quite simple; see below. I've pointed out the
> basic difference on previous occasions; you must have missed
> it.
>
> >Both started as a bourgeois/civilian revolt against
> >excessive royal authority and taxation.
> >Jefferson's declaration of independence even reads in part
> >as a rewrite of the Dutch one of two centuries earlier.
> >Yet the resulting political systems are very different,
> >and the Duch seem much more content with their system
> >than the Americans with theirs,
>
> Since the Dutch are a very homogeneous society and have been
> since their democracy was established, especially compared
> to the US, that's hardly surprising to me. Is it to you?

Again, your history is very confused.
The Netherlands didn't become a democracy (of a kind) until 1848.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

For perspective, Richard Dawkins is often accused
of being a racist by islamists,
who say that all criticsm of islam by Westerners
is by definition racist.
Jillery is being as crazy as that in this.
American (like islam) is not a race.

> and I prefer precision (even though it sometimes eludes me).
> "Racist" is specific as a subset of "bigot"; Jan is a
> different sort of bigot.

Your attempts at precision are hampered
by your being too vocabulary-challeged.
You have anti-Americanism, and bigoted, and that's about it,

Jan

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:38 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Since you act the 'tard, some might excuse you for posting a strawman,
but I never said that American is a race. That's just another one of
your stupid lies.

And no, "American" has very little in common with "Islam",
grammatically or otherwise. That's just more of your noise.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:40 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say how you think
that's clear. Failing that, you're just blowing smoke out of your
ass.

>Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,

"Leader" isn't relevant here. The fact that Casanova generally posts
after I do is what's relevant, which is strictly a function of
schedule. He regularly posts similar sentiments, about the same
points I do, and surprisingly often uses similar words. I would like
to assume that's because he and I are of similar minds (sorry, Bob).

OTOH there are a number of posters, such as yourself, who use this
similarity to respond differently to Casanova than they do to me, if
at all, despite the similarities, and not because of any differences.

[Paul J Gans]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

>> In article <nhth89$5d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > >In article <1mnmb35.jq5ild7datlsN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
>> > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Of course Bob, of course.
>> > >> Pohl and Kornbluth were not satirising America at all,
>> > >> just humanity in general,
>> > >>
>> > >> Jan
>> >
>> > >But many Americans are humans.
>> >
>> > Watched the election debates?
>>
>> Why, if and I repeat if I watch TV, I prefer to watch shows
>> that at least try to portray humans.

>You don't like reality-TV?

Reality-TV doesn't have humans. It has computer animations acting like
stupid idiots.

[J. J. Lodder]

A REPROOF
Grook in answer to a long explanitory letter

In view of your manner
of spending your days
I hope you may learn,
before ending them,
that the effort you spend
on defending your ways
could be better spent on
amending them.

(Piet Hein)

I've nothing to add,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

It's your noise.
The decent thing for you to do would be to say:
"OK, I am sorry, I made a mistake.
I should not have dragged racism into this discussion."

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

I understands it hurts your ego, but that can't be helped.
You are second fiddle, and trying to be more nasty
doesn't change that.

> >Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,
>
>
> "Leader" isn't relevant here. The fact that Casanova generally posts
> after I do is what's relevant, which is strictly a function of
> schedule. He regularly posts similar sentiments, about the same
> points I do, and surprisingly often uses similar words. I would like
> to assume that's because he and I are of similar minds (sorry, Bob).
>
> OTOH there are a number of posters, such as yourself, who use this
> similarity to respond differently to Casanova than they do to me, if
> at all, despite the similarities, and not because of any differences.

That shouldn't be surprising.
Bob is at least trying to be reasonable even when knee-jerking.
You try to be nasty.
Of course that influences the style of responses.
Apparently not only mine, in your own perception.

Moreover, Bob doesn't suffer from your lastwordism.
He knows when to stop, when all has been said,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:22:36 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

In your wet dreams.

>Grook in answer to a long explanitory letter
>
>In view of your manner
> of spending your days
>I hope you may learn,
> before ending them,
>that the effort you spend
> on defending your ways
>could be better spent on
> amending them.
>
> (Piet Hein)
>
>I've nothing to add,

So I noticed, at least not in this topic.

You're not qualified to speak for Casanova. Your self-righteous tu
quoque above is just another pointless potshot from the trolls' peanut
gallery. Take your army of straw and stuff it where the sun don't
shine.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:22:37 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

The noise here is entirely of your making. Tu quoque back atcha,
bubba.

>The decent thing for you to do would be to say:
>"OK, I am sorry, I made a mistake.
>I should not have dragged racism into this discussion."

Actually, the decent thing here would be for you to remove the stink
of straw spewing from your puckered sphincter.

But since you accuse me of making a mistake, right here would have
been a good place for you to actually specify and document the mistake
you allege. Failing that, you're still just blowing smoke.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:22:37 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

And still you refuse to say how you think that's clear. How long are
you going to stretch out your troll this time?

>> >Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,
>>
>>
>> "Leader" isn't relevant here. The fact that Casanova generally posts
>> after I do is what's relevant, which is strictly a function of
>> schedule. He regularly posts similar sentiments, about the same
>> points I do, and surprisingly often uses similar words. I would like
>> to assume that's because he and I are of similar minds (sorry, Bob).
>>
>> OTOH there are a number of posters, such as yourself, who use this
>> similarity to respond differently to Casanova than they do to me, if
>> at all, despite the similarities, and not because of any differences.
>
>That shouldn't be surprising.
>Bob is at least trying to be reasonable even when knee-jerking.

So you think knee-jerk replies are reasonable. Is anybody surprised?

>You try to be nasty.

There is a nearly perfect correlation between practitioners of
mindreading and trolling. I leave it as an exercise which is the
cause and which is the effect, if either.

>Of course that influences the style of responses.
>Apparently not only mine, in your own perception.

Either the phenomenon is of my own perception and so is illusory, or
it influences the style of responses, and so is necessarily external
to my perceptions. You're just stringing together stupid comments as
they occur to you.

>Moreover, Bob doesn't suffer from your lastwordism.
>He knows when to stop, when all has been said,

Sez the troll exercising lastwordism. Tu quoque back atcha, bubba.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
same whine of denial:

>Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:31:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder):
>
>Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
>same whine of denial:
>
>>Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,

He can't stop now, he's on a troll.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
> same whine of denial:
>
> >Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,

A bit weak, to quote only the conclusion,
while snipping the obvious sarcasm preceding it,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:22:37 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip Ueber-American racist garbage]

> >> >> Then that would make Bob a Jillery-ette, rather than me a Bobette.
> >> >> Make up your mind.
> >> >
> >> >Definitely not, you are too clearly second fiddle to Bob.
> >>
> >>
> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to say how you think
> >> that's clear. Failing that, you're just blowing smoke out of your
> >> ass.
> >
> >I understands it hurts your ego, but that can't be helped.
> >You are second fiddle, and trying to be more nasty
> >doesn't change that.
>
> And still you refuse to say how you think that's clear. How long are
> you going to stretch out your troll this time?

FYI, you missed something.

> >> >Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,
> >>
> >>
> >> "Leader" isn't relevant here. The fact that Casanova generally posts
> >> after I do is what's relevant, which is strictly a function of
> >> schedule. He regularly posts similar sentiments, about the same
> >> points I do, and surprisingly often uses similar words. I would like
> >> to assume that's because he and I are of similar minds (sorry, Bob).
> >>
> >> OTOH there are a number of posters, such as yourself, who use this
> >> similarity to respond differently to Casanova than they do to me, if
> >> at all, despite the similarities, and not because of any differences.
> >
> >That shouldn't be surprising.
> >Bob is at least trying to be reasonable even when knee-jerking.
>
>
> So you think knee-jerk replies are reasonable. Is anybody surprised?

The difference between 'trying to' and 'are' escapes you too?
Not surprised,

Jan

[jillery]

That's gonna leave a mark... not.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:05:47 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:22:37 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip Ueber-American racist garbage]
>
>> >> >> Then that would make Bob a Jillery-ette, rather than me a Bobette.
>> >> >> Make up your mind.
>> >> >
>> >> >Definitely not, you are too clearly second fiddle to Bob.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to say how you think
>> >> that's clear. Failing that, you're just blowing smoke out of your
>> >> ass.
>> >
>> >I understands it hurts your ego, but that can't be helped.
>> >You are second fiddle, and trying to be more nasty
>> >doesn't change that.
>>
>> And still you refuse to say how you think that's clear. How long are
>> you going to stretch out your troll this time?
>
>FYI, you missed something.

Repeating your bald assertions are nothing more than spam.

And STILL you refuse to say how you think that's clear. Is anybody
surprised?

>> >> >Being a more crazy echo doesn't make you a leader,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leader" isn't relevant here. The fact that Casanova generally posts
>> >> after I do is what's relevant, which is strictly a function of
>> >> schedule. He regularly posts similar sentiments, about the same
>> >> points I do, and surprisingly often uses similar words. I would like
>> >> to assume that's because he and I are of similar minds (sorry, Bob).
>> >>
>> >> OTOH there are a number of posters, such as yourself, who use this
>> >> similarity to respond differently to Casanova than they do to me, if
>> >> at all, despite the similarities, and not because of any differences.
>> >
>> >That shouldn't be surprising.
>> >Bob is at least trying to be reasonable even when knee-jerking.
>>
>>
>> So you think knee-jerk replies are reasonable. Is anybody surprised?
>
>The difference between 'trying to' and 'are' escapes you too?
>Not surprised,

The failure to understand that distinction is entirely yours. There's
nothing reasonable about posting one lie after another.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:24:52 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

It didn't even leave a pfennig...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:05:46 +0200, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):

>> Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
>> same whine of denial:

>> >Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,

>A bit weak, to quote only the conclusion,
>while snipping the obvious sarcasm preceding it,

What part of "reduce to" is giving you trouble?

Nevertheless, you are wrong about it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:05:46 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
>
> >> Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
> >> same whine of denial:
>
> >> >Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,
>
> >A bit weak, to quote only the conclusion,
> >while snipping the obvious sarcasm preceding it,
>
> What part of "reduce to" is giving you trouble?
>
> Nevertheless, you are wrong about it.

Have you noticed that the net result of all your cowardly snips
is that no one seeing your posting has any idea
of what I am supposed to be wrong about?

Jan

[jillery]

How would it make any difference if they did?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:31:07 +0200, the following appeared

Have you noticed that I'm not alone in my correct evaluation
of your bigotry?

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:31:07 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:05:46 +0200, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:22:39 +0200, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >> >> Eight posts in this thread today, all of which reduce to the
> >> >> same whine of denial:
> >>
> >> >> >Nevertheless, you are wrong about it,
> >>
> >> >A bit weak, to quote only the conclusion,
> >> >while snipping the obvious sarcasm preceding it,
> >>
> >> What part of "reduce to" is giving you trouble?
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, you are wrong about it.
> >
> >Have you noticed that the net result of all your cowardly snips
> >is that no one seeing your posting has any idea
> >of what I am supposed to be wrong about?
>
> Have you noticed that I'm not alone in my correct evaluation
> of your bigotry?

Of course, there is always Bobette,
(who is even more correct than you)

Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Of course, there is always Bobette,
>(who is even more correct than you)

Of course, there are lots of posters who post lies, but you are not
the worst among them. Following your precedent, I shall refer to you
and the others as rockettes.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, the following appeared in

....whoever your imagination conceives that to be...

>(who is even more correct than you)

....and several others, which fact you ignore.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:19:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>>Of course, there is always Bobette,
>>(who is even more correct than you)
>
>
>Of course, there are lots of posters who post lies, but you are not
>the worst among them. Following your precedent, I shall refer to you
>and the others as rockettes.

Please don't; the Rockettes are competent at what they do.

[jillery]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:41:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:19:04 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, there is always Bobette,
>>>(who is even more correct than you)
>>
>>
>>Of course, there are lots of posters who post lies, but you are not
>>the worst among them. Following your precedent, I shall refer to you
>>and the others as rockettes.
>
>Please don't; the Rockettes are competent at what they do.

Please don't get overly literal again. I don't claim jj et al are
competent chorus dancers. In fact, I have no idea whether they can
dance at all. But they are competent at what they do, which is in
this case to lie and then pretend it has something to do with the
topic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:02:06 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:41:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:19:04 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, there is always Bobette,
>>>>(who is even more correct than you)
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, there are lots of posters who post lies, but you are not
>>>the worst among them. Following your precedent, I shall refer to you
>>>and the others as rockettes.
>>
>>Please don't; the Rockettes are competent at what they do.
>
>
>Please don't get overly literal again. I don't claim jj et al are
>competent chorus dancers. In fact, I have no idea whether they can
>dance at all. But they are competent at what they do, which is in
>this case to lie and then pretend it has something to do with the
>topic.

It was a joke.

[jillery]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:15:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:02:06 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:41:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:19:04 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:59:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>Lodder) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, there is always Bobette,
>>>>>(who is even more correct than you)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course, there are lots of posters who post lies, but you are not
>>>>the worst among them. Following your precedent, I shall refer to you
>>>>and the others as rockettes.
>>>
>>>Please don't; the Rockettes are competent at what they do.
>>
>>
>>Please don't get overly literal again. I don't claim jj et al are
>>competent chorus dancers. In fact, I have no idea whether they can
>>dance at all. But they are competent at what they do, which is in
>>this case to lie and then pretend it has something to do with the
>>topic.
>
>It was a joke.

So was mine.