Why only idiots say that humans are apes because we evolved from apes

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Chimps.

In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
evolved from us.

The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
certainly used tools and may have
potentially made tools.

The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.

So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
suggests to people relationships which are
simply false.

Science is intended to explain the natural
world around us. Language is what we use to
communicate that explanation. Calling modern
humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161177666643

[Martin Harran]

You really should be working on your Nobel acceptance speech rather
than wasting time trying nto teach us simpletons here.

[John Stockwell]

Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.


>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161177666643

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Martin Harran wrote:

> You really should be working on your Nobel acceptance
> speech rather

Pretending that you're not 100% serious with
the above, what precisely do you believe you
refuted, and how?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.

It's a convention, not a fact. Saying "Humans
are apes" is a convention. It's like writing
from left to right, as opposed to right to left.
Neither way is "Right" (if you pardon the pun).
One way of doing it is just as good as the other.
What's important is that we all agree to the
same standard, and that whatever standard we
agree on actually serves us instead of hindering
us.

As I pointed out, and you failed to grasp, calling
humans "Apes" conveys misinformation. It creates
errors. Instead of communicating useful information
about our relationship to "Other Apes," it misleads
people. It causes them to arrive at false conclusions.

Chimps, for instance, began as upright walkers who
almost certainly used tools -- and potentially even
made them. Quite frankly, the ape (the Chimp) evolved
from us, NOT the other way around...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > Chimps.
> >
> > In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
> > evolved from us.

Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
seriously consider the hypothesis that chimps (and maybe even gorillas)
evolved from near ancestors of humans, perhaps various species
of *Australopithecus* or *Ardipithecus*.

This pair of hypotheses is kept alive by the fact that the only
chimp or gorilla fossils we have are no more than a million
years old. [1] The two hominids named above go back to at least
three million years.

So, JTEM's claim is not as satirical as it may seem at first.

[1] Caveat: this information may be out of date;
I last visited this topic about two years ago.

> > The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
> > certainly used tools and may have
> > potentially made tools.
> >
> > The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
> >
> > So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
> > It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
> > doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
> > it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
> > suggests to people relationships which are
> > simply false.
> >
> > Science is intended to explain the natural
> > world around us. Language is what we use to
> > communicate that explanation. Calling modern
> > humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
> > misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
> > which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>
> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.

Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.


Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
"humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."


I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.

Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."

Well, he no longer has that excuse for staying away, since
he can reply directly to me while still boycotting JTEM.

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

[Oxyaena]

On 5/31/2017 11:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> Chimps.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
>>> evolved from us.
>
> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> seriously consider the hypothesis that chimps (and maybe even gorillas)
> evolved from near ancestors of humans, perhaps various species
> of *Australopithecus* or *Ardipithecus*.
>
> This pair of hypotheses is kept alive by the fact that the only
> chimp or gorilla fossils we have are no more than a million
> years old. [1] The two hominids named above go back to at least
> three million years.

I sincerely doubt that, Petey. At least as far as gorillas go, chimps
maybe, given that knuckle walking is most likely a derived adaptation,
look at the neck placement on the skull of *Sahelanthropus tchadensis*
and you'll know what I mean, but gorillas are the sister group to the
Hom-Pan clade, not a member of it. However, recent re-dating of the
molecular clock places the date that chimps and humans diverged firmly
around 10-13 Ma, so either the LRCA of *Pan* and Homini walked upright,
or more likely, palm-walked like orangutans rather than knuckle-walking
like gorillas and chimps.

>
> So, JTEM's claim is not as satirical as it may seem at first.

It still is.

>
> [1] Caveat: this information may be out of date;
> I last visited this topic about two years ago.
>
>
>>> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
>>> certainly used tools and may have
>>> potentially made tools.
>>>
>>> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
>>>
>>> So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
>>> It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
>>> doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
>>> it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
>>> suggests to people relationships which are
>>> simply false.
>>>
>>> Science is intended to explain the natural
>>> world around us. Language is what we use to
>>> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
>>> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
>>> misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
>>> which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>>
>> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
>
>
> Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.

Contrast this with your bullshit in sbp, where you spew "In Harshman's
logic, we are still fish".

>
>
> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."

You pretended to disagree with him. Which is it, you support cladistics
or you don't, like all those rants of yours in sbp say.

>
>
> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.

I can name at least five ongoing threads with bickering between me and you.

>
> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."

Again, more back-biting about Harshman. When will all this hypocritical
bullshit from you end, Petey!? BTW, JTEM isn't a creationist, I'll give
him that, but he *is* a deluded fuckwad.

>
> Well, he no longer has that excuse for staying away, since
> he can reply directly to me while still boycotting JTEM.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
>

He boycotts me, in essence "replying" to me by addressing my claims in
responses to your posts which are responses to my posts ad infinitum.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
developed between the two of you always works." - Me

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> Chimps.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
>>> evolved from us.
>
> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> seriously consider the hypothesis that chimps (and maybe even gorillas)
> evolved from near ancestors of humans, perhaps various species
> of *Australopithecus* or *Ardipithecus*.
>
> This pair of hypotheses is kept alive by the fact that the only
> chimp or gorilla fossils we have are no more than a million
> years old. [1] The two hominids named above go back to at least
> three million years.
>
> So, JTEM's claim is not as satirical as it may seem at first.

I don't think it's satirical at all. He's fully serious.

Now explain why having chimps and gorillas evolve from a "near ancestor
of humans", whatever that means, translates to "humans aren't descended
from apes".

> [1] Caveat: this information may be out of date;
> I last visited this topic about two years ago.

As far as I know, the only clear chimp-lineage fossil is a single tooth,
and there are no gorilla-lineage fossils at all. What were you referring to?

>>> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
>>> certainly used tools and may have
>>> potentially made tools.
>>>
>>> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
>>>
>>> So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
>>> It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
>>> doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
>>> it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
>>> suggests to people relationships which are
>>> simply false.
>>>
>>> Science is intended to explain the natural
>>> world around us. Language is what we use to
>>> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
>>> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
>>> misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
>>> which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>>
>> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
>
> Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.
>
> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."

Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution. What's wrong with it?

> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
>
> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."

Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention? And of
course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts? Why, he's even abusive
to you. He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
be that you miss this?

[John Stockwell]

So, how about gorillas?



>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >>> Chimps.
> >>>
> >>> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
> >>> evolved from us.
> >
> > Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> > seriously consider the hypothesis that chimps (and maybe even gorillas)
> > evolved from near ancestors of humans, perhaps various species
> > of *Australopithecus* or *Ardipithecus*.
> >
> > This pair of hypotheses is kept alive by the fact that the only
> > chimp or gorilla fossils we have are no more than a million
> > years old. [1] The two hominids named above go back to at least
> > three million years.
> >
> > So, JTEM's claim is not as satirical as it may seem at first.
>
> I don't think it's satirical at all. He's fully serious.
>
> Now explain why having chimps and gorillas evolve from a "near ancestor
> of humans", whatever that means, translates to "humans aren't descended
> from apes"

It doesn't. You need to address this question to JTEM if you want
your demand met.

> > [1] Caveat: this information may be out of date;
> > I last visited this topic about two years ago.
>
> As far as I know, the only clear chimp-lineage fossil is a single tooth,
> and there are no gorilla-lineage fossils at all. What were you referring to?

What part of the footnote don't you understand?

How up to date is your knowledge?

> >>> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
> >>> certainly used tools and may have
> >>> potentially made tools.
> >>>
> >>> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
> >>>
> >>> So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
> >>> It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
> >>> doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
> >>> it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
> >>> suggests to people relationships which are
> >>> simply false.
> >>>
> >>> Science is intended to explain the natural
> >>> world around us. Language is what we use to
> >>> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
> >>> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
> >>> misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
> >>> which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
> >>
> >> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
> >
> > Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.
> >
> > Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
> > this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
> > when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
> > "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."
>
> Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution.

No, the take-home message of evolution is that we are descended from
apes. [And the same goes, *mutatis mutandis*, for the other two statements,
but that's getting us away from the thread topic.]

> What's wrong with it?

Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.

> > I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> > since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
> >
> > Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> > straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> > and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> > allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
>
> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?

Huh?

This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.

> And of
> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?

I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
thread.

Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
[1] of all posts made to talk.origins?

> Why, he's even abusive to you.

Not to my knowledge.

[1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
of goings-on in t.o.

> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> be that you miss this?

Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
when he has done it several times on the same threads,
and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
reply to a post by you?

[2] I could name others, but only if you request it.

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

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

The part that makes is relevant. I don't find one. As far as I know, the
state of the literature two years ago has not changed, and, again as far
as I know, your statements about the fossil record were false two years
ago. That's why I ask you what you were referring to, which question you
have not answered.

> How up to date is your knowledge?

Hard to tell. I don't read every journal. But I'm only asking about your
knowledge as of two years ago regarding chimp and gorilla fossils,
especially the latter.

I think it brings the idea of evolution to life much better if you think
of us as atypical apes (and atypical fish too). That summons up the
images of transitional forms automatically. Way better statement of
evolution to place us firmly inside the tree of life.

>> What's wrong with it?
>
> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.

There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
of that is a requirement of "ape".

>>> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
>>> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
>>>
>>> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
>>> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
>>> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
>>> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
>>
>> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?
>
> Huh?
>
> This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.

I know.

>> And of
>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
>
> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
> thread.
>
> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
>
>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
>
> Not to my knowledge.

You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
responses to you.

> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
> of goings-on in t.o.

It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
which he isn't abusive to someone.

>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>> be that you miss this?
>
> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> reply to a post by you?
>
> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.

I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
delusional.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 31, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<3606d721-e1ff-4794...@googlegroups.com>):

> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> reply to a post by you?
>
> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.

and, again with the enemies lists... yep, it’s paranoid and has delusions
of grandeur, in addition to being a sociopath...

[Peter Nyikos]

Relevant to what? You really need to work on making yourself clear.

> I don't find one. As far as I know, the
> state of the literature two years ago has not changed, and, again as far
> as I know, your statements about the fossil record were false two years
> ago. That's why I ask you what you were referring to, which question you
> have not answered.

Referring to where? You aren't being very clear.

> > How up to date is your knowledge?
>
> Hard to tell.

You can't remember when you last read something on the topic of African
great ape fossils -- is that what you are trying to say?

> I don't read every journal. But I'm only asking about your
> knowledge as of two years ago regarding chimp and gorilla fossils,
> especially the latter.

I only know of the one chimp fossil you know of, but I didn't want to
leave the gorillas out in the mist.

<snip far-out part of JTEM's (perhaps unintentional) satire>

> >>>>> Science is intended to explain the natural
> >>>>> world around us. Language is what we use to
> >>>>> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
> >>>>> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
> >>>>> misinforms.

<small snip>

> >>>> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
> >>>
> >>> Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.
> >>>
> >>> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
> >>> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
> >>> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
> >>> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."
> >>
> >> Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution.
> >
> > No, the take-home message of evolution is that we are descended from
> > apes. [And the same goes, *mutatis mutandis*, for the other two statements,
> > but that's getting us away from the thread topic.]
>
> I think it brings the idea of evolution to life much better if you think
> of us as atypical apes (and atypical fish too).

You're welcome to your idiosyncratic view of evolution. Mine emphasizes
the changes. Except for strained meanings of "I'm my own grandfather" etc.
we are different from what we are descended from.

Do you really like the idea of being a "Homo erectus, only atypical"?

Or do you figure on us evolving from some undiscovered contemporary
of Homo erectus?

> That summons up the
> images of transitional forms automatically.

+++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on

What?? transitional forms between *Homo erectus* and *Homo sapiens*???

What new discoveries have I missed out on?

+++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> Way better statement of
> evolution to place us firmly inside the tree of life.

If "we are descended from protists, fish, amphibians, therapsids,
prosimians, simians, and apes, specifically great apes" doesn't
put us firmly inside the tree of life, I don't know what does.

These last comments of yours suggest that you've been brainwashed
by being immersed in cladophile propaganda for way too long.


Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon
after I've seen this one online.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> > hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> > magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
>
> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
> of that is a requirement of "ape".

Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
use at least ten times as long as yours.

And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
let no dog bark.

And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
barking dogs to you, aren't they?

> >>> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> >>> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> >>> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> >>> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> >>> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
> >>
> >> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.
>
> I know.

My "Huh?" went way over your head, eh, Sir Oracle?

> >> And of
> >> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
> >
> > I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
> > thread.
> >
> > Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
> > [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
> >
> >> Why, he's even abusive to you.
> >
> > Not to my knowledge.
>
> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
> responses to you.

Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
"Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.

Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?

> > [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
> > are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
> > of goings-on in t.o.
>
> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
> which he isn't abusive to someone.

It's all about you, isn't it?

> >> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> >> be that you miss this?
> >
> > Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> > you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> > when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> > and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> > reply to a post by you?
> >
> > [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>
> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
> delusional.

None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
you never want to hear from me about.

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

University of So. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/17 12:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

>> I don't read every journal. But I'm only asking about your
>> knowledge as of two years ago regarding chimp and gorilla fossils,
>> especially the latter.
>
> I only know of the one chimp fossil you know of, but I didn't want to
> leave the gorillas out in the mist.

Wow. And you're complaining about me not being clear.

>>>>> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
>>>>> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
>>>>> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
>>>>> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution.
>>>
>>> No, the take-home message of evolution is that we are descended from
>>> apes. [And the same goes, *mutatis mutandis*, for the other two statements,
>>> but that's getting us away from the thread topic.]
>>
>> I think it brings the idea of evolution to life much better if you think
>> of us as atypical apes (and atypical fish too).
>
> You're welcome to your idiosyncratic view of evolution. Mine emphasizes
> the changes. Except for strained meanings of "I'm my own grandfather" etc.
> we are different from what we are descended from.

So you're different from a primate or a mammal? I expect you wouldn't
make that claim. You are very selective in what you prefer to be
descended from rather than to be. Arbitrarily so.

> Do you really like the idea of being a "Homo erectus, only atypical"?
>
> Or do you figure on us evolving from some undiscovered contemporary
> of Homo erectus?

Species are the exception to cladistic classification. Species aren't
intended to be monophyletic. Different rules apply to them. But
presumably you don't mind being an atypical member of Homo. Your
inconsistency shows.

>> That summons up the
>> images of transitional forms automatically.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> What?? transitional forms between *Homo erectus* and *Homo sapiens*???
>
> What new discoveries have I missed out on?
>
> +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Since it's sarcasm, I won't bother to answer with examples of
transitional forms. I can't tell if you know of any.

>> Way better statement of
>> evolution to place us firmly inside the tree of life.
>
> If "we are descended from protists, fish, amphibians, therapsids,
> prosimians, simians, and apes, specifically great apes" doesn't
> put us firmly inside the tree of life, I don't know what does.

"Protist" isn't a group. We aren't descended from amphibians, which are
a clade. That might also be the case for prosimians, depending on your
definition. And yes, you don't know what does.

Tree thinking is evolutionary thinking. Your problem is that you learned
all your opinions by the age of 12.

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/17 2:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
>>
>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
>
> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> use at least ten times as long as yours.

> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

Does it? Can you quote?

>>>> And of
>>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
>>>
>>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
>>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
>>>
>>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
>>>
>>> Not to my knowledge.
>>
>> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
>> responses to you.
>
> Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
> "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
> fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
>
> Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?

No. But the fact that he takes great pleasure in misspelling my name in
all sorts of ways should be a clue. He does that every time he mentions me.

>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
>>> of goings-on in t.o.
>>
>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
>
> It's all about you, isn't it?

Are we back to "we are all Howard Hershey"? I said "someone", not "me".
I'm included, certainly. But he's abusive to everyone. How have you
failed to notice?

>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>
>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>
>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>
>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>> delusional.
>
> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> you never want to hear from me about.

I've seen your "evidence" in a number of cases. That's what I base my
general opinions on.

[erik simpson]

Some confusion perhaps stems from Fuss et. al. In the introduction they present
these definitions:

"In the present study, we define ‘hominoid’ as ‘apes’; ‘hominid’ as ‘great apes and humans’; ‘hominine’ as ‘African apes and humans’; and ‘hominin’ as ‘humans and their non-ape ancestors’."

This would seem to define 'hominin' as a much broader group than 'hominoid',
which almost can't be the intended meaning.

[Oxyaena]

On 5/31/2017 5:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
>>
>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
>
> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> use at least ten times as long as yours.

Definition of "cladophile": Anyone who happens to disagree with the
omniscient Peter the Almighty.

>
> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>
> But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
> let no dog bark.
>
> And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
> barking dogs to you, aren't they?

And a mere whole scientific community are like so many barking dogs to
you, Sir Jackass, aren't they?

>
>
>>>>> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
>>>>> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
>>>>> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
>>>>> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
>>>>> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
>>>>
>>>> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.
>>
>> I know.
>
> My "Huh?" went way over your head, eh, Sir Oracle?

Wow, great name, Paranoia-incarnate, I can't wait to see what more
pathetic schoolyard taunts you come up with, Paranoia-incarnate.

>
>
>>>> And of
>>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
>>>
>>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
>>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
>>>
>>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
>>>
>>> Not to my knowledge.
>>
>> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
>> responses to you.
>
> Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
> "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
> fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
>
> Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?

This is between you and Harshman, but JTEM is a major dick, I can attest
to that.

>
>
>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
>>> of goings-on in t.o.
>>
>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
>
> It's all about you, isn't it?

Psychological projection, a classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate.

>
>
>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>
>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>
>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>
>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>> delusional.
>
> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> you never want to hear from me about.

Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
his own faults while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.

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

[Oxyaena]

Besides from the obvious grammar issues, I would agree, but I would also
add severe narcissism, megalomania, odd conservatism when it comes to
science, crossed with severe paranoid personality disorder. The
Sociopath part is debatable.

[John Harshman]

Ah. Self-contradictory, unless of course Hominoidea is intended to be
paraphyletic. And don't they have any idea of what taxon definitions
look like?

> This would seem to define 'hominin' as a much broader group than 'hominoid',
> which almost can't be the intended meaning.

I think by "non-ape ancestors" they intend everything closer to H.
sapiens than to Pan troglodytes, though of course that isn't what they
said. Didn't anybody proofread that paper?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/17 12:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> I don't read every journal. But I'm only asking about your
> >> knowledge as of two years ago regarding chimp and gorilla fossils,
> >> especially the latter.
> >
> > I only know of the one chimp fossil you know of, but I didn't want to
> > leave the gorillas out in the mist.
>
> Wow. And you're complaining about me not being clear.

What part of "chimps or gorillas" [snipped by you] didn't you understand?

Did you perhaps misread it a "chimps and gorillas"?

>
> >>>>> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
> >>>>> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
> >>>>> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
> >>>>> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution.
> >>>
> >>> No, the take-home message of evolution is that we are descended from
> >>> apes. [And the same goes, *mutatis mutandis*, for the other two statements,
> >>> but that's getting us away from the thread topic.]
> >>
> >> I think it brings the idea of evolution to life much better if you think
> >> of us as atypical apes (and atypical fish too).
> >
> > You're welcome to your idiosyncratic view of evolution. Mine emphasizes
> > the changes. Except for strained meanings of "I'm my own grandfather" etc.
> > we are different from what we are descended from.
>
> So you're different from a primate or a mammal?

Stop being disingenous. "Primates" and "mammals" are traditional
taxa. They are monophyletic categories, as are apes according
to many people in the pre-Hennig days, where "monophyletic"
wasn't restricted to clades, but also included an unknown number
of paraphyletic taxa as some researchers used it.

You obviously abandoned the traditional classification before
you understood it.

> I expect you wouldn't
> make that claim. You are very selective in what you prefer to be
> descended from rather than to be. Arbitrarily so.

You are just indulging in cladophile propaganda bordering
on cladomania. Anyone who uses the classification that
Carroll (1988) and even Kardong (2012) employed [the last named
side by side with the only one you can stomach] is being
"arbitrary."

> > Do you really like the idea of being a "Homo erectus, only atypical"?
> >
> > Or do you figure on us evolving from some undiscovered contemporary
> > of Homo erectus?
>
> Species are the exception to cladistic classification. Species aren't
> intended to be monophyletic. Different rules apply to them.

Not only do you think the traditional rules are arbitrary; you
also think the currently fashionable rules are not arbitrary.
You are like the sheep in _Animal Farm_: "Paraphyletic taxa
bad, monophyletic taxa good, paraphyletic species better!"

> But
> presumably you don't mind being an atypical member of Homo. Your
> inconsistency shows.

I've told you often, Harshman, that you are a polemicist first,
a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third. Like
Ray Martinez, you see inconsistencies where none exist.

> >> That summons up the
> >> images of transitional forms automatically.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
> >
> > What?? transitional forms between *Homo erectus* and *Homo sapiens*???
> >
> > What new discoveries have I missed out on?
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>
> Since it's sarcasm, I won't bother to answer with examples of
> transitional forms. I can't tell if you know of any.

I don't. So surprise me.

> >> Way better statement of
> >> evolution to place us firmly inside the tree of life.
> >
> > If "we are descended from protists, fish, amphibians, therapsids,
> > prosimians, simians, and apes, specifically great apes" doesn't
> > put us firmly inside the tree of life, I don't know what does.
>
> "Protist" isn't a group.

It's a paraphyletic group, you arbitrary jerk.

> We aren't descended from amphibians, which are
> a clade.

You are acting as though the commandeering of "Amphibia" to
replace "Lissamphibia" by etymology-challenged systematists
has now been accepted by all systematists who don't want
to be seen as "standing athwart the tide of history, yelling
`Stop!'". Is it?

> That might also be the case for prosimians, depending on your
> definition. And yes, you don't know what does.
>
> Tree thinking is evolutionary thinking. Your problem is that you learned
> all your opinions by the age of 12.

Your problem is that you know a whole lot of things that ain't so.
And this is one of the defamatory ones.

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

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/17 2:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> >>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> >>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
> >>
> >> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
> >> of that is a requirement of "ape".
> >
> > Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> > use at least ten times as long as yours.
>
> > And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> > as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
> >
> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>
> Does it? Can you quote?

I did, and you evaded in a trollish manner:

______________________ repost _____________________________

> >>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> >>> between great apes and humans.
> >>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
> >
> > Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
> > you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
> > in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
> > this example out:
>
> Oh, I'm sure you will. You never let an injustice go. Obsessive, you are.

Oh, quit whining and take your medicine like a man.

And that includes facing squarely the "men are apes" issue that
you are continuing to evade with your histrionics.

===================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Z5nu-HivfBQ/UG0O0N_vAAAJ
Subject: Re: was Europe the birthplace of mankind, not Africa?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 19:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0d35c367-5fd8-4c4b...@googlegroups.com>

Completely lacking in shame over your evasion, you demanded:
"Start a thread."

The word "control freak" comes to mind.

And, just so you don't accidentally-on-purpose confuse this
issue with the one I said I wouldn't hold against you, THAT
one came further down and was the subject of a different
"trot out" which I've since rescinded.

So now, can you think of yet another way to evade the issue
of you being at loggerheads with 5 research paleontologists?

> >>>> And of
> >>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
> >>>
> >>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
> >>> thread.
> >>>
> >>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
> >>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
> >>>
> >>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
> >>>
> >>> Not to my knowledge.
> >>
> >> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
> >> responses to you.
> >
> > Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
> > "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
> > fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
> >
> > Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?
>
> No. But the fact that he takes great pleasure in misspelling my name in
> all sorts of ways should be a clue. He does that every time he mentions me.

It's all about you, isn't it?

You love to hurl this jibe at me; how does it feel to be on
the receiving end for a change? And you have yet to give an
example of him treating anyone else in a really nasty way.

[Partial spoiler: I know of one other target, but that will
be of small comfort to you because that target deserves it
more than you do.]

> >>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
> >>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
> >>> of goings-on in t.o.
> >>
> >> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
> >> which he isn't abusive to someone.
> >
> > It's all about you, isn't it?
>
> Are we back to "we are all Howard Hershey"? I said "someone", not "me".

I was just using your standards against you, and if you ever
say anything about me holding 10 year old things against anyone,
I'll trot this example out.

> I'm included, certainly. But he's abusive to everyone. How have you
> failed to notice?

I've already told you. Are you playing a KGB-style interrogator,
hoping to catch me contradicting myself?

> >>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> >>>> be that you miss this?
> >>>
> >>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> >>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> >>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> >>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> >>> reply to a post by you?
> >>>
> >>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >>
> >> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
> >> delusional.
> >
> > None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> > are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> > you never want to hear from me about.
>
> I've seen your "evidence" in a number of cases.

You never gave me a chance to show you more than a snippet, and
that in a small handful of cases.

It's not for nothing that I nicknamed you "Dontwanna Hearaboutit".
In fact, it was for an inflexible habit of yours.

>That's what I base my
> general opinions on.

You base it on your habit of "seeing only those posts you
want to see." [That's a similar but distinct habit from the one I named
in my preceding paragraph; it's like the Captain seeing only
those actions of Boss Paul that he wanted to see, and vice versa.]

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

U. of So. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/17 6:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 12:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't read every journal. But I'm only asking about your
>>>> knowledge as of two years ago regarding chimp and gorilla fossils,
>>>> especially the latter.
>>>
>>> I only know of the one chimp fossil you know of, but I didn't want to
>>> leave the gorillas out in the mist.
>>
>> Wow. And you're complaining about me not being clear.
>
> What part of "chimps or gorillas" [snipped by you] didn't you understand?
>
> Did you perhaps misread it a "chimps and gorillas"?

Yes, that makes a big difference.

>>>>>>> Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
>>>>>>> this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
>>>>>>> when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
>>>>>>> "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. That's the take-home message of evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the take-home message of evolution is that we are descended from
>>>>> apes. [And the same goes, *mutatis mutandis*, for the other two statements,
>>>>> but that's getting us away from the thread topic.]
>>>>
>>>> I think it brings the idea of evolution to life much better if you think
>>>> of us as atypical apes (and atypical fish too).
>>>
>>> You're welcome to your idiosyncratic view of evolution. Mine emphasizes
>>> the changes. Except for strained meanings of "I'm my own grandfather" etc.
>>> we are different from what we are descended from.
>>
>> So you're different from a primate or a mammal?
>
> Stop being disingenous. "Primates" and "mammals" are traditional
> taxa. They are monophyletic categories, as are apes according
> to many people in the pre-Hennig days, where "monophyletic"
> wasn't restricted to clades, but also included an unknown number
> of paraphyletic taxa as some researchers used it.
>
> You obviously abandoned the traditional classification before
> you understood it.

Doesn't change the fact that those are counterexamples that show your
claim to be wrong.

>> I expect you wouldn't
>> make that claim. You are very selective in what you prefer to be
>> descended from rather than to be. Arbitrarily so.
>
> You are just indulging in cladophile propaganda bordering
> on cladomania. Anyone who uses the classification that
> Carroll (1988) and even Kardong (2012) employed [the last named
> side by side with the only one you can stomach] is being
> "arbitrary."

What are the criteria used to make the distinction, if it isn't
arbitrary? Why the particular paraphyletic groups you like and only those?

>>> Do you really like the idea of being a "Homo erectus, only atypical"?
>>>
>>> Or do you figure on us evolving from some undiscovered contemporary
>>> of Homo erectus?
>>
>> Species are the exception to cladistic classification. Species aren't
>> intended to be monophyletic. Different rules apply to them.
>
> Not only do you think the traditional rules are arbitrary; you
> also think the currently fashionable rules are not arbitrary.
> You are like the sheep in _Animal Farm_: "Paraphyletic taxa
> bad, monophyletic taxa good, paraphyletic species better!"

You have no clue. Ignorance is not a sin, but arrogant ignorance is.

>> But
>> presumably you don't mind being an atypical member of Homo. Your
>> inconsistency shows.
>
> I've told you often, Harshman, that you are a polemicist first,
> a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third. Like
> Ray Martinez, you see inconsistencies where none exist.

Explain why they aren't inconsistencies.

>>>> That summons up the
>>>> images of transitional forms automatically.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>>>
>>> What?? transitional forms between *Homo erectus* and *Homo sapiens*???
>>>
>>> What new discoveries have I missed out on?
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>>
>> Since it's sarcasm, I won't bother to answer with examples of
>> transitional forms. I can't tell if you know of any.
>
> I don't. So surprise me.

Have you looked?

>>>> Way better statement of
>>>> evolution to place us firmly inside the tree of life.
>>>
>>> If "we are descended from protists, fish, amphibians, therapsids,
>>> prosimians, simians, and apes, specifically great apes" doesn't
>>> put us firmly inside the tree of life, I don't know what does.
>>
>> "Protist" isn't a group.
>
> It's a paraphyletic group, you arbitrary jerk.

I isn't even a traditional group, though it's part of the "5 kingdom"
classification.

>> We aren't descended from amphibians, which are
>> a clade.
>
> You are acting as though the commandeering of "Amphibia" to
> replace "Lissamphibia" by etymology-challenged systematists
> has now been accepted by all systematists who don't want
> to be seen as "standing athwart the tide of history, yelling
> `Stop!'". Is it?

Pretty much, though the motive isn't what you insinuate.

>> That might also be the case for prosimians, depending on your
>> definition. And yes, you don't know what does.
>>
>> Tree thinking is evolutionary thinking. Your problem is that you learned
>> all your opinions by the age of 12.
>
> Your problem is that you know a whole lot of things that ain't so.
> And this is one of the defamatory ones.

That was a joke in reference to your constant reminders that you knew
this or that by the age of 12. But the underlying point is serious. You
are stuck in the past.

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/17 6:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 2:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
>>>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
>>>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
>>>>
>>>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
>>>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
>>>
>>> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
>>> use at least ten times as long as yours.
>>
>>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
>>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>>>
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>
>> Does it? Can you quote?
>
> I did, and you evaded in a trollish manner:

Yeah, I don't accept that as a clear statement of a position. As has
been pointed out, they also define "hominoid" as "apes". So they
contradict themselves. This may just be an example of sloppy use of
language.

>>>>>> And of
>>>>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
>>>>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to my knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
>>>> responses to you.
>>>
>>> Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
>>> "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
>>> fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
>>>
>>> Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?
>>
>> No. But the fact that he takes great pleasure in misspelling my name in
>> all sorts of ways should be a clue. He does that every time he mentions me.
>
> It's all about you, isn't it?
>
> You love to hurl this jibe at me; how does it feel to be on
> the receiving end for a change? And you have yet to give an
> example of him treating anyone else in a really nasty way.
>
> [Partial spoiler: I know of one other target, but that will
> be of small comfort to you because that target deserves it
> more than you do.]

"Don't care" would be the short answer.

>>>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
>>>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
>>>>> of goings-on in t.o.
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
>>>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
>>>
>>> It's all about you, isn't it?
>>
>> Are we back to "we are all Howard Hershey"? I said "someone", not "me".
>
> I was just using your standards against you, and if you ever
> say anything about me holding 10 year old things against anyone,
> I'll trot this example out.

I'm sure you will.

>> I'm included, certainly. But he's abusive to everyone. How have you
>> failed to notice?
>
> I've already told you. Are you playing a KGB-style interrogator,
> hoping to catch me contradicting myself?

Merely expressing my astonishment at your lack of discernment. It was a
rhetorical question.

>>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>>>> delusional.
>>>
>>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
>>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
>>> you never want to hear from me about.
>>
>> I've seen your "evidence" in a number of cases.
>
> You never gave me a chance to show you more than a snippet, and
> that in a small handful of cases.
>
> It's not for nothing that I nicknamed you "Dontwanna Hearaboutit".
> In fact, it was for an inflexible habit of yours.

I demand a less lame, ineptly phrased nickname.

>> That's what I base my
>> general opinions on.
>
> You base it on your habit of "seeing only those posts you
> want to see." [That's a similar but distinct habit from the one I named
> in my preceding paragraph; it's like the Captain seeing only
> those actions of Boss Paul that he wanted to see, and vice versa.]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[Oxyaena]

On 5/31/2017 9:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 2:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
>>>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
>>>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
>>>>
>>>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
>>>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
>>>
>>> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
>>> use at least ten times as long as yours.
>>
>>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
>>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>>>
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>
>> Does it? Can you quote?
>
> I did, and you evaded in a trollish manner:

I thought humans were great apes, or did the laws of evolution somehow
change?

>
> ______________________ repost _____________________________
>
>>>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
>>>>> between great apes and humans.
>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>>
>>> Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
>>> you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
>>> in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
>>> this example out:
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you will. You never let an injustice go. Obsessive, you are.
>
> Oh, quit whining and take your medicine like a man.

Hypocrite, you whine, moan, and groan all the time. You should take your
medicine like a man, jackass.

>
> And that includes facing squarely the "men are apes" issue that
> you are continuing to evade with your histrionics.
>
> ===================== end of excerpt
> from
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Z5nu-HivfBQ/UG0O0N_vAAAJ
> Subject: Re: was Europe the birthplace of mankind, not Africa?
> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 19:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <0d35c367-5fd8-4c4b...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Completely lacking in shame over your evasion, you demanded:
> "Start a thread.

Psychological pro- okay this is getting old, Peter's a hypocrite plain
and simple.

"
>
> The word "control freak" comes to mind.
>

Read above AND below.

[snip mindless drivel]

>
>>>>>> And of
>>>>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
>>>>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to my knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
>>>> responses to you.
>>>
>>> Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
>>> "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
>>> fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
>>>
>>> Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?
>>
>> No. But the fact that he takes great pleasure in misspelling my name in
>> all sorts of ways should be a clue. He does that every time he mentions me.
>
> It's all about you, isn't it?

Psychological projection, a classic character trait of Peter Nyikos.

>
> You love to hurl this jibe at me; how does it feel to be on
> the receiving end for a change? And you have yet to give an
> example of him treating anyone else in a really nasty way.
>
> [Partial spoiler: I know of one other target, but that will
> be of small comfort to you because that target deserves it
> more than you do.]

JTEM is a dick, there's no denying this.

>
>>>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
>>>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
>>>>> of goings-on in t.o.
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
>>>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
>>>
>>> It's all about you, isn't it?
>>
>> Are we back to "we are all Howard Hershey"? I said "someone", not "me".
>
> I was just using your standards against you, and if you ever
> say anything about me holding 10 year old things against anyone,
> I'll trot this example out.

You do. You trot 4-year old examples with me, 20 year old examples with
others, and God knows how old examples with everyone else.

>
>
>> I'm included, certainly. But he's abusive to everyone. How have you
>> failed to notice?
>
> I've already told you. Are you playing a KGB-style interrogator,
> hoping to catch me contradicting myself?

I have already stated that JTEM is a douchebag, I can attest to what
Harshman is saying. You know, you're ignoring me, which is unusual
behavior for you. It seems more and more like deliberately antagonistic
behavior. Is this another one of your classic ways of "getting" to me?

Or is it because responding to Harshman is more fun in this thread and
many others?

>
>
>>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>>>> delusional.
>>>
>>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
>>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
>>> you never want to hear from me about.
>>
>> I've seen your "evidence" in a number of cases.
>
> You never gave me a chance to show you more than a snippet, and
> that in a small handful of cases.

When you're bickering with me, you overload me with inane snippets,
references to otherwise totally unrelated threads, and other pointless
non-sequiturs.

>
> It's not for nothing that I nicknamed you "Dontwanna Hearaboutit".
> In fact, it was for an inflexible habit of yours.

Wow, I gotta remember that line. This lame nickname falls flat on its
face even faster than that last one of yours, which had slightly more
wit to it, "Sir Oracle", equally stupid, though.

I also have to classify this particle line as Psychological Projection,

a classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate.


>

>> That's what I base my
>> general opinions on.
>
> You base it on your habit of "seeing only those posts you
> want to see." [That's a similar but distinct habit from the one I named
> in my preceding paragraph; it's like the Captain seeing only
> those actions of Boss Paul that he wanted to see, and vice versa.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> U. of So. Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

Why is it that every time you post, a little bit of me dies inside?

[erik simpson]

Actually, I think that the sentence from the introduction of Fuss' et al paper
is just a little sloppy. The discussion section "Phylogenetic position of
Graecopithicus" doesn't show any ambiguity of understanding.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 31, Oxyaena wrote
(in article <ognjv5$t4h$3...@news.albasani.net>):

> On 5/31/2017 3:37 PM, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 May 31, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > (in article<3606d721-e1ff-4794...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> > > you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> > > when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> > > and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> > > reply to a post by you?
> > >
> > > [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >
> > and, again with the enemies lists... yep, it’s paranoid and has delusions
> > of grandeur, in addition to being a sociopath...
> Besides from the obvious grammar issues, I would agree, but I would also
> add severe narcissism, megalomania, odd conservatism when it comes to
> science, crossed with severe paranoid personality disorder. The
> Sociopath part is debatable.

oh, it’s a sociopath, alright. Just read the rest of it’s replies on this
very thread.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:39:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 5/31/2017 3:37 PM, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 May 31, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > (in article<3606d721-e1ff-4794...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> >> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> >> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> >> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> >> reply to a post by you?
> >>
> >> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >
> > and, again with the enemies lists... yep, it’s paranoid

Evidently Wolffan is so out of it, he doesn't think he fits the
description of being my enemy by his absolutely free choice,
with ZERO provocation from me.

I'll credit him with this much, though: he took the hint I gave him
in the thread where the PlosOne article about human ancestry is discussed.
Namely, he does NOT think of himself as fitting the description I
gave of Mark Isaak. Because he doesn't: he's too inept to begin
to emulate the sophisticated propaganda and seasoned polemic of
Isaak, which was a precondition for me saying what I did about Mark.

Which is why John Harshman has yet to acknowledge the existence
of Wolffan AFAIK.

[Spoiler: the hint mentioned in the next to preceding paragraph
had to do with what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.]

> > and has delusions
> > of grandeur, in addition to being a sociopath...

> Besides from the obvious grammar issues, I would agree, but I would also
> add severe narcissism, megalomania, odd conservatism when it comes to
> science, crossed with severe paranoid personality disorder. The
> Sociopath part is debatable.

So says the person formerly known as Thrinaxodon, who got a reputation
for being "off meds" even here in talk.origins, and who loves paleontology
with a passion, yet almost destroyed sci.bio.paleontology by posting
insane articles in a mad profusion that came so thick and fast that
it drowned out the legitimate posts that were being made.

But relax, Oxyaena: none of this will prevent Wolffan from liking you;
in fact, it might make him like you all the more.

And you can be almost certain that Wolffan would never accuse you of
having a personality disorder, not when his behavior resembles yours so much.

I say "almost certain" because, if you should ever start dealing with
me fair and square, all bets are off as to how Wolffan would treat you.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Reminds me of a line in _The Emperor's New Groove_: when the
Emperor gave orders for Paco and wife and small child to
be evicted from their home, and Paco asked the Emperor,
"Where can we go to live?" the Emperor said,

Hmmmmm....Don't know, don't care. How's that for an answer?

> >>>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
> >>>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
> >>>>> of goings-on in t.o.
> >>>>
> >>>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
> >>>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
> >>>
> >>> It's all about you, isn't it?
> >>
> >> Are we back to "we are all Howard Hershey"? I said "someone", not "me".
> >
> > I was just using your standards against you, and if you ever
> > say anything about me holding 10 year old things against anyone,
> > I'll trot this example out.
>
> I'm sure you will.

And the real reason I will, is that you were thoroughly corrected
on this seven years ago (but still over ten years after this
baseless canard got spawned). And you had even given this
piece of fiction "credence" by saying, "His paranoia ascends to
the skies."

And now, you are pulling a Ray Martinez, repeating your canard
as though you had never been set straight on it.

I'd tell you just how baseless it was, but it would be a waste
of time because if the first time didn't take, the chances
are vanishingly small that the second time would. You have more
in common with Ray Martinez than either of you would dare to admit.

> >> I'm included, certainly. But he's abusive to everyone. How have you
> >> failed to notice?
> >
> > I've already told you. Are you playing a KGB-style interrogator,
> > hoping to catch me contradicting myself?
>
> Merely expressing my astonishment at your lack of discernment. It was a
> rhetorical question.

You're just showing how poor your reasoning abilities are, or how deeply
you believe in the form of ESP known as clairvoyance -- pick your poison.

> >>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> >>>>>> be that you miss this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> >>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> >>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> >>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> >>>>> reply to a post by you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
> >>>> delusional.
> >>>
> >>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> >>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> >>> you never want to hear from me about.
> >>
> >> I've seen your "evidence" in a number of cases.
> >
> > You never gave me a chance to show you more than a snippet, and
> > that in a small handful of cases.
> >
> > It's not for nothing that I nicknamed you "Dontwanna Hearaboutit".
> > In fact, it was for an inflexible habit of yours.
>
> I demand a less lame, ineptly phrased nickname.

There's that control freak tendency again.

And to boot, you've given a textbook example to give for
explicating the expression, "The truth hurts."

> >> That's what I base my
> >> general opinions on.
> >
> > You base it on your habit of "seeing only those posts you
> > want to see." [That's a similar but distinct habit from the one I named
> > in my preceding paragraph; it's like the Captain seeing only
> > those actions of Boss Paul that he wanted to see, and vice versa.]
>
> What we have here is a failure to communicate.

And the fault is completely yours. When I first explained just how
you had told the first lie I had caught you in, I began by citing the
thing about which you had lied, calling it a joke.

You pretended the label "joke" never existed, and declared,

What exactly is the lie here? Do unsupported canards count as lies on
your planet? What if I believe it?

and then you snipped the documentation of the actual lie, taunting,

I'm going to snip the rest of the part where you prove with geometric
logic that there had to be another key to the wardroom.

That was when I learned just how ruthless you could be in avoiding
documentation of your dishonesty, and the depths to which you could sink.

Documentation on request of anyone but you: I tried two more
approaches to relating what you had done, and each time you
used transparent dodges to avoid dealing with the damning reality.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:29:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 5/31/2017 5:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> >>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> >>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
> >>
> >> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
> >> of that is a requirement of "ape".
> >
> > Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> > use at least ten times as long as yours.
>
> Definition of "cladophile": Anyone who happens to disagree with the
> omniscient Peter the Almighty.

You are lying. I spelled out the definition of "cladophile" to you
in sci.bio.paleontology, and you are preying on the fact that
nobody but you and Harshman and I know you are lying, let alone
the magnitude of the lie.

And Harshman isn't about to correct you, and if you were to correct
yourself now, Wolffan might start worrying just how reliable
an enemy of me you really are.

>
> >
> > And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> > as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
> >
> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
> >
> > But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
> > let no dog bark.
> >
> > And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
> > barking dogs to you, aren't they?
>
> And a mere whole scientific community are like so many barking dogs to
> you, Sir Jackass, aren't they?

No, and you know damn well that this isn't true.

Or are you seriously off your meds again?

> >
> >
> >>>>> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> >>>>> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> >>>>> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> >>>>> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> >>>>> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?
> >>>
> >>> Huh?
> >>>
> >>> This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.
> >>
> >> I know.
> >
> > My "Huh?" went way over your head, eh, Sir Oracle?
>
> Wow, great name, Paranoia-incarnate, I can't wait to see what more
> pathetic schoolyard taunts you come up with, Paranoia-incarnate.

Stop pretending Harshman shamelessly avoided either correcting
himself or digging himself in deeper.

Well, either that or you jumped into an argument you know
nothing about, and shot yourself in the foot. Pick your poison.

> >
> >>>> And of
> >>>> course he is. Haven't you read any of his posts?
> >>>
> >>> I've read less than ten so far. So about a third of them are on this
> >>> thread.
> >>>
> >>> Are you like jillery, expecting me to read as much as thirty percent
> >>> [1] of all posts made to talk.origins?
> >>>
> >>>> Why, he's even abusive to you.
> >>>
> >>> Not to my knowledge.
> >>
> >> You miss a lot, I suppose. Try reading his posts. Try reading his
> >> responses to you.
> >
> > Haven't seen any. I saw a reply to you where he mentioned
> > "Harpman," "Harcman," and "Harshmann" and asked you what the
> > fuck a troll like you is doing in talk.origins.
> >
> > Is that what you mistook for a reply to me?
>
> This is between you and Harshman, but JTEM is a major dick, I can attest
> to that.

Show him being abusive to someone who does not deserve it.

You don't count -- see my last reply to you just before I read
Harshman the riot act [figuratively speaking of course] a
few minutes ago.

> >>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
> >>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
> >>> of goings-on in t.o.
> >>
> >> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
> >> which he isn't abusive to someone.
> >
> > It's all about you, isn't it?
>
> Psychological projection, a classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate.

You have no sense of humor. I was giving Harshman a dose of his own
medicine, because 3 or 4 posts lambasting Harshman were ALL I saw
besides the one "spoiler" I talked about.

>
> >
> >
> >>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> >>>> be that you miss this?

How can it be that I haven't seen the hundred or so posts it would
take to know this? THAT is how illogical Harshman is being here.

> >>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> >>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> >>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> >>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> >>> reply to a post by you?
> >>>
> >>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >>
> >> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
> >> delusional.
> >
> > None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> > are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> > you never want to hear from me about.
>
>
> Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
> his own faults

Document some, and I will admit them.

Or go on bluffing, and see whether I care.

> while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
> JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
> statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.

There is a wonderful passage in Plato's "Gorgias" where
Socrates talks about false witnesses.

There, I've given you incentive to avoid "Gorgias" like the plague.

> ""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
> family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
> developed between the two of you always works." - Me

Did you really live by this motto of yours? If so, I feel sorry for
you: it must be awfully lonely after your friends and family no
longer bothered trying to rebuild the bridges.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 11:24:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/17 6:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/31/17 2:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> >>>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> >>>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
> >>>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
> >>>
> >>> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> >>> use at least ten times as long as yours.
> >>
> >>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> >>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
> >>>
> >>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
> >>
> >> Does it? Can you quote?
> >
> > I did, and you evaded in a trollish manner:
>
> Yeah,

That one "admission" makes up for the fact that you snipped the
documentation of you behaving like a troll, and my explanation
of how you had behaved even more like a troll in connection
with your trollish taunt -- which you also snipped.

It was a Freudian slip, wasn't it? You didn't really want
to admit that you had behaved like a troll, did you.

> I don't accept that as a clear statement of a position. As has
> been pointed out, they also define "hominoid" as "apes".

EXACTLY!!!

They are comfortably at home in both worlds, the cladistic and
the traditional, and so they are living exemplars of the
solution that I've been recommending: a dual system where
cladistic and traditional classifications evolve in peace
side by side, like the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress
systems used by librarians.

But you are dead set against evolutionary research moving
ahead on a two-pronged advance using these tools, and that
is THE DEFINITION of cladophilia which Oxyaena is lying his/her
head off about.


> So they
> contradict themselves.

You are ignoring the context. We use words in different senses all the
time. There is an old joke about this:

If the pig cannot be cured in the animal hospital,
we will cure it in the smokehouse.

> This may just be an example of sloppy use of
> language.

And your snip of their very words may be just a sloppy use
of your mouse, eh? Tell me another.

____________________re-repost_______________________________

> >>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> >>> between great apes and humans.

> >>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371journal.pone.0177127
> >
======================== end of re-repost ==========================

Yes, they do distinguish here between great apes and humans,
because they are talking about morphology, and using these words
the way they have been used for hundreds of years, and not about the
arbitrary conventions of cladistic classification.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Jun 01, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<b2139ef5-7ff2-429b...@googlegroups.com>):

> Evidently Wolffan is so out of it, he doesn't think he fits the
> description of being my enemy by his absolutely free choice,
> with ZERO provocation from me.

and that’s a lie right there.

[John Harshman]

As is so often the case, you misread.

>> I don't accept that as a clear statement of a position. As has
>> been pointed out, they also define "hominoid" as "apes".
>
> EXACTLY!!!
>
> They are comfortably at home in both worlds, the cladistic and
> the traditional, and so they are living exemplars of the
> solution that I've been recommending: a dual system where
> cladistic and traditional classifications evolve in peace
> side by side, like the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress
> systems used by librarians.

You are drawing an unwarranted conclusion from what is really just very
sloppy writing.

> But you are dead set against evolutionary research moving
> ahead on a two-pronged advance using these tools, and that
> is THE DEFINITION of cladophilia which Oxyaena is lying his/her
> head off about.

There is no two-pronged advance. You know nothing about how evolutionary
research works.

>> So they
>> contradict themselves.
>
> You are ignoring the context. We use words in different senses all the
> time. There is an old joke about this:
>
> If the pig cannot be cured in the animal hospital,
> we will cure it in the smokehouse.
>
>> This may just be an example of sloppy use of
>> language.
>
> And your snip of their very words may be just a sloppy use
> of your mouse, eh? Tell me another.

This level of arrogant ignorance is usually reserved, here on TO, for
creationists.

> ____________________re-repost_______________________________
>
>>>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
>>>>> between great apes and humans.
>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371journal.pone.0177127
>>>
> ======================== end of re-repost ==========================
>
> Yes, they do distinguish here between great apes and humans,
> because they are talking about morphology, and using these words
> the way they have been used for hundreds of years, and not about the
> arbitrary conventions of cladistic classification.

Oddly, they are saying that humans are neither great apes nor African
apes, but are still apes. So why don't they define "hominoid" as "apes
and humans"? And why "non-ape ancestors", when they're all hominoids and
therefore apes? It's selfcontradiction in a single sentence, and that's
the context.

As for "inter-genus variability", you realize they're talking about
premolars, right?

[Oxyaena]

On 6/1/2017 9:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:39:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 5/31/2017 3:37 PM, Wolffan wrote:
>>> On 2017 May 31, Peter Nyikos wrote
>>> (in article<3606d721-e1ff-4794...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>
>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>
>>> and, again with the enemies lists... yep, it’s paranoid
>
> Evidently Wolffan is so out of it, he doesn't think he fits the
> description of being my enemy by his absolutely free choice,
> with ZERO provocation from me.

Wolffan's some guy who thought that he could become a big-shot in
talk.origins by antagonizing a guy he had no prior experience with out
of the blue, and isn't much in the way of a credible threat. I mean,
look at the way he writes, it's impossible for me to take him seriously.

>
> I'll credit him with this much, though: he took the hint I gave him
> in the thread where the PlosOne article about human ancestry is discussed.
> Namely, he does NOT think of himself as fitting the description I
> gave of Mark Isaak. Because he doesn't: he's too inept to begin
> to emulate the sophisticated propaganda and seasoned polemic of
> Isaak, which was a precondition for me saying what I did about Mark.

You've listed me as an enemy many times.

>
> Which is why John Harshman has yet to acknowledge the existence
> of Wolffan AFAIK.

I don't think much of Wolffan, either. Just read what I said above and
you'll see why.

>
> [Spoiler: the hint mentioned in the next to preceding paragraph
> had to do with what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.]

That isn't much of a spoiler.

>
>>> and has delusions
>>> of grandeur, in addition to being a sociopath...
>
>> Besides from the obvious grammar issues, I would agree, but I would also
>> add severe narcissism, megalomania, odd conservatism when it comes to
>> science, crossed with severe paranoid personality disorder. The
>> Sociopath part is debatable.
>
> So says the person formerly known as Thrinaxodon, who got a reputation
> for being "off meds" even here in talk.origins, and who loves paleontology
> with a passion, yet almost destroyed sci.bio.paleontology by posting
> insane articles in a mad profusion that came so thick and fast that
> it drowned out the legitimate posts that were being made.

I targeted many newsgroups, Petey, but sbp and t.o. were first and
foremost. But that's in the past, and almost everyone else here has
forgiven me for that, besides obviously you and Harshman.

>
> But relax, Oxyaena: none of this will prevent Wolffan from liking you;
> in fact, it might make him like you all the more.

I really don't care whether Wolffan likes me or not, he's not involved
in our feud, I don't pay much attention to him at all.

>
> And you can be almost certain that Wolffan would never accuse you of
> having a personality disorder, not when his behavior resembles yours so much.

Aside from the inferior intellect and appalling grammar.

>
> I say "almost certain" because, if you should ever start dealing with
> me fair and square, all bets are off as to how Wolffan would treat you.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

I can be pretty affable when I`m in the mood. You know, you really
should've gotten that degree in armchair psychology, Professor.

[Oxyaena]

Sbp says different.

I can't bring any posts up because I don't have a lot of time, but I can
count from memory all the times he's been abusive to me in alt.atheism.

>
> You don't count -- see my last reply to you just before I read
> Harshman the riot act [figuratively speaking of course] a
> few minutes ago.

Ah, shucks.

>
>
>>>>> [1] Or maybe only ten percent; it's hard to make estimates when you
>>>>> are showered with abuse over your ignorance of a specific category
>>>>> of goings-on in t.o.
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 posts. I don't recall that many in
>>>> which he isn't abusive to someone.
>>>
>>> It's all about you, isn't it?
>>
>> Psychological projection, a classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate.
>
> You have no sense of humor. I was giving Harshman a dose of his own
> medicine, because 3 or 4 posts lambasting Harshman were ALL I saw
> besides the one "spoiler" I talked about.

You have no sense of humor, Peter. I was being semi-sarcastic.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>>>> be that you miss this?
>
> How can it be that I haven't seen the hundred or so posts it would
> take to know this? THAT is how illogical Harshman is being here.

I have, you must have horrible judgement skills.

>
>
>>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>>>> delusional.
>>>
>>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
>>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
>>> you never want to hear from me about.
>>
>>
>> Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
>> his own faults
>
> Document some, and I will admit them.

You know damn well that you are guilty of psychological projection, I
have plenty of witnesses to attest to that.

>
> Or go on bluffing, and see whether I care.



>
>
>> while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
>> JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
>> statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.
>
> There is a wonderful passage in Plato's "Gorgias" where
> Socrates talks about false witnesses.

Ha ha, very funny, except I`m not lying, I`m telling the truth. It is
you who are the fool, since you have blind faith in JTEM being way more
affable than he really is.

>
> There, I've given you incentive to avoid "Gorgias" like the plague.
>
>
>> ""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
>> family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
>> developed between the two of you always works." - Me
>
> Did you really live by this motto of yours? If so, I feel sorry for
> you: it must be awfully lonely after your friends and family no
> longer bothered trying to rebuild the bridges.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

I don't, I have a lovely family and several very close friends. I can't
say the same for you, however.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

[Glenn]

"Wolffan" <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.1EE0758D00...@news.eternal-september.org...

What name did you use on talk.origins before "Wolffan"?

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> So, how about gorillas?

In what way/shape/form are your emotions causing
you to believe this changes anything I've said?

Seriously, if your language is so piss poor that
you have to stipulate, CHANGE YOUR LANGUAGE.

It's not doing what it's supposed to do.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Cites, please!

Oxyaena wrote:

> However, recent re-dating of the
> molecular clock places the date that chimps and humans diverged firmly
> around 10-13 Ma

What idiot told you this, how is it you missed
their sarcasm?

Cites!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> seriously consider the hypothesis that

It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
speaking rhetorically here.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Oxyaena wrote:

> I thought humans were great apes, or did the laws of evolution somehow
> change?

"Laws," huh? So you don't know the difference
between an artificial construct -- a sometimes
convenient way to group animals -- and what is
actually a natural law... no surprise what so
ever.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[John Harshman]

On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
>
> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
> speaking rhetorically here.

Hey, does that count as abuse?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 3:54:55 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 6/1/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:29:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2017 5:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/31/17 8:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Hey, if you like the idea of having your forelimbs being longer than your
> >>>>> hindlimbs, a thumb that is not truly opposable, and your foramen
> >>>>> magnum way off center, you're welcome to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's your problem: you think that's a relevant characterization. None
> >>>> of that is a requirement of "ape".
> >>>
> >>> Not in the cladophile sense of "ape," only in the sense that has been in
> >>> use at least ten times as long as yours.
> >>
> >> Definition of "cladophile": Anyone who happens to disagree with the
> >> omniscient Peter the Almighty.
> >
> > You are lying. I spelled out the definition of "cladophile" to you
> > in sci.bio.paleontology, and you are preying on the fact that
> > nobody but you and Harshman and I know you are lying, let alone
> > the magnitude of the lie.
> >
> > And Harshman isn't about to correct you, and if you were to correct
> > yourself now, Wolffan might start worrying just how reliable
> > an enemy of me you really are.

By the way, I reiterated my definition for Harshman, and told
him that you were lying your head off about what it is.

> >>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
> >>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
> >>>
> >>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
> >>>
> >>> But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
> >>> let no dog bark.
> >>>
> >>> And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
> >>> barking dogs to you, aren't they?
> >>
> >> And a mere whole scientific community are like so many barking dogs to
> >> you, Sir Jackass, aren't they?
> >
> > No, and you know damn well that this isn't true.
>
> Sbp says different.

Was that during the rampage where you nearly destroyed s.b.p.?

But the more relevant question is, WHO in s.b.p. said it?

Because it surely wasn't me.

> > Or are you seriously off your meds again?

That was NOT a rhetorical question. You once asked us to treat
you nicely because your rampages were a thing of the past, and
then you went into one of the longest and worst, if not THE
longest and worst.

> >>>>>>> I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
> >>>>>>> since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
> >>>>>>> straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
> >>>>>>> and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
> >>>>>>> allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey, isn't that something you said you weren't going to mention?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Huh?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This isn't sci.bio.paleontology, you know.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know.
> >>>
> >>> My "Huh?" went way over your head, eh, Sir Oracle?
> >>
> >> Wow, great name, Paranoia-incarnate, I can't wait to see what more
> >> pathetic schoolyard taunts you come up with, Paranoia-incarnate.
> >
> > Stop pretending Harshman shamelessly avoided either correcting
> > himself or digging himself in deeper.
> >
> > Well, either that or you jumped into an argument you know
> > nothing about, and shot yourself in the foot. Pick your poison.

<crickets>

Then you have such a rotten sense of humor, you aren't in
any condition to judge anyone else's.

> >>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
> >>>>>> be that you miss this?
> >
> > How can it be that I haven't seen the hundred or so posts it would
> > take to know this? THAT is how illogical Harshman is being here.
>
> I have, you must have horrible judgement skills.

Sorry, I should have known you were too dense to catch my
sarcasm. What I should have written was,

If Harshman weren't so stupefyingly illogical, he
would have asked, "How can it be that you haven't seen
the hundred or so posts it takes to know this?"

I'm pretty sure it's all an act by him, but maybe I was
right in thinking that he is an *idiot savant* who
is great at all kinds of scientific information, but can't
reason his way out of a paper bag.

[That last clause is hyperbole, by the way; I wish I could
assure you that the "idiot savant" part is also.]

> >
> >
> >>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
> >>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
> >>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
> >>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
> >>>>> reply to a post by you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
> >>>> delusional.
> >>>
> >>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
> >>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
> >>> you never want to hear from me about.
> >>
> >>
> >> Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
> >> his own faults
> >
> > Document some, and I will admit them.

Here I called your bluff...

... and here you folded:

> You know damn well that you are guilty of psychological projection, I
> have plenty of witnesses to attest to that.

All with vested interest in lying that way, I bet. You don't even
have the minimal backbone to name any of them.

And is that "plenty" like that attributed to some of the Khoi-San people,
who are said to have only three numbers: one, two, and plenty?

> > Or go on bluffing, and see whether I care.

You did, fat lot of good that did yoy.

> >> while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
> >> JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
> >> statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.
> >
> > There is a wonderful passage in Plato's "Gorgias" where
> > Socrates talks about false witnesses.
>
> Ha ha, very funny, except I`m not lying, I`m telling the truth. It is
> you who are the fool, since you have blind faith in JTEM being way more
> affable than he really is.

You have blind faith in your delusion that I have come to any conclusions
about his degree of affability.

But I can't blame you: you think everyone ought to make snap judgments
based on less than a dozen posts; why should you be any different
from Harshman?

>
> >
> > There, I've given you incentive to avoid "Gorgias" like the plague.
> >
> >
> >> ""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
> >> family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
> >> developed between the two of you always works." - Me
> >
> > Did you really live by this motto of yours? If so, I feel sorry for
> > you: it must be awfully lonely after your friends and family no
> > longer bothered trying to rebuild the bridges.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> I don't, I have a lovely family and several very close friends. I can't
> say the same for you, however.

That's because you know neither my family nor my friends, just
as I don't know either of yours. I give them all the benefit of
the doubt, though, and if you ever dare to malign one of them
by claiming that they said something nasty about me, I will not
believe you unless they get on talk.origins and tell me that
personally, from their own e-mail account.

A number of people in talk.abortion tried to say such things
about their wives, and I berated them for hiding behind
the skirts of their respective wives, and then I told them
what I told you just now, in the last two clauses of the preceding
paragraph.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:53 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Oxyaena wrote:
>
> > I thought humans were great apes, or did the laws of evolution somehow
> > change?
>
> "Laws," huh? So you don't know the difference
> between an artificial construct -- a sometimes
> convenient way to group animals -- and what is
> actually a natural law... no surprise what so
> ever.

Well put. He is as brainwashed as Harshman is on this, and both
do their best to brainwash readers here about what comes under
the rubric of science.

I wonder whether Oxyaena will count this as another post
where you were seriously abusive of him. [1] See the reply
I did to him just now, where we discussed you and tried
to railroad me into a snap judgment about you just as
Harshman had a bit earlier this week.

I always do my best to treat people fair and square,
something these two political animals can never seem to
comprehend, insufferably self-righteous as they are
(especially Harshman).

[1] I admit to being abusive of both of them in this post,
but that's part and parcel of treating these two rogues
fair and square.

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

U. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
JTEM has been abusive towards me. Was that another trick
you picked up from KGB interrogators?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/1/17 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
>>>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
>>>
>>> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
>>> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>>
>> Hey, does that count as abuse?
>
> I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
> JTEM has been abusive towards me.

You don't consider that to be abuse of you?

[Peter Nyikos]

There would be if the Cladist Wars had ended differently. And
thanks for giving me a taste of the kinds of dirty debating
tactics the cladophiles [1] might have used in deliberately
misunderstanding the traditional classification, which used
all three kinds of groups - monophyletic, paraphyletic and
(a BIG one) groups about which there was insufficient
information to tell whether they were paraphyletic or
monophyletic.

It's the sort of thing any reasonably bright
person can get the hang of, but propagandists like you
evidently loved to pretend that there was an inconsistency
about using all three kinds of taxa. [But you were oblivious
to that third category, weren't you?]

[1] I also got a taste of outright chicanery and incorrigible kookiness
from those cladomaniacs Tom DiBenedetto and Mike Noren back in 1996-2000,
and I bet there was a lot of that going on in the Cladist Wars too.

> You know nothing about how evolutionary
> research works.

Bullshit. I keep trying to tell you how paraphyletic taxa can be
used to produce evolutionary trees that become more and more
exact, with the eventual goal something like Kathleen Hunt's
tree in the horse evolution FAQ, but it's like beating my head
against a stone wall.

> >> So they
> >> contradict themselves.
> >
> > You are ignoring the context. We use words in different senses all the
> > time. There is an old joke about this:
> >
> > If the pig cannot be cured in the animal hospital,
> > we will cure it in the smokehouse.
> >
> >> This may just be an example of sloppy use of
> >> language.
> >
> > And your snip of their very words may be just a sloppy use
> > of your mouse, eh? Tell me another.
>
> This level of arrogant ignorance is usually reserved, here on TO, for
> creationists.

And for you, and levels way beyond for you, when you arrogantly accused
me of arrogance for even daring to debate a biologist like you
about anything in biology.

With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder no student in your
classes ever dared to challenge anything you said. They must
have feared, with some justice, that you would lower their
grades for their "disruptive behavior during class."

> > ____________________re-repost_______________________________
> >
> >>>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> >>>>> between great apes and humans.
> >>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371journal.pone.0177127
> >>>
> > ======================== end of re-repost ==========================
> >
> > Yes, they do distinguish here between great apes and humans,
> > because they are talking about morphology, and using these words
> > the way they have been used for hundreds of years, and not about the
> > arbitrary conventions of cladistic classification.
>
> Oddly, they are saying that humans are neither great apes nor African
> apes, but are still apes.

Apes in one sense of the word, not apes in another sense of the word.

> So why don't they define "hominoid" as "apes
> and humans"? And why "non-ape ancestors", when they're all hominoids and
> therefore apes? It's selfcontradiction in a single sentence, and that's
> the context.

Scroll back up and re-read what I wrote about two senses of the
word "cure," you incorrigible jerk.

> As for "inter-genus variability", you realize they're talking about
> premolars, right?

Are you REALLY so inept at reason that you actually think this is relevant
to what we are arguing about?

Actually, I think the real explanation is that you are a polemicist who is
only interested in scoring debating points and not in getting at
the truth of anything. So you completely changed the subject so
your readers would think you had some really telling point to
make, didn't you?

And, given the abysmal level of understanding the majority here
have of paleontology, with the non-creationists and anti-creationists
no better than the creationists, you probably would have had
the majority of readers fooled if I hadn't called you out on
it just now.

Even as it is, some of them will probably STILL be fooled.

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

U. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

I don't think that's true. The cladist wars had nothing much to do with
classification, just with the proper way of using phylogenetic data and
(for those who thought phylogeny was possible to estimate) of estimating
phylogeny. It happens that the methods used by the old systematists just
don't work as well as the cladists' methods. One of your prongs is broken.

> And
> thanks for giving me a taste of the kinds of dirty debating
> tactics the cladophiles [1] might have used in deliberately
> misunderstanding the traditional classification, which used
> all three kinds of groups - monophyletic, paraphyletic and
> (a BIG one) groups about which there was insufficient
> information to tell whether they were paraphyletic or
> monophyletic.

You are clearly misunderstanding what I said, and you are also accusing
the great bulk of systematists of lying. Do you even realize when you do
that?

> It's the sort of thing any reasonably bright
> person can get the hang of, but propagandists like you
> evidently loved to pretend that there was an inconsistency
> about using all three kinds of taxa. [But you were oblivious
> to that third category, weren't you?]

And here you are carrying on the entire conversation yourself, imagining
what I think based on nothing.

>> You know nothing about how evolutionary
>> research works.
>
> Bullshit. I keep trying to tell you how paraphyletic taxa can be
> used to produce evolutionary trees that become more and more
> exact, with the eventual goal something like Kathleen Hunt's
> tree in the horse evolution FAQ, but it's like beating my head
> against a stone wall.

Yeah, that's because your supposed method produces no useful results. I
think you're making it up from what you imagine people used to do.

>>>> So they
>>>> contradict themselves.
>>>
>>> You are ignoring the context. We use words in different senses all the
>>> time. There is an old joke about this:
>>>
>>> If the pig cannot be cured in the animal hospital,
>>> we will cure it in the smokehouse.
>>>
>>>> This may just be an example of sloppy use of
>>>> language.
>>>
>>> And your snip of their very words may be just a sloppy use
>>> of your mouse, eh? Tell me another.
>>
>> This level of arrogant ignorance is usually reserved, here on TO, for
>> creationists.
>
> And for you, and levels way beyond for you, when you arrogantly accused
> me of arrogance for even daring to debate a biologist like you
> about anything in biology.

Nope. That's not why. It's because you think you know more about doing
systematics than I do, and more than most systematists do. But you don't.

> With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder no student in your
> classes ever dared to challenge anything you said. They must
> have feared, with some justice, that you would lower their
> grades for their "disruptive behavior during class."

Your penchant for inventing fantasy scenarios and then drawing firm
conclusions from them is downright pathological.

>>> ____________________re-repost_______________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
>>>>>>> between great apes and humans.
>>>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371journal.pone.0177127
>>>>>
>>> ======================== end of re-repost ==========================
>>>
>>> Yes, they do distinguish here between great apes and humans,
>>> because they are talking about morphology, and using these words
>>> the way they have been used for hundreds of years, and not about the
>>> arbitrary conventions of cladistic classification.
>>
>> Oddly, they are saying that humans are neither great apes nor African
>> apes, but are still apes.
>
> Apes in one sense of the word, not apes in another sense of the word.

Don't you think that using the same word in different senses in a single
sentence, without even acknowledging that's what you did, is a problem
for comprehension at the very least?

>> So why don't they define "hominoid" as "apes
>> and humans"? And why "non-ape ancestors", when they're all hominoids and
>> therefore apes? It's selfcontradiction in a single sentence, and that's
>> the context.
>
> Scroll back up and re-read what I wrote about two senses of the
> word "cure," you incorrigible jerk.

Ask yourself whether your posts are improved by the invective or whether
you are just committing a deadly sin (wrath) for no purpose.

>> As for "inter-genus variability", you realize they're talking about
>> premolars, right?
>
> Are you REALLY so inept at reason that you actually think this is relevant
> to what we are arguing about?

Yes, at least tangentially. If you want to distinguish between two
groups, one of them paraphyletic, it's unwise to rely on premolars only.
Other than that, it's just another example of the sloppy language in
that paper.

[Peter Nyikos]

I took his "Well not *You*" to be making an exception for me.
Why didn't you take it that way?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

You are having trouble reading. He says that you, specifically, go with
your jerking knee instead of the evidence. Though I think he was
including everyone else here too, by implication.

[Oxyaena]

I saw, and I wasn't lying. To reiterate:

The definition of Cladophile from a rational, non-Peter Nyikos
perspective: Cladophile n: Anyone who happens to disagree with Peter Nyikos.

>
>>>>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
>>>>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>>>>
>>>>> But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
>>>>> let no dog bark.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
>>>>> barking dogs to you, aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> And a mere whole scientific community are like so many barking dogs to
>>>> you, Sir Jackass, aren't they?
>>>
>>> No, and you know damn well that this isn't true.
>>
>> Sbp says different.
>
> Was that during the rampage where you nearly destroyed s.b.p.?
>
> But the more relevant question is, WHO in s.b.p. said it?

You.

>
> Because it surely wasn't me.

Bullshit, what about all those times you aligned yourself with Feduccia
on the subject of avian origins? Or about all those times when hlu align
yourself with Direct Panspermists? Or about all those times where you
are opposed to cladistics?

I take that as a compliment, and BTW, you accusing Harshman of being an
idiot savant is NOT humor, it's someone who's so full of themselves to
see what they are doing is no different that being a major asshole.

>
>
>>>>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>>>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>
>>> How can it be that I haven't seen the hundred or so posts it would
>>> take to know this? THAT is how illogical Harshman is being here.
>>
>> I have, you must have horrible judgement skills.
>
> Sorry, I should have known you were too dense to catch my
> sarcasm. What I should have written was,

That's a real pitiful excuse, Peter. It pains me to have written my
apology on sbp, I take it back. You gave NO indication what you were
saying is sarcasm, and that's akin to a schoolyard bully saying "I was
only joking."

>
> If Harshman weren't so stupefyingly illogical, he
> would have asked, "How can it be that you haven't seen
> the hundred or so posts it takes to know this?"
>
> I'm pretty sure it's all an act by him, but maybe I was
> right in thinking that he is an *idiot savant* who
> is great at all kinds of scientific information, but can't
> reason his way out of a paper bag.

You really are a major douche bag, Peter. And here comes the Paranoia
about an "act". There is no act, Harshman is spot on about JTEM being a
dick, and I am spot on about you being a hypocritical douche bag.

>
> [That last clause is hyperbole, by the way; I wish I could
> assure you that the "idiot savant" part is also.]

Wow, you really are a dense, hypocritical jackass. If you are so dense
that you don't see what you are doing as hypocritical and offensive,
then there really is no hope for you, Peter.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>>>>>> delusional.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
>>>>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
>>>>> you never want to hear from me about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
>>>> his own faults
>>>
>>> Document some, and I will admit them.
>
> Here I called your bluff...
>
> ... and here you folded:

Bullshit.

>
>> You know damn well that you are guilty of psychological projection, I
>> have plenty of witnesses to attest to that.
>
> All with vested interest in lying that way, I bet. You don't even
> have the minimal backbone to name any of them.

Okay, here's a list:

Hypocrisy

Back-biting

Being a major asshole

Paranoia

Spamming

I can name a whole lot more, Professor Asshole.

>
> And is that "plenty" like that attributed to some of the Khoi-San people,
> who are said to have only three numbers: one, two, and plenty?
>
>
>>> Or go on bluffing, and see whether I care.
>
> You did, fat lot of good that did yoy.

"Yoy?" Also, I`m NOT bluffing.

>
>
>>>> while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
>>>> JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
>>>> statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.
>>>
>>> There is a wonderful passage in Plato's "Gorgias" where
>>> Socrates talks about false witnesses.
>>
>> Ha ha, very funny, except I`m not lying, I`m telling the truth. It is
>> you who are the fool, since you have blind faith in JTEM being way more
>> affable than he really is.
>
> You have blind faith in your delusion that I have come to any conclusions
> about his degree of affability.

Right back at you, you narcissistic asshole.

>
> But I can't blame you: you think everyone ought to make snap judgments
> based on less than a dozen posts; why should you be any different
> from Harshman?

How about hundreds of posts directed at me and others. Given your
behavior, I can see why you and JTEM get along.

>>
>>>
>>> There, I've given you incentive to avoid "Gorgias" like the plague.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
>>>> family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
>>>> developed between the two of you always works." - Me
>>>
>>> Did you really live by this motto of yours? If so, I feel sorry for
>>> you: it must be awfully lonely after your friends and family no
>>> longer bothered trying to rebuild the bridges.
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>> I don't, I have a lovely family and several very close friends. I can't
>> say the same for you, however.
>
> That's because you know neither my family nor my friends, just
> as I don't know either of yours. I give them all the benefit of
> the doubt, though, and if you ever dare to malign one of them
> by claiming that they said something nasty about me, I will not
> believe you unless they get on talk.origins and tell me that
> personally, from their own e-mail account.

Since when has it been all about you, oh wait, stupid question. My sig
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, IT'S HUMOR. You are so dense you see
yourself into anything AND EVERYTHING, Professor.

>
> A number of people in talk.abortion tried to say such things
> about their wives, and I berated them for hiding behind
> the skirts of their respective wives, and then I told them
> what I told you just now, in the last two clauses of the preceding
> paragraph.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Since when does t.a. have anything to do with t.o.?

On second thought, in your mind it does since the whole world revolves
around you.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

[Oxyaena]

Here's evidence where he's being a dick to you:

"It's called 'Evidence.' You go with the 'Evidence'
instead of your jerking knee."

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

[Oxyaena]

On 6/1/2017 7:47 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:53 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Oxyaena wrote:
>>
>>> I thought humans were great apes, or did the laws of evolution somehow
>>> change?
>>
>> "Laws," huh? So you don't know the difference
>> between an artificial construct -- a sometimes
>> convenient way to group animals -- and what is
>> actually a natural law... no surprise what so
>> ever.
>
> Well put. He is as brainwashed as Harshman is on this, and both
> do their best to brainwash readers here about what comes under
> the rubric of science.

You think you know more than actual biologists on this matter, you
don't. And how exactly are we "brainwashed"?

>
> I wonder whether Oxyaena will count this as another post
> where you were seriously abusive of him. [1] See the reply
> I did to him just now, where we discussed you and tried
> to railroad me into a snap judgment about you just as
> Harshman had a bit earlier this week.

Snap judgement my ass. You really are a deluded fuckwad, Peter.

>
> I always do my best to treat people fair and square,
> something these two political animals can never seem to
> comprehend, insufferably self-righteous as they are
> (especially Harshman).

Psychological projection, you smug, hypocritical jackass.

>
> [1] I admit to being abusive of both of them in this post,
> but that's part and parcel of treating these two rogues
> fair and square.

Fascinating, since when was being a dick "fair and square"?

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> U. of So. Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515
>

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > So, how about gorillas?
>
> In what way/shape/form are your emotions causing
> you to believe this changes anything I've said?
>
> Seriously, if your language is so piss poor that
> you have to stipulate, CHANGE YOUR LANGUAGE.
>
> It's not doing what it's supposed to do.

It's a simple question. Where do gorillas fit in your
schema of relatedness.


>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161270314515

[Rolf]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c460f0c0-657e-4f6d...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> wrote:
>> Chimps.
>>
>> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
>> evolved from us.
>>
>> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
>> certainly used tools and may have
>> potentially made tools.
>>
>> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
>>
>> So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
>> It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
>> doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
>> it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
>> suggests to people relationships which are
>> simply false.
>>
>> Science is intended to explain the natural
>> world around us. Language is what we use to
>> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
>> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
>> misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
>> which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>
> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
>

We didn't dtop being mammals either.
Funny how we share almost everything with both our nearest relatives -the
great apes - and mammals, from mice to elephants
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --
>>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161177666643
>

[Rolf]

"The Incredibly Lucky JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:680e4cf9-692d-4400...@googlegroups.com...

> John Stockwell wrote:
>
>> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
>

> It's a convention, not a fact. Saying "Humans
> are apes" is a convention. It's like writing
> from left to right, as opposed to right to left.
> Neither way is "Right" (if you pardon the pun).
> One way of doing it is just as good as the other.
> What's important is that we all agree to the
> same standard, and that whatever standard we
> agree on actually serves us instead of hindering
> us.
>
> As I pointed out, and you failed to grasp, calling
> humans "Apes" conveys misinformation. It creates
> errors. Instead of communicating useful information
> about our relationship to "Other Apes," it misleads
> people. It causes them to arrive at false conclusions.
>
> Chimps, for instance, began as upright walkers who
> almost certainly used tools -- and potentially even
> made them. Quite frankly, the ape (the Chimp) evolved
> from us, NOT the other way around...
>
>
>
>

A shared LCA means just that to all us apes.

So what's your point, you made a great discovery or something?


>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161171079028
>

[Rolf]

"The Incredibly Lucky JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2878c8cf-d9c3-4533...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Chimps.
>
> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
> evolved from us.
>
> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
> certainly used tools and may have
> potentially made tools.
>
> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
>
> So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
> It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
> doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
> it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
> suggests to people relationships which are
> simply false.
>
> Science is intended to explain the natural
> world around us. Language is what we use to
> communicate that explanation. Calling modern
> humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
> misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
> which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>
>

The incrediby luck JTEM is the smartest guy to be seen here for a long time.

Idiots like all the rest of us should shut up and worship when genius talks.

>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161177666643
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 12:28:56 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Like that's gonna happen; who shuts up for you?

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1665jcl05hu5ps0f5...@4ax.com...

No rule without an exception.

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:14:53 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:

>
> No rule without an exception.

Do you cut your own hair?

[Burkhard]

Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:14:53 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
>>
>> No rule without an exception.
>
> Do you cut your own hair?

Not me, just like the present King of France, I'm bald

[jillery]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 03:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:14:53 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
>>
>> No rule without an exception.
>
>Do you cut your own hair?

I know people who do.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/1/17 7:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:29:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/1/17 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> >>>>>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
> >>>>> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
> >>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey, does that count as abuse?
> >>>
> >>> I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
> >>> JTEM has been abusive towards me
> >>

> >> You don't consider that to be abuse of you?
> >
> > I took his "Well not *You*" to be making an exception for me.
> > Why didn't you take it that way?

You ducked this question completely.

> You are having trouble reading.

You are having trouble reasoning. And this is an even worse
lapse of logic than I've seen from you before.

Either that, or you've suffered amnesia over the fact that
you said that the OP was NOT satirical whereas I assumed that
it WAS satirical. This double-whammy forgetfulness is something
I find hard to believe.

So, back to the more likely explanation: you are trying to have
it both ways. You want to claim that JTEM was serious AND that
he was singling me out for abuse despite the fact that I came
far closer to supporting him than anyone else here.

Or, as the saying goes, you want to eat your cake and have it too.
And the fact that you completely evaded my question is a very
thick layer of icing on that cake.

> He says that you, specifically, go with
> your jerking knee instead of the evidence.

You are becoming increasingly irrational in your thorough
evasion of my question.

> Though I think he was
> including everyone else here too, by implication.

I'd love to see you try to parse what he wrote and get
anything like your tall tale out of it.

More likely, you'll "lose interest" in this whole topic
and delete almost everything I wrote, lest Burkhard
be disillusioned by how irrational you can be. Even
Ray Martiez can do better than you sometimes.

By the way, I've figured out why you lost interest in
"disagreeing" that I handled JTEM's ONE insult of me
deftly [1]. It is because, after the very adept
"SMILE when you say that, podner!" I directed him
to a thread where Hemidactylus and Robert Camp are
behaving like emotional basket cases, while I am at least
as careful in my use of reason as anyone in talk.origins has ever been.

And you want people to believe that if any one of
the four of us (Hemi, Camp, you, and I) is an emotional
basket case, it is myself. And so, you deleted everthing
about which you were ALLEGEDLY disagreeing.


[1] it is the ONLY case of JTEM abusing me that either I *or* you has
found so far. And so I believe you LIED about their existence
before you posted it.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/5/17 6:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/1/17 7:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:29:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/17 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
>>>>>>>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
>>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
>>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, does that count as abuse?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
>>>>> JTEM has been abusive towards me
>>>>
>>>> You don't consider that to be abuse of you?
>>>
>>> I took his "Well not *You*" to be making an exception for me.
>>> Why didn't you take it that way?
>
> You ducked this question completely.

Christ on a bloody crutch. The entire remainder of that post was an
answer. I didn't take it that way because the exception he was taking
was to being reasonable. He called you an idiot, in other words. Read
the original post carefully, more carefully than you did the first time.

>> You are having trouble reading.
>
> You are having trouble reasoning. And this is an even worse
> lapse of logic than I've seen from you before.
>
> Either that, or you've suffered amnesia over the fact that
> you said that the OP was NOT satirical whereas I assumed that
> it WAS satirical. This double-whammy forgetfulness is something
> I find hard to believe.

I have no idea what the post not being satirical (it wasn't) has to do
with what we're talking about here, except that it shows you have a
history of misreading JTEM's points.

> So, back to the more likely explanation: you are trying to have
> it both ways. You want to claim that JTEM was serious AND that
> he was singling me out for abuse despite the fact that I came
> far closer to supporting him than anyone else here.

Yes. Why are these in any way contradictory? He thinks everyone is
equally stupid. You're no better than anyone else.

> Or, as the saying goes, you want to eat your cake and have it too.
> And the fact that you completely evaded my question is a very
> thick layer of icing on that cake.

This is more insane than your usual nonsense.

>> He says that you, specifically, go with
>> your jerking knee instead of the evidence.
>
> You are becoming increasingly irrational in your thorough
> evasion of my question.

That was a very specific explanation of what JTEM actually said that you
misunderstood.

>> Though I think he was
>> including everyone else here too, by implication.
>
> I'd love to see you try to parse what he wrote and get
> anything like your tall tale out of it.

I just did. Shall I do it again?

>>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."

That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.

>>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
>>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.

"You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.

>>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
>>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.

"Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
sentence. In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence

instead of your jerking knee.

Is that now clear to you?

> More likely, you'll "lose interest" in this whole topic
> and delete almost everything I wrote, lest Burkhard
> be disillusioned by how irrational you can be. Even
> Ray Martiez can do better than you sometimes.
>
> By the way, I've figured out why you lost interest in
> "disagreeing" that I handled JTEM's ONE insult of me
> deftly [1]. It is because, after the very adept
> "SMILE when you say that, podner!"

You are impossible to parody better than you parody yourself.

> I directed him
> to a thread where Hemidactylus and Robert Camp are
> behaving like emotional basket cases, while I am at least
> as careful in my use of reason as anyone in talk.origins has ever been.

Truly impossible to parody.

> And you want people to believe that if any one of
> the four of us (Hemi, Camp, you, and I) is an emotional
> basket case, it is myself. And so, you deleted everthing
> about which you were ALLEGEDLY disagreeing.

I wouldn't consider you an emotional basket case. I consider you a lot
of bad things, but I won't mention them right now.

> [1] it is the ONLY case of JTEM abusing me that either I *or* you has
> found so far. And so I believe you LIED about their existence
> before you posted it.

It's the only one I've specifically pointed to. It's not the first.
Thanks for accusing me of lying again. Your moral superiority is maintained.

[Peter Nyikos]

<snip for focus>

Unable to cope with anything I wrote above about you or Harshman,
you bottom-posted and played snip-n-deceive [1]:

> Here's evidence where he's being a dick to you:
>
> "It's called 'Evidence.' You go with the 'Evidence'
> instead of your jerking knee."

You are helping to perpetrate Harshman's elaborate con game here,
by snipping the qualifying

Well not *You*: I'm speaking rhetorically here.

which came *immediately* after the part you cherry-picked.

[1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
that I am flailing helplessly.

Well, it did you no good, because Harshman has revealed just how
irrational he can be, by ducking the question of how he could
possibly have read that as not making an exception for me, AND
THEN ranting at random in a vain effort to conceal his cowardice.


See my reply to him on this same Subject: line yesterday evening.
And don't try to pretend I haven't given you enough information
to find it. It's the ONLY post I did to this Subject line yesterday.

And don't count on John being able to wiggle out from it. In his
reply to me two hours later, he probably senses on some level that
he's in an indefensible position, because he's squealing and jumping
and clawing and biting like a cornered sewer rat.

[I wouldn't say this if he weren't also playing snip-n-domineer
on that other thread. It is the contrast between the two behaviors
that makes the one on this thread look that way.]

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Which is odd, because that's actually the part where JTEM attacked you.
You still can't see that? Ask yourself what's "not *You*". What exactly
do you think is "not *You*"?

> [1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
> can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
> about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
> Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
> playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
> mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
> to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
> that I am flailing helplessly.

This is a paranoid fantasy, and I intend the term literally.

[Oxyaena]

I don't think Peter's twisted mind can't comprehend that JTEM is
attacking him, and him personally.

>
>> [1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
>> can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
>> about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
>> Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
>> playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
>> mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
>> to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
>> that I am flailing helplessly.
>
> This is a paranoid fantasy, and I intend the term literally.
>
>

I recommend reading my reply above, John. And my (other) reply, which
Sir Paranoiac conveniently ignored.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

Ronald Reagan, the patron saaint of all things Republican.

Donald Trump, the Harbinger of the Apocalypse.

[Oxyaena]

Here's all the shit you conveniently snipped because you are "unable to
cope with anything I wrote about you":

"> I saw, and I wasn't lying. To reiterate:
>

> The definition of Cladophile from a rational, non-Peter Nyikos perspective: Cladophile n: Anyone who happens to disagree with Peter Nyikos.

>
>>
>>>>>> And it lives on in the writings of paleoanthropologist John Hawks,
>>>>>> as well as the four co-authors of that PlosOne article:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you are Sir Oracle Harshman, and when you ope your lips,
>>>>>> let no dog bark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a mere 5 research paleoanthropologists are like so many
>>>>>> barking dogs to you, aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> And a mere whole scientific community are like so many barking dogs to
>>>>> you, Sir Jackass, aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> No, and you know damn well that this isn't true.
>>>
>>> Sbp says different.
>>
>> Was that during the rampage where you nearly destroyed s.b.p.?
>>
>> But the more relevant question is, WHO in s.b.p. said it?
>

> You.

>
>
>>
>> Because it surely wasn't me.
>

> Bullshit, what about all those times you aligned yourself with Feduccia on the subject of avian origins? Or about all those times when hlu align yourself with Direct Panspermists? Or about all those times where you are opposed to cladistics?
>
>
>>
>>

> I take that as a compliment, and BTW, you accusing Harshman of being an idiot savant is NOT humor, it's someone who's so full of themselves to see what they are doing is no different that being a major asshole.
>
>
>>
>>

>>>>>>>>> He hates everybody and thinks everybody is an idiot. How can it
>>>>>>>>> be that you miss this?
>>>>
>>>> How can it be that I haven't seen the hundred or so posts it would
>>>> take to know this? THAT is how illogical Harshman is being here.
>>>
>>> I have, you must have horrible judgement skills.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have known you were too dense to catch my
>> sarcasm. What I should have written was,
>

> That's a real pitiful excuse, Peter. It pains me to have written my apology on sbp, I take it back. You gave NO indication what you were saying is sarcasm, and that's akin to a schoolyard bully saying "I was only joking."
>
>
>
>>

>> If Harshman weren't so stupefyingly illogical, he
>> would have asked, "How can it be that you haven't seen
>> the hundred or so posts it takes to know this?"
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's all an act by him, but maybe I was
>> right in thinking that he is an *idiot savant* who
>> is great at all kinds of scientific information, but can't
>> reason his way out of a paper bag.
>

> You really are a major douche bag, Peter. And here comes the Paranoia about an "act". There is no act, Harshman is spot on about JTEM being a dick, and I am spot on about you being a hypocritical douche bag.

>
>>
>> [That last clause is hyperbole, by the way; I wish I could
>> assure you that the "idiot savant" part is also.]
>
>

> Wow, you really are a dense, hypocritical jackass. If you are so dense that you don't see what you are doing as hypocritical and offensive, then there really is no hope for you, Peter.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak [2] is a highly dishonest hypocrite who has supported
>>>>>>>> you against me a number of times. How is it that you miss this,
>>>>>>>> when he has done it several times on the same threads,
>>>>>>>> and at least once in a direct reply to a post of mine that was a direct
>>>>>>>> reply to a post by you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [2] I could name others, but only if you request it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no interest in your accusations, most, perhaps all, of which are
>>>>>>> delusional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the ones I mentioned in the paragraph to which you are referring
>>>>>> are false. You are basing your charges on blind faith in someone who
>>>>>> you never want to hear from me about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another classic character trait of Paranoia-incarnate, refusing to admit
>>>>> his own faults
>>>>
>>>> Document some, and I will admit them.
>>
>> Here I called your bluff...
>>
>> ... and here you folded:
>

> Bullshit.

>
>>
>>> You know damn well that you are guilty of psychological projection, I
>>> have plenty of witnesses to attest to that.
>>
>> All with vested interest in lying that way, I bet. You don't even
>> have the minimal backbone to name any of them.
>

> Okay, here's a list:
>
> Hypocrisy
>
> Back-biting
>
> Being a major asshole
>
> Paranoia
>
> Spamming
>
> I can name a whole lot more, Professor Asshole.
>
>
>>

>> And is that "plenty" like that attributed to some of the Khoi-San people,
>> who are said to have only three numbers: one, two, and plenty?
>>
>>
>>>> Or go on bluffing, and see whether I care.
>>
>> You did, fat lot of good that did yoy.
>

> "Yoy?" Also, I`m NOT bluffing.
>
>
>>
>>

>>>>> while shamelessly accusing others. Oh, and by the way,
>>>>> JTEM is a major asshole, so I can serve as a witness to Harshman's
>>>>> statement. It's unsurprising why you two would get along, jackass.
>>>>
>>>> There is a wonderful passage in Plato's "Gorgias" where
>>>> Socrates talks about false witnesses.
>>>
>>> Ha ha, very funny, except I`m not lying, I`m telling the truth. It is
>>> you who are the fool, since you have blind faith in JTEM being way more
>>> affable than he really is.
>>
>> You have blind faith in your delusion that I have come to any conclusions
>> about his degree of affability.
>

> Right back at you, you narcissistic asshole.
>
>
>>

>> But I can't blame you: you think everyone ought to make snap judgments
>> based on less than a dozen posts; why should you be any different
>> from Harshman?
>

> How about hundreds of posts directed at me and others. Given your behavior, I can see why you and JTEM get along.
>
>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> There, I've given you incentive to avoid "Gorgias" like the plague.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ""When leaving a place and you have no other way of giving a friend or
>>>>> family member something to remember you by, burning the bridge you have
>>>>> developed between the two of you always works." - Me
>>>>
>>>> Did you really live by this motto of yours? If so, I feel sorry for
>>>> you: it must be awfully lonely after your friends and family no
>>>> longer bothered trying to rebuild the bridges.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>
>>> I don't, I have a lovely family and several very close friends. I can't
>>> say the same for you, however.
>>
>> That's because you know neither my family nor my friends, just
>> as I don't know either of yours. I give them all the benefit of
>> the doubt, though, and if you ever dare to malign one of them
>> by claiming that they said something nasty about me, I will not
>> believe you unless they get on talk.origins and tell me that
>> personally, from their own e-mail account.
>

> Since when has it been all about you, oh wait, stupid question. My sig HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, IT'S HUMOR. You are so dense you see yourself into anything AND EVERYTHING, Professor.
>
>
>>

>> A number of people in talk.abortion tried to say such things
>> about their wives, and I berated them for hiding behind
>> the skirts of their respective wives, and then I told them
>> what I told you just now, in the last two clauses of the preceding
>> paragraph.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>

> Since when does t.a. have anything to do with t.o.?
>
> On second thought, in your mind it does since the whole world revolves around you.

How does that entire post you conveniently ignored merit that I am
"unable to cope" with anything you write about me? Take a second and
review the entire post, can you smell the hypocrisy in the air,Peter?
No? Perhaps you should take a second look, then.

>
>> Here's evidence where he's being a dick to you:
>>
>> "It's called 'Evidence.' You go with the 'Evidence'
>> instead of your jerking knee."
>
> You are helping to perpetrate Harshman's elaborate con game here,
> by snipping the qualifying

So much for an amicable conversation when you refuse to see the obvious
truth hiding in plain fucking sight.

>
> Well not *You*: I'm speaking rhetorically here.
>
> which came *immediately* after the part you cherry-picked.
>
> [1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
> can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
> about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
> Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
> playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
> mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
> to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
> that I am flailing helplessly.

Wow, why does every post you write contain seething contempt for either
me or Harshman? Oh, this is the "Armchair psychologist" game you like to
play. Can I see your doctoral dissertation in armchair psychology, Petey?

>
> Well, it did you no good, because Harshman has revealed just how
> irrational he can be, by ducking the question of how he could
> possibly have read that as not making an exception for me, AND
> THEN ranting at random in a vain effort to conceal his cowardice.

Psychological projection and Peter's patented brand of telepathy are the
favored tactics this wild-eyes psychopath likes to use. Hmm, "Ducking
the question of how he could possibly have read something into that" and
"Ranting at random in a vain effort to conceal his cowardice", who does
that remind me of?

>
>
> See my reply to him on this same Subject: line yesterday evening.
> And don't try to pretend I haven't given you enough information
> to find it. It's the ONLY post I did to this Subject line yesterday.

You haven't. I looked up and down the entire fucking thread without a
single goddamn peep from you, you fucking psychopath.

>
> And don't count on John being able to wiggle out from it. In his
> reply to me two hours later, he probably senses on some level that
> he's in an indefensible position, because he's squealing and jumping
> and clawing and biting like a cornered sewer rat.

Psychological projection and inane analogies, two favored tactics that
this wild-eyed psychopath uses.

>
> [I wouldn't say this if he weren't also playing snip-n-domineer
> on that other thread. It is the contrast between the two behaviors
> that makes the one on this thread look that way.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

You have still yet to respond to my other post, which you conveniently
ignored, and I re-posted to let some unwary reader know MY side of the
story, and not the paranoid ramblings of a senile narcissist with
delusions of persecution.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

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

[Oxyaena]

On 6/5/2017 9:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/1/17 7:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:29:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/17 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
>>>>>>>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
>>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
>>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, does that count as abuse?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
>>>>> JTEM has been abusive towards me
>>>>
>>>> You don't consider that to be abuse of you?
>>>
>>> I took his "Well not *You*" to be making an exception for me.
>>> Why didn't you take it that way?
>
> You ducked this question completely.
>
>
>> You are having trouble reading.
>
> You are having trouble reasoning. And this is an even worse
> lapse of logic than I've seen from you before.

You are having trouble reading, Petey, if you can't scroll down the
fucking page and click on "I know what you're thinking" by JTEM.

>
> Either that, or you've suffered amnesia over the fact that
> you said that the OP was NOT satirical whereas I assumed that
> it WAS satirical. This double-whammy forgetfulness is something
> I find hard to believe.

It;s not satirical.JTEM has been posting this kind of bullshit about
human evolution for ages, just go over to sci.anthropology.paleo and
you'll see what I mean.

>
> So, back to the more likely explanation: you are trying to have
> it both ways. You want to claim that JTEM was serious AND that
> he was singling me out for abuse despite the fact that I came
> far closer to supporting him than anyone else here.

Misguided support, nonetheless.

>
> Or, as the saying goes, you want to eat your cake and have it too.
> And the fact that you completely evaded my question is a very
> thick layer of icing on that cake.

The fact that you are completely ignoring 99.9% of what JTEM posts is a

very thick layer of icing on that cake.

>
>
>> He says that you, specifically, go with
>> your jerking knee instead of the evidence.
>
> You are becoming increasingly irrational in your thorough
> evasion of my question.

Psychological projection. Read your paranoid rant to me above, you
fucking hypocrite.

>
>> Though I think he was
>> including everyone else here too, by implication.
>
> I'd love to see you try to parse what he wrote and get
> anything like your tall tale out of it.

"I know what you're thinking" by JTEM, all you have to do is scroll down
the page, Sir Dunce-cap.

>
> More likely, you'll "lose interest" in this whole topic
> and delete almost everything I wrote, lest Burkhard
> be disillusioned by how irrational you can be. Even
> Ray Martiez can do better than you sometimes.




>

>[snip mindless drivel]
>
OH, NOW I SEE IT! OH BTW, JTEM has abused me plenty in alt.atheism. OH
YEAH, AND AS FOR YOUR STUPID REQUEST FOR AN ABUSIVE POST, SCROLL DOWN
THE PAGE AND READ "I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING" BY JTEM.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/6/17 6:26 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:19:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2017 7:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 3:54:55 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:29:53 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/31/2017 5:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

[I, Peter, had written:]

So you kept saying, in a broken record routine until I accused you
of ducking the question "Why didn't you take it that way?" [i.e., he
made an exception for me to the sarcastic-looking comment he made].
And near the end of that post I challenged you to parse JTEM's whole
comment, and try to show how your interpretation is the right one.


You began by fibbing that you had already done that. You actually
tickled my funny bone, because it reminded me of a MAD magazine
take-off on "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"
in which one of the protagonists brags about how quick he is
on the draw, stops talking for a split second, and asks,

Want to see it again?

And then one of the onlookers says, "That's a very old and very
tired joke, son."

And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.


But your interpretation is still debatable. The way I saw it,
JTEM was sarcastically berating the general readership for
not looking at the evidence in the part Oxyaena quote-mined.

But I *had* looked at the evidence, and had made it clear
by going into some of it. And so I took JTEM to be making an
exception for me in the part that I quoted back to Oxyaena above.

> You still can't see that? Ask yourself what's "not *You*". What exactly
> do you think is "not *You*"?

These questions illustrate what you were fibbing about: you aren't
really parsing what he wrote and analyzing it.

> > [1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
> > can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
> > about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
> > Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
> > playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
> > mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
> > to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
> > that I am flailing helplessly.
>
> This is a paranoid fantasy, and I intend the term literally.

You have a track record spanning over 7 years that says
you either are lying or are terribly lacking in self-understanding.

Here is a little excerpt from a reply I tried to do on the other thread,
to illustrate what I mean:

_________________________excerpt #1 _________________________

> > I HAVE seen how abusive [JTEM]
> > is to YOU, and I hope he can benefit from the two examples I
> > gave him of two people wielding a scalpel in criticizing you
> > about things where he wielded a sledgehammer in abusing you.
>

> Thanks for bringing up years-old attacks on me. I guess it's just what
> you do.

At least I don't bring up decades old canards about you, like
you did to me a week or so ago about "Everyone is Howard Hershey".
And at least the things I bring up are things for which you
have no effective rebuttal, unlike idiotic canards which
mercilessly lampoon ONE conditional comment I made to ONE
person.

====================== end of excerpt #1, beginning #2 ============

> >> Ring a bell?
> >
> > Yes, that was in the exchange where you did an unmarked snip of
> >
> > Is this another trick you picked up from KGB interrogators?
>
> Yes, I try to snip out your gratuitous insults when convenient.

It's not in the least bit gratuitous. You have a track record
of posting KGB style interrogations and claims ["Your friend
has betrayed you" is just the latest one] going back to
at least the thread where I demonstrated one irrational thing
after another in Prum's 2002 hatchet job of Feduccia.

Unable to exonerate Prum, you went into a KGB style interrogation
of me which became so obnoxious at the end, I boycotted you for
a whole month afterwards.


> By the way, Burkhard doesn't care about the crap you post. That's
> presumably why he has you killfiled.

You know damn well that the stuff you've been making unmarked
snips of isn't crap: it is holding a mirror up to you like I did
just now about your 2014 behavior in that thread about Prum:

Subject: How Prum tried to discredit Feduccia on bird origins
OP:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/X_sZoDz1dpA/fS51L0qmtocJ
Message-ID: <a4379bd2-e546-4124...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT)

If you are foolish enough to contest what I said, I will revive that
thread. But I warn you: your buddy Erik Simpson will have a mirror
held up to him too, for the way in which he helped your interrogation
along.
++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt #2 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:59:53 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> <...>

> Message-ID: <a4379bd2-e546-4124...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
>
> If you are foolish enough to contest what I said, I will revive that
> thread. But I warn you: your buddy Erik Simpson will have a mirror
> held up to him too, for the way in which he helped your interrogation
> along.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt #2 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Peter Nyikos

Oh please, B'rer Nyikos! Don' throw me in dat dere briar patch!

[raven1]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:

>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> > Chimps.
>> >
>> > In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
>> > evolved from us.
>

>Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who

>seriously consider the hypothesis that chimps (and maybe even gorillas)
>evolved from near ancestors of humans, perhaps various species
>of *Australopithecus* or *Ardipithecus*.
>
>This pair of hypotheses is kept alive by the fact that the only
>chimp or gorilla fossils we have are no more than a million
>years old. [1] The two hominids named above go back to at least
>three million years.
>
>So, JTEM's claim is not as satirical as it may seem at first.
>
>[1] Caveat: this information may be out of date;
>I last visited this topic about two years ago.

>
>
>> > The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
>> > certainly used tools and may have
>> > potentially made tools.
>> >
>> > The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.
>> >
>> > So, calling modern humans "Apes" is senseless.
>> > It's more than pointless it's senseless. It
>> > doesn't convey useful information. In fact,
>> > it creates confusion/misunderstanding. It
>> > suggests to people relationships which are
>> > simply false.
>> >
>> > Science is intended to explain the natural
>> > world around us. Language is what we use to
>> > communicate that explanation. Calling modern
>> > humans "Apes" doesn't communicate, it
>> > misinforms. Because it suggests relationships
>> > which are not real, it fosters misconceptions.
>>

>> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.
>
>

>Just because we became tetrapods does not mean we stop being fish.
>
>
>Don't laugh: John Harshman and I have argued back and forth on
>this theme, and he is actually looking forward to the day
>when "humans are fish" comes just as naturally to people as
>"humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs."

>
>
>I find it amusing that Harshman has not participated on this thread,
>since this argument between us has escalated in this past week.
>
>Perhaps he is boycotting JTEM, having been burned by being set
>straight on his cocksure claim that JTEM is a creationist;
>and so he is clinging all the more tenaciously to his new
>allegation that JTEM is "an abusive stalker."

That he is. JTEM has been a gigantic dick on alt.atheism for years,
including stalking people who he knows have him killfiled, which is
more pointless and pathetic than menacing, admittedly.

>Well, he no longer has that excuse for staying away, since
>he can reply directly to me while still boycotting JTEM.

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

>University of South Carolina

[John Harshman]

You seem to miss the analysis every time I put it up. I've done it
explicitly twice now, in the same spot that the original appeared. You
don't seem to have noticed the first time. Did you notice the second
time, perhaps after posting this?

> of ducking the question "Why didn't you take it that way?" [i.e., he
> made an exception for me to the sarcastic-looking comment he made].

The exception, as you seem incapable of noticing, was to what you
(meaning a rational person, or actually meaning just JTEM) do. The
exception is to a good thing, not to a bad thing. How is it possible for
you to read it any other way?

> And near the end of that post I challenged you to parse JTEM's whole
> comment, and try to show how your interpretation is the right one.

Which I have done twice now.

> And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
> of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
> once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
> this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.

Finally, you notice.

> But your interpretation is still debatable. The way I saw it,
> JTEM was sarcastically berating the general readership for
> not looking at the evidence in the part Oxyaena quote-mined.

You had better parse that and explain how it's a possible interpretation.

> But I *had* looked at the evidence, and had made it clear
> by going into some of it. And so I took JTEM to be making an
> exception for me in the part that I quoted back to Oxyaena above.

Yes, it's an exception for you. But no, it's not an exception favorable
to you.

>> You still can't see that? Ask yourself what's "not *You*". What exactly
>> do you think is "not *You*"?
>
> These questions illustrate what you were fibbing about: you aren't
> really parsing what he wrote and analyzing it.

I don't know how it's possible to parse more deeply than I did. But
shown me your analysis, and we'll see.

>>> [1] snip-n-deceive consists of snipping something so you
>>> can deceive someone into agreeing with what you say next
>>> about the cherry-picked part. This is distinct from
>>> Harshman's perennial game, "snip-n-domineer," which he is
>>> playing on the parallel thread, "was Europe the birthplace of
>>> mankind, not Africa?" He's wanting people who have me killfiled
>>> to think he is in full control of the situation and to think
>>> that I am flailing helplessly.
>>
>> This is a paranoid fantasy, and I intend the term literally.
>
> You have a track record spanning over 7 years that says
> you either are lying or are terribly lacking in self-understanding.

One of us is clearly lacking in self-understanding.

I'll just skip the rest of the gratuitous insults.

[erik simpson]

We're losing sight of the original topic: that humans are not apes. I think
Peter's difficulty in seeing the insulting nature of JTEM's remarks is that
Peter believes he is in agreement with JTEM's assertion that humans are not
apes. If he (Peter) realized that JTEM believes Homo naledi is the ancestor
to chimpanzees, perhaps he would regard the insults in a different light.

Why Peter believes we are not apes (our arms are too short, possible others
reasons?) is another question.

[John Harshman]

Peter believes we aren't apes because he likes paraphyly and will pick
the paraphyletic alternative given a choice, especially if the
paraphyletic taxon is traditional and he learned about it before the age
of 12.

[erik simpson]

Well, that should do it. I guess it would make all our downstream clades
paraphyletic; apes, simians,prosimians, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, etc.
etc. Good job!

[John Harshman]

No, some of those aren't traditional.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:43:16 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why Peter believes we are not apes (our arms are too short, possible others
>reasons?) is another question.

Perhaps it has something to do with ensoulment.

[erik simpson]

I think there's only a 10% chance of souls. Of course, that might mean only
10% of people have them. You'll have to ask.

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:12:36 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson

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

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:19:53 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:43:16 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why Peter believes we are not apes (our arms are too short, possible others
>> >reasons?) is another question.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps it has something to do with ensoulment.
>>
>

>I think there's only a 10% chance of souls. Of course, that might mean only
>10% of people have them. You'll have to ask.

Let's not and just say we did.

[erik simpson]

Deal.

[Peter Nyikos]

Harshman is being flagrantly disingenuous here. Keep reading.

> in the same spot that the original appeared. You
> > don't seem to have noticed the first time. Did you notice the second
> > time, perhaps after posting this?

Harshman is being shamelessly disingenous here too. Do you want
me to "fling you into the briar patch" by accusing you of
feigning ignorance of this, Erik?

I have too little evidence for that, so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't even bother
to read what John wrote.

However, if Harshman had done what you did below, I would accuse him
of running away from evidence of his mischief, by pretending to be
interested in on-topic discussion and debate.

> > > of ducking the question "Why didn't you take it that way?" [i.e., he
> > > made an exception for me to the sarcastic-looking comment he made].
> >
> > The exception, as you seem incapable of noticing, was to what you
> > (meaning a rational person, or actually meaning just JTEM) do. The
> > exception is to a good thing, not to a bad thing. How is it possible for
> > you to read it any other way?
> >
> > > And near the end of that post I challenged you to parse JTEM's whole
> > > comment, and try to show how your interpretation is the right one.
> >
> > Which I have done twice now.

Here, Harshman snipped where I had called a paraphrasal of this
a fib, and now he is doubling down on it, making it an
outright lie.

The fib was to spin-doctor a mere alleged "analysis"
into a *parsing and* an analysis.

I even tried to soften the blow by saying the fib tickled
my funny bone, and by rehashing an old joke about that kind
of fib, but Harshman is too much in love with his fantasy
about me having no sense of humor to leave ANY of this in.

> > > And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
> > > of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
> > > once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
> > > this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.
> >
> > Finally, you notice.

Harshman has been complaining about being nicknamed
"DontWanana HearAboutIt," so now I'm replacing it with a new
nickname: "Disingenuousness Personified."


<snip to get to what you wrote, Erik>

> We're losing sight of the original topic: that humans are not apes. I think
> Peter's difficulty in seeing the insulting nature of JTEM's remarks is that
> Peter believes he is in agreement with JTEM's assertion that humans are not
> apes. If he (Peter) realized that JTEM believes Homo naledi is the ancestor
> to chimpanzees, perhaps he would regard the insults in a different light.

I see no reason why I should believe that JTEM was being serious
about this idea. John Harshman has been incredibly tight-lipped
as far as providing any of it. This is the first time I've
seen a claim about WHICH species of Homo that JTEM used,
and you still aren't providing any documentation of this.

In fact, since I do not know whether JTEM counts Australopithecus
as "human," I wasn't even sure a species of *Homo* was involved
in what may or may not be a satire. John Harshman acts as though
his unsupported word is proof enough that it is NOT a satire,
and you aren't doing much better.

> Why Peter believes we are not apes (our arms are too short,
> possible others reasons?) is another question.

I simply cannot believe that you don't know the answer to
this one. I've seen Harshman's "helpful" reply, and your
response, and I suspect that both of you are playing a silly game.

I've even given the game a name: a Thread-Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.
The usual form of the game in talk.origins, the pun cascade, isn't
full of put-downs of one person the way yours is, and is
the only innocent form of the game that I know of.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics at
the original USC -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 6/9/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> I even tried to soften the blow by saying the fib tickled
> my funny bone, and by rehashing an old joke about that kind
> of fib, but Harshman is too much in love with his fantasy
> about me having no sense of humor to leave ANY of this in.

I will just note that using the phrase "tickled my funny bone" is
additional evidence that you have no sense of humor, or at least that
it's buried deep in layers of pomposity.

>>>> And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
>>>> of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
>>>> once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
>>>> this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.
>>>
>>> Finally, you notice.
>
> Harshman has been complaining about being nicknamed
> "DontWanana HearAboutIt," so now I'm replacing it with a new
> nickname: "Disingenuousness Personified."

You just don't understand how nicknames work. They have to resemble
actual names. Just using two capitalized words is not sufficient
resemblance. As an example of the proper way to do it, I hereby nickname
you "Theophilus Pratt". (Try saying it out loud if you don't get it at
first.)

> I see no reason why I should believe that JTEM was being serious
> about this idea.

Exactly. You see very little that actually happens. Paradoxically, you
see all manner of things that aren't there. Go figure.

> John Harshman has been incredibly tight-lipped
> as far as providing any of it.

You just have to read the OP and various other of his posts. He's quite
consistent about this. That's the bit about you seeing very little.

[Burkhard]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/9/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> I even tried to soften the blow by saying the fib tickled
>> my funny bone, and by rehashing an old joke about that kind
>> of fib, but Harshman is too much in love with his fantasy
>> about me having no sense of humor to leave ANY of this in.
>
> I will just note that using the phrase "tickled my funny bone" is
> additional evidence that you have no sense of humor, or at least that
> it's buried deep in layers of pomposity.
>
>>>>> And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
>>>>> of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
>>>>> once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
>>>>> this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, you notice.
>>
>> Harshman has been complaining about being nicknamed
>> "DontWanana HearAboutIt," so now I'm replacing it with a new
>> nickname: "Disingenuousness Personified."
>
> You just don't understand how nicknames work. They have to resemble
> actual names. Just using two capitalized words is not sufficient
> resemblance. As an example of the proper way to do it, I hereby nickname
> you "Theophilus Pratt". (Try saying it out loud if you don't get it at
> first.)
>

And what do you think about John Scalzi?

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:TvGdndt6Zeh-QafE...@giganews.com...

> On 6/9/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> I even tried to soften the blow by saying the fib tickled
>> my funny bone, and by rehashing an old joke about that kind
>> of fib, but Harshman is too much in love with his fantasy
>> about me having no sense of humor to leave ANY of this in.
>
> I will just note that using the phrase "tickled my funny bone" is
> additional evidence that you have no sense of humor, or at least that
> it's buried deep in layers of pomposity.

Sorry, claiming use of the phrase is evidence of no sense of humor borders on the insane.

>
>>>>> And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
>>>>> of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
>>>>> once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
>>>>> this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, you notice.
>>
>> Harshman has been complaining about being nicknamed
>> "DontWanana HearAboutIt," so now I'm replacing it with a new
>> nickname: "Disingenuousness Personified."
>
> You just don't understand how nicknames work. They have to resemble
> actual names. Just using two capitalized words is not sufficient
> resemblance. As an example of the proper way to do it, I hereby nickname
> you "Theophilus Pratt". (Try saying it out loud if you don't get it at
> first.)
>

Nicknames do not have to resemble actual names, Shorty.
You're either delusional or a simple troll.

[erik simpson]

What the hell, Peter. If you paid any attention to JTEM (not that I recommend
that), you could see what he says. No, I'm not going to 'document' his raving.
He's a troll. 'Nuff said. If you don't believe humans are apes, and you don't
agree with John's 'explanation', then I don't know your reasons. Out of idle
curiousity, what are they? Is it really ensoulment?

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
[snip]

>
> Chimps, for instance, began as upright walkers who
> almost certainly used tools -- and potentially even
> made them. Quite frankly, the ape (the Chimp) evolved
> from us, NOT the other way around...
>

[multiple citations needed]

Seriously, you need to back that claim up with some solid paleontological and archaeological evidence. If nothing else, you need to find
Homo fossils that predate the oldest Pan fossils. Current estimates put
the chimp-human split around 6 Mya; unfortunately, the earliest Homo fossils
only go back a couple of million years.

Of course, sampling error is a thing - it's possible that those fossils
are out there and we just haven't found them yet.

A. afarensis was basically an upright-walking chimp, but many skeletal
features suggest it descended from brachiators and knuckle-walkers, rather
than the other way around.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is a 'twofer'. I'm piggybacking a reply to Glenn where he called
Harshman out for flagrantly insincere comments about nicknames. It
failed to post when I did it directly to that post of Glenn's.

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:14:53 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "Wolffan" <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.1EE0758D00...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > On 2017 Jun 01, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > (in article<b2139ef5-7ff2-429b...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> Evidently Wolffan is so out of it, he doesn't think he fits the
> >> description of being my enemy by his absolutely free choice,
> >> with ZERO provocation from me.
> >
> > and that’s a lie right there.
> >
> What name did you use on talk.origins before "Wolffan"?

Good luck on finding out. His style resembles that of "J.J. O'Shea,"
but not enough to make it likely that the two are the same.

Now for the piggybacked reply.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 2:29:53 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:TvGdndt6Zeh-QafE...@giganews.com...
> > On 6/9/17 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >

> >> I even tried to soften the blow by saying the fib tickled
> >> my funny bone, and by rehashing an old joke about that kind
> >> of fib, but Harshman is too much in love with his fantasy
> >> about me having no sense of humor to leave ANY of this in.
> >

> > I will just note that using the phrase "tickled my funny bone" is
> > additional evidence that you have no sense of humor, or at least that
> > it's buried deep in layers of pomposity.
>
> Sorry, claiming use of the phrase is evidence of no sense of humor borders on the insane.

Perhaps John was just turning his nose up at my using MAD Magazine
as the source of the joke I wrote about. What he may not realize
is that this article was in the Golden Age of MAD, when it featured
some brilliant satire, as well as trenchant (and often humorous)
observations by the late Dave Berg of the way people live and think.

Then again, maybe Dave Berg's humor may have gone completely over
John's head. He's much more fond of mean-spirited humor.

> >>>>> And I must confess, I was misled by that, and by a torrent
> >>>>> of insults all through your post, into thinking that you were
> >>>>> once again ducking the question, and I didn't notice how,
> >>>>> this time, you really DID parse what JTEM wrote. My bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally, you notice.
> >>
> >> Harshman has been complaining about being nicknamed
> >> "DontWanana HearAboutIt," so now I'm replacing it with a new
> >> nickname: "Disingenuousness Personified."
> >

> > You just don't understand how nicknames work. They have to resemble
> > actual names. Just using two capitalized words is not sufficient
> > resemblance. As an example of the proper way to do it, I hereby nickname
> > you "Theophilus Pratt". (Try saying it out loud if you don't get it at
> > first.)
> >
> Nicknames do not have to resemble actual names, Shorty.
> You're either delusional or a simple troll.

I vote for the latter. I doubt that John Harshman is
ignorant of such examples as The Artful Dodger (Jack Dawkins)
in _Oliver Twist_.

That's John's cue to delete everything in this post except the
preceding sentence and to flame me for trying to show off
my knowledge of literature. [I wish that were a joke. It's
one of Harshman's favorite put-downs of me.]


Also, what name is one of Louis Armstrong's nicknames, "Pops",
supposed to resemble?

Trivia: I just now got to wondering where another
one, "Satchmo," came from, and I got this:

Contraction of satchel mouth, referring to his large mouth and
open singing style. Proper noun[edit].
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Satchmo

Free association, which is another thing about me that Harshman
can't stand, got me to wondering where the nickname of
"Satchel" came from for that all-time baseball great, Leroy Robert Page
[later Paige] came from. The hypotheses are a lot more interesting than
most of the puns Harshman is fond of:

According to Paige, his nickname originated from childhood work
toting bags at the train station. He said he was not making enough
money at a dime a bag, so he used a pole and rope to build a
contraption that allowed him to cart up to four bags at once.
Another kid supposedly yelled, "You look like a walking satchel
tree."[11] A different story was told by boyhood friend and neighbor,
Wilber Hines, who said he gave Paige the nickname after he was
caught trying to steal a bag.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satchel_Paige

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/5/17 6:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/1/17 7:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:29:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/17 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/1/17 3:35 PM, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Don't laugh, folks. There are still some paleoanthropologists who
> >>>>>>>> seriously consider the hypothesis that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence." You go with the "Evidence"
> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee. Well not *You*, I'm
> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey, does that count as abuse?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm still waiting for you to make good on your claim that
> >>>>> JTEM has been abusive towards me
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't consider that to be abuse of you?
> >>>
> >>> I took his "Well not *You*" to be making an exception for me.
> >>> Why didn't you take it that way?
> >
> > You ducked this question completely.
>
> Christ on a bloody crutch.

The harsh man doth protest too much, methinks.


By the way...did you once say, in a similar context, "Christ on a bicycle"?

If it wasn't you, it was one of the three most cunningly dishonest
people I have ever knowingly encountered in my life [the other two
are Paul Gans and yourself].

> The entire remainder of that post was an
> answer. I didn't take it that way because the exception he was taking
> was to being reasonable. He called you an idiot, in other words. Read
> the original post carefully, more carefully than you did the first time.

Been there, done that. Read on.

> >> You are having trouble reading.
> >
> > You are having trouble reasoning. And this is an even worse
> > lapse of logic than I've seen from you before.
> >
> > Either that, or you've suffered amnesia over the fact that
> > you said that the OP was NOT satirical whereas I assumed that
> > it WAS satirical. This double-whammy forgetfulness is something
> > I find hard to believe.
>
> I have no idea what the post not being satirical (it wasn't) has to do
> with what we're talking about here,

Because, dear boy, it makes a difference in whether JTEM was
being serious or facetious. You say serious, but then why
would JTEM ride roughshod over the only serious support he
got for his hypothesis?

> except that it shows you have a
> history of misreading JTEM's points.

Is "a history of" meant to deceive people into thinking I've had
contact with JTEM for at least a year, as opposed to much less
than a month, which is the reality?

Or is it meant to deceive people that there were any OTHER
misreadings which you have so much as ALLEGED? Don't try to claim that
"satirical" was one of them. There is no way anyone could be sure
what JTEM really meant, not when he abused me in no way related
to anything I had posted.

I am referring NOT to the case which is still in dispute, but the
OBVIOUS one I found all by my lonesome. Were you deliberately avoiding
telling me about it?

NOTE TO OTHER READERS: these questions are designed to give y'all
some inkling of why I call Harshman one of the most cunningly
dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Of course, I wouldn't want anyone to jump to such conclusions
on the basis of such fragmentary evidence. Only sleazy
operators like Harshman expect people to jump to such conclusions
on much less evidence than even this -- conclusions about JTEM
being the case in point.

> > So, back to the more likely explanation: you are trying to have
> > it both ways. You want to claim that JTEM was serious AND that
> > he was singling me out for abuse despite the fact that I came
> > far closer to supporting him than anyone else here.
>
> Yes. Why are these in any way contradictory?

Listen, Disingenuousness Personified: you are setting a very
high bar here with "contradictory". The issue here is who has
the better evidence on his side, and the issue began with
the put-down by you, "You are having trouble reading."

Extraordinary claims like this put-down require extraordinary evidence,
and your "contradictory" is an attempt to shift that burden
onto my shoulders.

[READERS: this is another little inkling of the kind I spoke up there.]

> He thinks everyone is
> equally stupid. You're no better than anyone else.

Another extraordinary claim, and with laughably minuscule evidence
to back it up.

> > Or, as the saying goes, you want to eat your cake and have it too.
> > And the fact that you completely evaded my question is a very
> > thick layer of icing on that cake.
>
> This is more insane than your usual nonsense.

The harsh man REALLY doth protest too much.

> >> He says that you, specifically, go with
> >> your jerking knee instead of the evidence.
> >
> > You are becoming increasingly irrational in your thorough
> > evasion of my question.
>
> That was a very specific explanation of what JTEM actually said that you
> misunderstood.

Begging the question.

> >> Though I think he was
> >> including everyone else here too, by implication.
> >
> > I'd love to see you try to parse what he wrote and get
> > anything like your tall tale out of it.
>
> I just did. Shall I do it again?

Reference: MAD Magazine take-off on "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"

> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."
>
> That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
> ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.

The evidence for "and therefore" is ambiguous at best.

> >>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.

I read this as, "You idiots out there should be going with the
evidence instead of your knee-jerk certainty that chimps are NOT
descended from humans."

Sarcastic, in other words. And your net.sidekick Erik Simpson
said something FAR less obviously sarcastic when he seemed
to be praising me for being compassionate towards adults making
huge sacrifices for their elderly parents.

But Erik has a vast history of Peter-baiting, and so I unerringly
identified this seeming praise as sarcasm. And by "vast" I mean
spanning dozens of whole threads.

> "You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.

That's your Peter-baiting take on it.

> >>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>
> "Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
> personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
> sentence.

Which I read as "You idiots" up there.

In other words, I, to whom he was replying, am excluded by "Not You"
in the way I interpret it.

> In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence
> instead of your jerking knee.
>
> Is that now clear to you?

Clear as mud.


<snip side issue>

> > And you want people to believe that if any one of
> > the four of us (Hemi, Camp, you, and I) is an emotional
> > basket case, it is myself. And so, you deleted everthing
> > about which you were ALLEGEDLY disagreeing.
>
> I wouldn't consider you an emotional basket case. I consider you a lot
> of bad things, but I won't mention them right now.

"A goddamn moralizer," as one wolf in a comic put it, is one
of them, isn't it?

Remind me to describe him to you some day. He was far more deserving
of the title "big bad wolf" than anything Walt Disney Productions
ever thought up.

> > [1] it is the ONLY case of JTEM abusing me that either I *or* you has
> > found so far. And so I believe you LIED about their existence
> > before you posted it.
>
> It's the only one I've specifically pointed to.

BZZZZT! I was referring to something I found all by myself, and is
the ONLY unmistakable case of him abusing me that I have seen
so far. Do you even know what I am talking about? He called me
an emotional basket case in it.

> It's not the first.

Show me one preceding it.

> Thanks for accusing me of lying again. Your moral superiority is maintained.

See above about "goddamn moralizer."

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

>> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."
>>
>> That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
>> ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.
>
> The evidence for "and therefore" is ambiguous at best.

Did you read the OP at all?

>> >>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
>> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.
>
> I read this as, "You idiots out there should be going with the
> evidence instead of your knee-jerk certainty that chimps are NOT
> descended from humans."

That's somewhat like what he was implying. But he was actually using
"you" as the person who actually does go with the evidence, and "your"
as the knee-jerker.

> Sarcastic, in other words.

Correct. But he can be sarcastic and serious at the same time.

[snip trademark gratuitous attack on third party]

>> "You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.
>
> That's your Peter-baiting take on it.

It's just what the sentence says.

>> >>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
>> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>>
>> "Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
>> personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
>> sentence.
>
> Which I read as "You idiots" up there.

No, "you" is the person who goes with the evidence.

> In other words, I, to whom he was replying, am excluded by "Not You"
> in the way I interpret it.

Yes, you just don't understand what you're excluded from.

>> In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence
>> instead of your jerking knee.
>>
>> Is that now clear to you?
>
> Clear as mud.

Clearly, you will never understand. Anyway, he seems to be gone now.

[Pro Plyd]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>

> Chimps.
>
> In the case of the Chimp, the "Ape"
> evolved from us.
>

> The LCA was bipedal. It all but totally
> certainly used tools and may have
> potentially made tools.

Fossil or other evidence ->

> The Chimp -- the Ape -- evolved from us.

Fossil or other evidence ->

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:29:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."
> >>
> >> That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
> >> ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.
> >
> > The evidence for "and therefore" is ambiguous at best.
>
> Did you read the OP at all?

Yes. Did you read his first reply to John Stockwell, where he made distinctions
to which you seem oblivious? and his second reply to Stockwell?

And if you DID read them, why are you wasting everybody's time by
acting as though you were suffering amnesia about them?


And why are you suddenly so bland and featureless in your talk here,
after feigning exasperation with "Christ on a bloody crutch" and with

This is more insane than your usual nonsense.

Is it because you want people who killfiled me the impression
that I had been defenseless against these insults?

These were naked attempts to to browbeat me into thinking things
about JTEM for which you are deliberately withholding evidence.

Like the claim that he insults "everyone" while you don't name
anyone besides yourself and myself -- and you deliberately
avoided letting me know about the one clear cut case I've seen, and
even lied that you had shown it to me.

Instead, you have wasted my time and everyone's time on a DIFFERENT case
where you are reduced to snipping rebuttals and going into
a broken record routine below.

Here is what you are asserting, without evidence, as an insult of me:

> >> >>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
> >> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.
> >
> > I read this as, "You idiots out there should be going with the
> > evidence instead of your knee-jerk certainty that chimps are NOT
> > descended from humans."
>
> That's somewhat like what he was implying.

Cunning lead-in to Truth by Blatant Assertion (TbBA) which is
illogical, to boot:

> But he was actually using
> "you" as the person who actually does go with the evidence, and "your"
> as the knee-jerker.

You did an unmarked snip of the following rebuttal to this
claim you are making, done even before you made it:

why would JTEM ride roughshod over the only serious support he
got for his hypothesis?

> > Sarcastic, in other words.
>
> Correct. But he can be sarcastic and serious at the same time.

And you can be brave and honest, and cowardly and dishonest,
at almost the same time. Here you are the latter two.

> [snip trademark gratuitous attack on third party]

So far from being gratuitous, it showed how I was completely
reasonable I was in assuming the first "you" was the idiots who
don't look at the evidence, and the second "you" [see below]
as exonerating me.

And you have nothing but a broken record routine in "rebuttal".

> >> "You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.
> >
> > That's your Peter-baiting take on it.
>
> It's just what the sentence says.

TbBA. Broken record routine. How far you have fallen from the
skillful debater of yore!

Here comes the second "you":

> >> >>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
> >> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
> >>
> >> "Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
> >> personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
> >> sentence.
> >
> > Which I read as "You idiots" up there.
>
> No, "you" is the person who goes with the evidence.

Broken record routine.

> > In other words, I, to whom he was replying, am excluded by "Not You"
> > in the way I interpret it.
>
> Yes, you just don't understand what you're excluded from.

Broken record routine.

> >> In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence
> >> instead of your jerking knee.
> >>
> >> Is that now clear to you?
> >
> > Clear as mud.
>
> Clearly, you will never understand.

There you go again. Never an attempt to confront the fact inherent
in what you snipped.

> Anyway, he seems to be gone now.

Gone from this thread? or gone from talk.origins altogether?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/13/17 10:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:29:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."
>>>>
>>>> That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
>>>> ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.
>>>
>>> The evidence for "and therefore" is ambiguous at best.
>>
>> Did you read the OP at all?
>
> Yes. Did you read his first reply to John Stockwell, where he made distinctions
> to which you seem oblivious? and his second reply to Stockwell?
>
> And if you DID read them, why are you wasting everybody's time by
> acting as though you were suffering amnesia about them?

Yes, yes, and I'm not. What about those replies contradicts my claim?

> And why are you suddenly so bland and featureless in your talk here,
> after feigning exasperation with "Christ on a bloody crutch" and with
>
> This is more insane than your usual nonsense.
>
> Is it because you want people who killfiled me the impression
> that I had been defenseless against these insults?

Yes, that must be it, and not a bizarre paranoid fantasy. Or perhaps I
can't express the level of my exasperation (which is assuredly not
feigned) in every single sentence.

> These were naked attempts to to browbeat me into thinking things
> about JTEM for which you are deliberately withholding evidence.

You live in a sad yet oddly privileged world, in which everything is a
carefully calculated attack on you. If you stepped outside that world
for a while, you might feel better.

> Like the claim that he insults "everyone" while you don't name
> anyone besides yourself and myself -- and you deliberately
> avoided letting me know about the one clear cut case I've seen, and
> even lied that you had shown it to me.
>
> Instead, you have wasted my time and everyone's time on a DIFFERENT case
> where you are reduced to snipping rebuttals and going into
> a broken record routine below.
>
> Here is what you are asserting, without evidence, as an insult of me:
>
>>>> >>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
>>>> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.
>>>
>>> I read this as, "You idiots out there should be going with the
>>> evidence instead of your knee-jerk certainty that chimps are NOT
>>> descended from humans."
>>
>> That's somewhat like what he was implying.
>
> Cunning lead-in to Truth by Blatant Assertion (TbBA) which is
> illogical, to boot:
>
>> But he was actually using
>> "you" as the person who actually does go with the evidence, and "your"
>> as the knee-jerker.
>
> You did an unmarked snip of the following rebuttal to this
> claim you are making, done even before you made it:
>
> why would JTEM ride roughshod over the only serious support he
> got for his hypothesis?

Who knows why he did anything? It's not a rebuttal. He clearly behaves
irrationally, attacking everyone. Can you name someone he didn't attack?

>>> Sarcastic, in other words.
>>
>> Correct. But he can be sarcastic and serious at the same time.
>
> And you can be brave and honest, and cowardly and dishonest,
> at almost the same time. Here you are the latter two.

You don't disagree with me, in other words.

>> [snip trademark gratuitous attack on third party]
>
> So far from being gratuitous, it showed how I was completely
> reasonable I was in assuming the first "you" was the idiots who
> don't look at the evidence, and the second "you" [see below]
> as exonerating me.

It showed nothing of the sort.

> And you have nothing but a broken record routine in "rebuttal".
>
>
>>>> "You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.
>>>
>>> That's your Peter-baiting take on it.
>>
>> It's just what the sentence says.
>
> TbBA. Broken record routine. How far you have fallen from the
> skillful debater of yore!
>
> Here comes the second "you":
>
>>>> >>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
>>>> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
>>>>
>>>> "Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
>>>> personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
>>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> Which I read as "You idiots" up there.
>>
>> No, "you" is the person who goes with the evidence.
>
> Broken record routine.

The previous sentence is "You go with the evidence, not your jerking
knee". There is no other "you" that "*You*" could be not.

>>> In other words, I, to whom he was replying, am excluded by "Not You"
>>> in the way I interpret it.
>>
>> Yes, you just don't understand what you're excluded from.
>
> Broken record routine.

Your selective inability to read simple English is surprising. The
second sentence says that you are an exception to the previous sentence.
The previous sentence says that you go with the evidence. Thus you are
an exception to "you go with the evidence". There is no other possible
interpretation unless you want to contend that JTEM meant something
other than what he said.

>>>> In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence
>>>> instead of your jerking knee.
>>>>
>>>> Is that now clear to you?
>>>
>>> Clear as mud.
>>
>> Clearly, you will never understand.
>
> There you go again. Never an attempt to confront the fact inherent
> in what you snipped.

There was no fact, as far as I can see.

>> Anyway, he seems to be gone now.
>
> Gone from this thread? or gone from talk.origins altogether?

How is it you are unable to tell? Is the NGG display so bad that you are
unable to see whether someone has posted in TO? His last post was 6/2.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:14:53 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "Wolffan" <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.1EE0758D00...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > On 2017 Jun 01, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > (in article<b2139ef5-7ff2-429b...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> Evidently Wolffan is so out of it, he doesn't think he fits the
> >> description of being my enemy by his absolutely free choice,
> >> with ZERO provocation from me.
> >
> > and that’s a lie right there.
> >
> What name did you use on talk.origins before "Wolffan"?

I think you aren't asking the right question, Glenn.
My guess is that "Wolffan" knows me from a different forum [1], and
the smart money says that he is the Court Jester of the
Prothero-based Amazon blog, William Farrell.

If I'm wrong about that, my second guess would be the censorship-loving
ornithologist [2], David Rintoul. He posted a bunch of bogus [3] arguments
from the get-go that I "quack like a creationist, waddle like a
creationist..." He didn't use those words, but there isn't a dime's
worth of difference between them and what he actually wrote.

[1] Consider, for example, Wolffan's relentless ducking of the
question of where I supposedly was "outed" as a creationist.

[2] And there the resemblance between him and John Harshman almost
ends. Rintoul was a successful careerist who had no interest in
discussing scientific issues. [3] He was head of a biology department
when I looked him up, and his mug shot reminded me of Paul Gans,
except that Rintoul had dark glasses on.

[3] All the supposed descriptions of my behavior that tended in
that direction were completely phony.

[4] That did not stop him from lying shamelessly that people
had given up on getting answers out of me. The only answers
in which he was interested would have been those which gave
away the anti-fact of my being a creationist, and he never could
find any of those.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/13/17 10:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:29:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>> It's called "Evidence."
> >>>>
> >>>> That was him claiming evidence for the idea that the human-chimp
> >>>> ancestor was bipedal and therefore we aren't descended from apes.
> >>>
> >>> The evidence for "and therefore" is ambiguous at best.
> >>
> >> Did you read the OP at all?
> >
> > Yes. Did you read his first reply to John Stockwell, where he made distinctions
> > to which you seem oblivious? and his second reply to Stockwell?
> >
> > And if you DID read them, why are you wasting everybody's time by
> > acting as though you were suffering amnesia about them?
>
> Yes, yes, and I'm not. What about those replies contradicts my claim?

READ the following excerpts for once, and stop feigning the 'tard
about them:

___________________ excerpt from first reply__________________

Stockwell:

> Just because we became humans does not mean we stop being apes.

JTEM"
It's a convention, not a fact. Saying "Humans
are apes" is a convention. It's like writing
from left to right, as opposed to right to left.
Neither way is "Right" (if you pardon the pun).
One way of doing it is just as good as the other.
What's important is that we all agree to the
same standard, and that whatever standard we
agree on actually serves us instead of hindering
us.

As I pointed out, and you failed to grasp, calling
humans "Apes" conveys misinformation. It creates
errors. Instead of communicating useful information
about our relationship to "Other Apes," it misleads
people. It causes them to arrive at false conclusions.

========================= end of excerpt from first reply ================

NOTE the "Other Apes" part. Stockwell asked specifically
about that:

--------------------- second reply, in toto -----------------

John Stockwell wrote:

> So, how about gorillas?

In what way/shape/form are your emotions causing
you to believe this changes anything I've said?

Seriously, if your language is so piss poor that
you have to stipulate, CHANGE YOUR LANGUAGE.

It's not doing what it's supposed to do.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of second reply +++++++++++++++++++++


Go ahead, waste everyone's time by claiming the first excerpt
is a "quote mine" -- but be sure to explain EXACTLY why the full post
changes anything JTEM said.

> > And why are you suddenly so bland and featureless in your talk here,
> > after feigning exasperation with "Christ on a bloody crutch" and with
> >
> > This is more insane than your usual nonsense.
> >
> > Is it because you want people who killfiled me the impression
> > that I had been defenseless against these insults?
>
> Yes, that must be it, and not a bizarre paranoid fantasy.

Yes, you are using the words "bizarre paranoid fantasy" as a talisman
to ward off the fact that you have relentlessly done unmarked
snips to make yourself look like the innocent victim of
nasty old me.

>Or perhaps I
> can't express the level of my exasperation (which is assuredly not
> feigned) in every single sentence.

You did unmarked snips of the feigned exasperation that I quoted above,
when the context was still apparent. So your "assuredly" is devoid of
credibility.

> > These were naked attempts to to browbeat me into thinking things
> > about JTEM for which you are deliberately withholding evidence.

You withheld evidence about the place where JTEM *obviously* insulted me,
then even lied that you had pointed me to that very place.

It looks to me like you were playing a childish game,
like a little kid who remains silent while his daddy accuses him
of having done some mischief of which he is innocent...

...and then, after being spanked, he thinks to himself,
"Just wait until daddy learns what actually happened.
Then he'll be REALLY sorry he spanked me!"


Hey, don't look at me like that. You brought this on yourself
by repeatedly exonerating cyberbullies with the following
[or insignificant paraphrasals thereof] sneer:

Sounds to me like, "Mommy! He hit me first!" You really need
to grow up.

I say "exonerate" because I've NEVER seen you say anything negative
about the cyberbullies that started the "fight." Invariably you
play "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about the behavior
of the cyberbullies themselves.

> You live in a sad yet oddly privileged world, in which everything is a
> carefully calculated attack on you.

You live in an unscrupulous world, where you get to make defamatory
blanket statements like the one you've made just now, and then pretend
that I am being paranoid for calling you out on them.

> If you stepped outside that world
> for a while, you might feel better.

I'd be living in a fool's paradise.

You are lucky that I've delayed this reply to you for so long:
I've had a far more momentous things to concern myself with
for the last week: the dangerous precedent set by a forgery
and a massive attempt at cover-up.

It's probably just as well that you haven't shown up in
the relevant threads [plural because of your threaded
newsreader -- they are one thread in NGG]. You'd probably
join your erstwhile critics Hemidactylus and Martin Harran
in pretending to be "above it all" and mis-casting the whole
thing as a petty personal dispute between me and the forger.

> > Like the claim that he insults "everyone" while you don't name
> > anyone besides yourself and myself -- and you deliberately
> > avoided letting me know about the one clear cut case I've seen, and
> > even lied that you had shown it to me.
> >
> > Instead, you have wasted my time and everyone's time on a DIFFERENT case
> > where you are reduced to snipping rebuttals and going into
> > a broken record routine below.

<crickets>

As you can see, I do live in a different world than you: the
world of integrity, with evidence that you are powerless to refute,
and so you make defamatory claims about how I see everything
as an attack.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, perhaps only tomorrow.
Like I said, I've far more momentous things to attend to than
your shipwreck of a post.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

You are too late -- the High and Mighty John Harshman "informed" me,
on the day BEFORE you posted this, that JTEM was gone from
talk.origins.

Harshman took no notice of you, and neither did his temporary
ally Oxyaena, but here I am telling you: if you want
to get JTEM to answer your questions, try to catch him at
his more usual stomping grounds, sci.anthropology.paleo:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.anthropology.paleo

He's posted there every month in the last two years, never less
than 10 times per month. This year, [s]he has been averaging right
around 30 posts a month in s.a.p.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[raven1]

Except that you do. You may be the single most paranoid poster on all
of Usenet. Not to mention the whiniest.

[Peter Nyikos]

You are just parroting scuttlebutt about me, and Harshman has
had a hand in it all. About half a dozen other people have
had a hand in perpetrating parts of it in as many years.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that
you are naively thinking they can't all be wrong.

After all, you hardly ever reply to me to test the truth
of anything you say about me.

> You may be the single most paranoid poster on all
> of Usenet.

You've seen all six of them repeat that often, e? :-)

> Not to mention the whiniest.

Wow, I haven't seen "whine" or any of its derivatives in quite
some time. Do they still use the word a lot in the atheism newsgroups?

If so, show this to them, and pass my greetings on to them:

WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar",
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].

[Wow, I haven't had a chance to post that in quite some time!]

I expect a number of "peanut gallery" types to drool all over their
keyboards that I am "equating" myself with the people I've named
above. Of course, as any normal adult can see, what I am doing is
using these familiar examples to illustrate the logical consequences
of the massive intellectual inbreeding to which the word "whine" has
been subjected in highly charged forums like talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Interesting. Harshman is usually quick on the draw, but so
far only raven1 has replied to my first installment.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/13/17 10:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:29:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > Here is what you are asserting, without evidence, as an insult of me:
> >
> >>>> >>>>>>> You go with the "Evidence"
> >>>> >>>>>>> instead of your jerking knee.
> >>>
> >>> I read this as, "You idiots out there should be going with the
> >>> evidence instead of your knee-jerk certainty that chimps are NOT
> >>> descended from humans."
> >>
> >> That's somewhat like what he was implying.
> >
> > Cunning lead-in to Truth by Blatant Assertion (TbBA) which is
> > illogical, to boot:
> >
> >> But he was actually using
> >> "you" as the person who actually does go with the evidence, and "your"
> >> as the knee-jerker.
> >
> > You did an unmarked snip of the following rebuttal to this
> > claim you are making, done even before you made it:
> >
> > why would JTEM ride roughshod over the only serious support he
> > got for his hypothesis?
>
> Who knows why he did anything? It's not a rebuttal. He clearly behaves
> irrationally, attacking everyone. Can you name someone he didn't attack?

Stockwell, for one, and Matin Harran for another, on this thread.
Are you paranoid enough to call his testy replies to them "attacks"?



Your turn. Can you name ANYONE besides you and Oxyaena whom he HAS attacked?
(besides me and jillery, both of which I found out about with ZERO input
from either of you.)

You are such self-centered jerks, both of you, that I can easily
imagine the two you and he named, and the two I named, to
be "everyone."

> >>> Sarcastic, in other words.
> >>
> >> Correct. But he can be sarcastic and serious at the same time.
> >
> > And you can be brave and honest, and cowardly and dishonest,
> > at almost the same time. Here you are the latter two.
>
> You don't disagree with me, in other words.

You don't explain what you mean by "at the same time,"
so I can't be sure I agree either. My "And" may have
misled you.

> >> [snip trademark gratuitous attack on third party]
> >
> > So far from being gratuitous, it showed how I was completely
> > reasonable I was in assuming the first "you" was the idiots who
> > don't look at the evidence, and the second "you" [see below]
> > as exonerating me.
>
> It showed nothing of the sort.

It showed, liar, that your net.sidekick was sarcastic and did
NOT mean what he seemed to mean, even though anyone reading
that post out of context could have been fooled into thinking
he was serious, FAR more easily than he could be made to
agree with your broken record routine.

And so your broken record routine is not worth the time
it took to type it.

> > And you have nothing but a broken record routine in "rebuttal".
> >
> >
> >>>> "You" here means "one", i.e. a person who does things correctly.
> >>>
> >>> That's your Peter-baiting take on it.
> >>
> >> It's just what the sentence says.
> >
> > TbBA. Broken record routine. How far you have fallen from the
> > skillful debater of yore!
> >
> > Here comes the second "you":
> >
> >>>> >>>>>>> Well not *You*, I'm
> >>>> >>>>>>> speaking rhetorically here.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Not *You*", given the emphasis, clearly means to distinguish you
> >>>> personally from some other "You", in fact the one in the previous
> >>>> sentence.
> >>>
> >>> Which I read as "You idiots" up there.
> >>
> >> No, "you" is the person who goes with the evidence.
> >
> > Broken record routine.
>
> The previous sentence is "You go with the evidence, not your jerking
> knee". There is no other "you" that "*You*" could be not.

Broken record routine redux, with NO attempt at refuting what
I wrote to the contrary.

And only your patently insincere claim "It showed nothing of the
sort," which took dishonest advantage of the fact that I did not
repost your unmarked snip, is the only (fraudulent) support you
have for continuing your BRR.

BRR = Broken Record Routine

> >>> In other words, I, to whom he was replying, am excluded by "Not You"
> >>> in the way I interpret it.
> >>
> >> Yes, you just don't understand what you're excluded from.
> >
> > Broken record routine.
>
> Your selective inability to read simple English is surprising.

Your storehouse of dirty debating tactics is most impressive.

What you are dishonestly talking about is my inability
to acquiesce in your BRR about the first "you."

And so, what follows is pure GIGO:
is pure GIGO.

And what you are

> The second sentence says that you are an exception to the previous sentence.
> The previous sentence says that you go with the evidence. Thus you are
> an exception to "you go with the evidence". There is no other possible
> interpretation unless you want to contend that JTEM meant something
> other than what he said.

BRR.

Are you so full of yourself that you think things become true
through the very fact that you utter them? Then you are
no better than Ray Martinez.

> >>>> In other words, you, personally, don't go with the evidence
> >>>> instead of your jerking knee.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that now clear to you?
> >>>
> >>> Clear as mud.
> >>
> >> Clearly, you will never understand.
> >
> > There you go again. Never an attempt to confront the fact inherent
> > in what you snipped.
>
> There was no fact, as far as I can see.

You can't see it because you snipped it.

Duh.

> >> Anyway, he seems to be gone now.
> >
> > Gone from this thread? or gone from talk.origins altogether?
>
> How is it you are unable to tell?

Scoundrels like you keep me too busy to look. I'm
already later in leaving for home than I should be.

> Is the NGG display so bad that you are
> unable to see whether someone has posted in TO? His last post was 6/2.

Too bad you were too high and mighty to tell this to Pro Plyd
in timely manner. He posted a reply to the OP asking some
questions, and it fell upon me NINE DAYS LATER to tell him
what you could have told him IMMEDIATELY.

Now do you see why I called your post a "shipwreck of a post"
in my first reply to it?

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Peter, what in the hell is wrong with you? If you want to have a deep, 'meaty'
conversation with JTEM, go for it. You know (now) where to find him. I'm
sure there are other people there that you can pick fights with. Maybe you
can even detect a forgery or two.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/22/17 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:54:53 PM UTC-4, raven1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:17:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/17 10:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:29:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/17 7:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

<snip>

>>> As you can see, I do live in a different world than you: the
>>> world of integrity, with evidence that you are powerless to refute,
>>> and so you make defamatory claims about how I see everything
>>> as an attack.
>>
>> Except that you do.
>
> You are just parroting scuttlebutt about me, and Harshman has
> had a hand in it all. About half a dozen other people have
> had a hand in perpetrating parts of it in as many years.

That doesn't sound paranoid at all.