So 'harshman' claims he was gone for a couple of weeks

[drlmc...@gmail.com]

He met some people from here if I recall.
Can you describe in detail his appearance?
I am confident as to what that appearance is.

[Wolffan]

On 22 May 2018, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<4dd68c26-3c3f-4329...@googlegroups.com>):

> He met some people from here if I recall.
> Can you describe in detail his appearance?

yes. Almost as good looking as me and far more intelligent-looking than you.

>
> I am confident as to what that appearance is.

Yea. Riiiiight.

[StanFast]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> On 22 May 2018, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<4dd68c26-3c3f-4329...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > He met some people from here if I recall.
> > Can you describe in detail his appearance?
>
> yes. Almost as good looking as me

You are that repulsive?

[StanFast]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:

> On 22 May 2018, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<4dd68c26-3c3f-4329...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > He met some people from here if I recall.
> > Can you describe in detail his appearance?
>

> Far more intelligent-looking than you.
> >
>

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLYC27uL9-U

[John Harshman]

On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> He met some people from here if I recall.

You recall incorrectly.

> Can you describe in detail his appearance?
> I am confident as to what that appearance is.

My appearance is variable. Sometimes I look like a winged lion, other
times like a small puddle of brown liquid, possibly creosote.

[StanFast]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > He met some people from here if I recall.
>
> You recall incorrectly.
>

So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their keyboard fits you to a tee.

Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?

[StanFast]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:

> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My appearance is variable. Sometimes I look like a winged lion

Are you on drugs?

other
> times like a small puddle of brown liquid, possibly creosote.

You said it, not me

[John Harshman]

On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>
>> You recall incorrectly.
>>
>
> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their keyboard fits you to a tee.

This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind a nym. I have no
idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.

> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?

No.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:01:33 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:

>>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> He met some people from here if I recall.

>>> You recall incorrectly.

>> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their keyboard fits you to a tee.

>This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind a nym.

It does, doesn't it? I also like the scare quotes on your
name in the Subject: field ("Who are you *really*?"). There
was an idiot several years back who did the same with mine,
and TIBAMJTEM seems determined at times to do the same.

> I have no
>idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.

I'd guess he's Dr. L. McCoy. Not a DrDr, though, so not a
candidate for "The Self-Proclaimed Expert of All Things"...

And there's no evidence I've seen of any prior nym.

>> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?

>No.

--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Wolffan]

On 22 May 2018, StanFast wrote
(in article<98539c5f-7b5b-4796...@googlegroups.com>):

That’s not what your momma said...

[RonO]

On 5/23/2018 4:23 PM, Dexter wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:01:33 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John
>> Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>
>>>>> You recall incorrectly.
>>
>>>> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their
>> keyboard fits you to a tee.
>>
>>> This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind
>>> a nym.
>>
>> It does, doesn't it? I also like the scare quotes on your

>> name in the Subject: field ("Who are you really?"). There

>> was an idiot several years back who did the same with
>> mine, and TIBAMJTEM seems determined at times to do the
>> same.
>>
>>> I have no
>>> idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.
>>
>> I'd guess he's Dr. L. McCoy. Not a DrDr, though, so not a
>> candidate for "The Self-Proclaimed Expert of All
>> Things"...
>>
>> And there's no evidence I've seen of any prior nym.
>>
>>>> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the
>> YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?
>>
>>> No.

> ______________________________________________
>
> McCoy? There was a McCoy here some years back, if I
> recall. He of the Little Orange Biology book, I believe.
> Could it be he? Reincarnated?
>

McNameless.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:39:31 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Yep. Seems to be a different guy, though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 16:23:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dexter" <n...@home.org>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:01:33 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>> > On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John
>> Harshman wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>
>> >>> You recall incorrectly.
>>
>> >> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their
>> keyboard fits you to a tee.
>>
>> > This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind
>> > a nym.
>>
>> It does, doesn't it? I also like the scare quotes on your

>> name in the Subject: field ("Who are you really?"). There

>> was an idiot several years back who did the same with
>> mine, and TIBAMJTEM seems determined at times to do the
>> same.
>>
>> > I have no
>> > idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.
>>
>> I'd guess he's Dr. L. McCoy. Not a DrDr, though, so not a
>> candidate for "The Self-Proclaimed Expert of All
>> Things"...
>>
>> And there's no evidence I've seen of any prior nym.
>>
>> >> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the
>> YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?
>>
>> > No.

>______________________________________________
>
>McCoy? There was a McCoy here some years back, if I
>recall. He of the Little Orange Biology book, I believe.
>Could it be he? Reincarnated?

I think that was John McCoy (herein usually referred to as
McNameless, due, IIRC, to his habit of searching for his
name in posts and invading them).

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 09:14:11 -0500, the following appeared

>______________________________________________
>
>I'd forgotten about that. McNameless he shall remain; or
>whatever variant needed.

Well, "jerk" takes less effort, but unfortunately isn't very
specific...

[David Canzi]

On 05/23/18 17:23, Dexter wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>

>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:01:33 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John
>> Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>
>>>>> You recall incorrectly.
>>
>>>> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their
>> keyboard fits you to a tee.
>>
>>> This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind
>>> a nym.
>>
>> It does, doesn't it? I also like the scare quotes on your

>> name in the Subject: field ("Who are you really?"). There

>> was an idiot several years back who did the same with
>> mine, and TIBAMJTEM seems determined at times to do the
>> same.
>>
>>> I have no
>>> idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.
>>
>> I'd guess he's Dr. L. McCoy. Not a DrDr, though, so not a
>> candidate for "The Self-Proclaimed Expert of All
>> Things"...
>>
>> And there's no evidence I've seen of any prior nym.
>>
>>>> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the
>> YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?
>>
>>> No.

> ______________________________________________
>
> McCoy? There was a McCoy here some years back, if I
> recall. He of the Little Orange Biology book, I believe.
> Could it be he? Reincarnated?
>

I recognized "stanfast" as a nym for one of alt.atheism's
tapeworms, but couldn't remember which one. But the YouTube
channel he linked to is identified as Prince Michael, which I
could identify. Some of stanfast's previous nyms are Prince
Michael, Saint Michael, Yost, t2judgment, quarke.e2,
deforestationpro, drlmccoymd. Those last two nyms are based
on the Star Trek character, Dr Leonard McCoy, and the actor
who portrayed him.

drlmccoymd is not John McCoy.

He has been banned in talk.origins under some of his other nyms.

--
David Canzi | Science is the signal; religion is the noise.

[StanFast]

the original ban was wrongful.
I had two accounts due to Google posting limits and was forthright and open about it. There were two other regulars in here at the time who also had multiple accounts: can a steady and Ray martinez. I should not have been banned in the first pkace, it was wrongful.
What are you guys doing, hiding behind censorship in here?

[StanFast]

Dana tweedy

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:37:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>Dana tweedy

You're claiming to be Dana? Bullshit.

[StanFast]

No, that was one of the people who also posted here at the time with two accounts.
You seem to have severe problems with comprehension and context for some reason.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

[Context restored]:

[SF]

>>>Dana tweedy

[Me]

>>You're claiming to be Dana? Bullshit.

[End restoration]

>No, that was one of the people who also posted here at the time with two accounts.
>You seem to have severe problems with comprehension and context for some reason.

The only context was a discussion of your identity, and how
many IDs you used. And the only content of the post to which
I responded was as shown above, restored after your unmarked
snippage.

[StanFast]

the only going on is your continuously demonstrating you have severe brain damage.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CKvZn75oKXc/2161o7BGAQAJ

This device substituted steady for tweedy, so I followed it up with the nym i was talking about

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:43:02 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> [Context restored]:
>>
>> [SF]
>>
>> >>>Dana tweedy
>>
>> [Me]
>>
>> >>You're claiming to be Dana? Bullshit.
>>
>> [End restoration]
>>
>> >No, that was one of the people who also posted here at the time with two accounts.
>> >You seem to have severe problems with comprehension and context for some reason.
>>
>> The only context was a discussion of your identity, and how
>> many IDs you used. And the only content of the post to which
>> I responded was as shown above, restored after your unmarked
>> snippage.

>the only going on is your continuously demonstrating you have severe brain damage.
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CKvZn75oKXc/2161o7BGAQAJ
>
>This device substituted steady for tweedy

As noted elsethread, your use of an idiot "device" and
failure to check your text prior to sending when you *know*
it does stupid "corrections" is *your* problem.

>, so I followed it up with the nym i was talking about

A "follow-up" with zero context. Congratulations on your
perspicacity and erudition.

And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym, O Most Complete
Expert of All Things Usenet.

[StanFast]

What an outlandish claim.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:16:52 -0700 (PDT), the following

So-called follow-up: "dana tweedy" (note lack of proper
capitalization, common among the semiliterate).

Included context: None.

>> Congratulations on your
>> perspicacity and erudition.

>> And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym, O Most Complete
>> Expert of All Things Usenet.

Or should that have been "dana tweedy", and that's why you
failed to recognize it?

[StanFast]

I mentioned in the preceding post that there were two names\nuns and then I proceeded to name them

>
> >> Congratulations on your
> >> perspicacity and erudition.
>
> >> And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym

It's both, like Ray martinez.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

When did Ray Martinez have 'multiple accounts'? What were these 'multiple accounts'? What's a 'can a steady'? How many accounts did 'can a steady' have? Do you have any evidence to support any of this?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You did, in fact, post a follow-up with zero context. You have done this several times.

[StanFast]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CKvZn75oKXc/7YFUQr4sAAAJ

Nuns should be nyms.

Tell me, do you know which university 'John harshman' attended?

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 May 2018 14:33:33 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nuns should be nyms.


Only if they're flying or singing.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 May 2018 09:08:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

So we can add "context" to the terms in your "Huh?" list?

Here's a hint, Sparky: When you snip away all but a small
part of the prior posts, you've snipped away context.

>> >> Congratulations on your
>> >> perspicacity and erudition.
>>
>> >> And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym

>It's both, like Ray martinez.

That's "Martinez"; note the caps. And no, it's not; it's
short for "pseudonym", which is not a name but a substitute
for a name. So we can also add "nym" to that list noted
above...

[StanFast]

The context is the entire newsgroup at the time [for people reading it every minute of the day like you anyway] and it was a post right preceding the other post in the very same thread, essentially right next to it. So your couple sentences there essentially really apply to you; do you have a mirror when you post?

> >> >> Congratulations on your
> >> >> perspicacity and erudition.
> >>
> >> >> And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym
>
> >It's both, like Ray martinez.
>
> That's "Martinez"; note the caps. And no, it's not; it's
> short for "pseudonym", which is not a name but a substitute
> for a name. So we can also add "nym" to that list noted
> above...

I suppose I could look nym up to verify that. After all I am someone who will never take you at your word, even if it is over something seemingly insignificant and trivial like this one, especially on anything that has any real relevance or importance for certain and sure.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I don't care. Why do you?

[StanFast]

Because he loves to hide behind sockpuppets, and he certainly is not named john harshman, iow, the person posting as john harshman and publishing in journals is a total fraud.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Name them.

> and he certainly is not named john harshman,

Prove that.

> iow, the person posting as john harshman and publishing in journals is a total fraud.

Prove that.

[StanFast]

I can and will.

but for now, why does nt he sue me for libel and slander for calling him a total and complete lying fraud and deceiver, a fake and a phony?

[erik simpson]

Because TO was set up to attract kooks, and it's obviously doing a great job.

[StanFast]

So that is its stated purpose.
You are quite obviously here.

[StanFast]

I am sure he just loves having people think he is a total fake.
My guess is they certainly believe or suspect that he certainly is.

[Burkhard]

Because libel requires that "the statement is likely to inflict serious
harm on the reputation on a person. That assumes the libeller has at
least a modicum of credibility. Since you don't, you are legal incapable
of libeling anyone here. Historically, that exemption applied to the
King's jesters and village idiots

[jillery]

The fact that it might be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
who Stanfast really is, might have something to do with it as well.

[John Harshman]

I would be very interested in that proof. Please go on.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I doubt this.

>
> but for now, why does nt he sue me for libel and slander for calling him a total and complete lying fraud and deceiver, a fake and a phony?

Because you're obviously mentally unstable.

[Wolffan]

On 31 May 2018, StanFast wrote
(in article<22e87369-f363-41c9...@googlegroups.com>):

You didn’t answer this. Gee, I wonder why.

> >
> >
> > > and he certainly is not named john harshman,
> >
> > Prove that.

You didn’t answer this either. Why, oh why could this be?

> >
> >
> > > iow, the person posting as john harshman and publishing in journals is a
> > > total fraud.
> >
> > Prove that.
>
> I can and will.

They why don’t you? Strike three! You’re out!

[Mark Isaak]

Not you. I want StanFast to answer, not his sockpuppet.

What is your real name? Where did you go to school? Show us a copy of
your birth certificate.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Mark Isaak]

Yes, StanFast loves having people think he is fake. Not that there is
any real thinking involved. It's blatantly obvious.

[Wolffan]

On 31 May 2018, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <peqfrq$orh$2...@dont-email.me>):

And only the long form will do. Otherwise he’s obviously a Muslim Kenyan
communist.

[jillery]

I hope it's not from Hawaii.

[Burkhard]

I have it on good authority that his father was a Kiwi. But there must
have been a family fallout, as John called him a rat in one of his
papers on his family tree - or even a ratite, which sounds worse

[StanFast]

contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you bc, they never did when I got my passport;
I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.

[StanFast]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62qUYcveM1xSEMxd3UtQlMwWU0/view

[StanFast]

how does someone else using sockpuppets make me unstable?

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:


>contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you bc, they never did when I got my passport;
>I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
>I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.

I hope for your sake that English isn't your native language.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>how does someone else using sockpuppets make me unstable?

Since you asked, because your sockpuppets exist only in your
delusional mind. You're welcome.

[StanFast]

my English teacher in college who was from Purdue with her credentials thought I was rather sophisticated for my papers i turned in compared to other students in class.

[StanFast]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:

By your sockpuppets, I presume you mean the socks i claim johnny harshman has. Sockpuppets on the internet certainly exists, do you deny that?

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

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

>On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you bc, they never did when I got my passport;
>> >I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
>> >I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.
>>
>>
>> I hope for your sake that English isn't your native language.
>>
>>

>my English teacher in college who was from Purdue with her credentials thought I was rather sophisticated for my papers i turned in compared to other students in class.

Really? Were they all slow learners?

[StanFast]

Possible. I doubt they used the 1800s literature style though.
However, no matter what school i went to, no matter the class, honors or otherwise, I was typically front of the class.

Tell me, what was your gpa, I mean, did you ever stand out from the crowd, where educators too notice of you, surely someone would have noticed if you were really brilliant or something, don't you think?

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

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

>On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >how does someone else using sockpuppets make me unstable?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, because your sockpuppets exist only in your
>> delusional mind. You're welcome.
>>
>

>By your sockpuppets, I presume you mean the socks i claim johnny harshman has. Sockpuppets on the internet certainly exists, do you deny that?

From that context you think you can follow, you asserted only
Harshman's sockpuppets. Apparently your first sentence was just a
lucky guess.

[StanFast]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> >> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >how does someone else using sockpuppets make me unstable?
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you asked, because your sockpuppets exist only in your
> >> delusional mind. You're welcome.
> >>
> >
> >By your sockpuppets, I presume you mean the socks i claim johnny harshman has. Sockpuppets on the internet certainly exists, do you deny that?
>
>
> From that context you think you can follow, you asserted only
> Harshman's sockpuppets.

thanks for your admittance

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:41:05 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>However, no matter what school i went to, no matter the class, honors or otherwise, I was typically front of the class.

So you never graduated nursery school. Got it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:49:31 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>thanks for your admittance


I didn't let you in here. Somebody else left the alley door open.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>
>> You recall incorrectly.
>
> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their keyboard fits you to a tee.

Based on the docs he link to, StanFast is Michael Christopher Yost, born
in 1974. You may come out of hiding now, Michael.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2018 09:08:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com>:
>>

>> >On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:16:52 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> >> So-called follow-up: "dana tweedy" (note lack of proper
>> >> capitalization, common among the semiliterate).
>> >>
>> >> Included context: None.
>>
>> >I mentioned in the preceding post that there were two names\nuns and then I proceeded to name them
>>
>> So we can add "context" to the terms in your "Huh?" list?
>>
>> Here's a hint, Sparky: When you snip away all but a small
>> part of the prior posts, you've snipped away context.
>>
>
>The context is the entire newsgroup at the time [for people reading it every minute of the day like you anyway]

No, it is not. From oxforddictionaries.com:

"context

The parts of something written or spoken that immediately
precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its
meaning."

See the word "immediately"? What might that mean?

And I'm on Usenet 1-1-1/2 hours/day, at most. Transference
mode again?

> and it was a post right preceding the other post in the very same thread, essentially right next to it. So your couple sentences there essentially really apply to you; do you have a mirror when you post?

>> >> >> Congratulations on your
>> >> >> perspicacity and erudition.
>> >>
>> >> >> And "Dana Tweedy" is a *name*, not a nym
>>
>> >It's both, like Ray martinez.
>>
>> That's "Martinez"; note the caps. And no, it's not; it's
>> short for "pseudonym", which is not a name but a substitute
>> for a name. So we can also add "nym" to that list noted
>> above...
>
>I suppose I could look nym up to verify that.

Don't bother; your brain(?) probably couldn't handle
reality.

>After all I am someone who will never take you at your word, even if it is over something seemingly insignificant and trivial like this one, especially on anything that has any real relevance or importance for certain and sure.

Of course you won't; you'll just continue blundering along
as you have. Hint: denial is not a river in Egypt.

And, unless you consider communication to be irrelevant, the
meaning of words is far from trivial.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:21:11 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, StanFast wrote:

>> > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:05:03 PM UTC-6, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-6, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> > > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-6, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:20:03 PM UTC-4, StanFast wrote:

>> > > > > > > You did, in fact, post a follow-up with zero context.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/CKvZn75oKXc/7YFUQr4sAAAJ
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Nuns should be nyms.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Tell me, do you know which university 'John harshman' attended?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't care. Why do you?
>> > > >
>> > > > Because he loves to hide behind sockpuppets,
>> > >
>> > > Name them.
>> > >
>> > > > and he certainly is not named john harshman,
>> > >
>> > > Prove that.
>> > >
>> > > > iow, the person posting as john harshman and publishing in journals is a total fraud.
>> > >
>> > > Prove that.
>> >
>> > I can and will.
>> >

>> > but for now, why does nt he sue me for libel and slander for calling him a total and complete lying fraud and deceiver, a fake and a phony?
>>

>> Because TO was set up to attract kooks, and it's obviously doing a great job.

>I am sure he just loves having people think he is a total fake.

Do they? Or do they just *maybe* consider who the sole
source of that allegation is, and laugh their asses off...

>My guess is they certainly believe or suspect that he certainly is.

My guess is that your guess is indicative of a serious
problem, for which you should find help.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

*Su-u-u-ure you will; pardon me for not holding my breath;
I'm getting "Ray Martinez Magnum Opus" vibes here...

>but for now, why does nt he sue me for libel and slander for calling him a total and complete lying fraud and deceiver, a fake and a phony?

Because such a suit (for libel; he can't sue you for
slander, which requires *spoken* content, dummy) requires at
least a modicum of credibility on the part of the defendant,
and you have none at all.

[zencycle]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>
> I have it on good authority that his father was a Kiwi. But there must
> have been a family fallout, as John called him a rat in one of his
> papers on his family tree - or even a ratite, which sounds worse

I was told his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 20:54:00 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

He is *not* a fake! He's a genuine idiot!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:41:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

Obvious fakes. Who are you *really*?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), the following

>contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you bc, they never did when I got my passport;
>I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
>I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.

That's all just fake. Who are you *really*, and why are all
your sock puppets posting here?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

I weep for my country...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:41:05 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:49:07 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> >> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you bc, they never did when I got my passport;
>> >> >I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
>> >> >I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hope for your sake that English isn't your native language.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >my English teacher in college who was from Purdue with her credentials thought I was rather sophisticated for my papers i turned in compared to other students in class.
>>
>>
>> Really? Were they all slow learners?
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>Possible. I doubt they used the 1800s literature style though.
>However, no matter what school i went to, no matter the class, honors or otherwise, I was typically front of the class.

Of course you were; any competent teacher would want you
clearly visible, if he/she/it didn't just throw you out.

>Tell me, what was your gpa, I mean, did you ever stand out from the crowd, where educators too notice of you, surely someone would have noticed if you were really brilliant or something, don't you think?

Mine was 42.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:49:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> >> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >how does someone else using sockpuppets make me unstable?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since you asked, because your sockpuppets exist only in your
>> >> delusional mind. You're welcome.
>> >>
>> >
>> >By your sockpuppets, I presume you mean the socks i claim johnny harshman has. Sockpuppets on the internet certainly exists, do you deny that?
>>
>>
>> From that context you think you can follow, you asserted only
>> Harshman's sockpuppets.
>
>thanks for your admittance

Why should she have reluctance? Or even resistance?

> Apparently your first sentence was just a
>> lucky guess.
--

[StanFast]

i have never been hiding.

I have posted to Usenet with my actual ip for over a decade and a half.

[StanFast]

Oh really. I am one of the few here who has actually proved who i am. You game?

I mean, you didn't really expect people to believe your name is Casanova or carnegie, did you, 'bob'?

[RMcBane]

I went to Purdue in the, '60s. It was an Engineering, Science and Ag
school. English and other Lib arts departments were there mainly to
provide Lib Arts electives to the majority of students in Eng, Sci and
Ag. Her credentials are really pretty meaningless in judging your
sophistication.

--
Richard McBane

[Wolffan]

On 01 Jun 2018, StanFast wrote
(in article<22f622bb-820a-4278...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you
> > > bc, they never did when I got my passport;
> > > I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
> > > I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.
> >
> >
> > I hope for your sake that English isn't your native language.
> >
> > --
> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
> > say it.
> >
> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > Attributed to Voltaire
>
> my English teacher in college who was from Purdue

Purdue would have been called ‘Indiana A&M’ or ‘Indiana Tech’ if that
had been the fashion back when it started. It’s an engineering, science,
and agriculture school. There would be a _reason_ why their nick is ‘The
Boilermakers’. The Arts&Parties classes are there to provide the core
students with a ‘well-rounded’ education; someone who gets a degree in
Arts&Parties from Purdue is someone the rest of the school didn’t take
seriously.

> with her credentials
> thought I was rather sophisticated for my papers i turned in compared to
> other students in class.

I really, really, REALLY doubt this.

[Wolffan]

On 01 Jun 2018, RMcBane wrote
(in article <pestc4$fms$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 6/1/2018 10:49 AM, StanFast wrote:
> > On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > contrary to what the federal govt says, that they will mail you back you
> > > > bc, they never did when I got my passport;
> > > > I have scanned it and put it online, I could look for the url.
> > > > I originally on Usenet posted it to alt.atheism.
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope for your sake that English isn't your native language.
> > >
> > > --
> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
> > > say it.
> > >
> > > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > > Attributed to Voltaire
> >
> > my English teacher in college who was from Purdue with her credentials
> > thought I was rather sophisticated for my papers i turned in compared to
> > other students in class.
> I went to Purdue in the, '60s. It was an Engineering, Science and Ag
> school.

You survived West Lafayette? Congrats. I went to a few feetball games at
Purdue in the 80s. The school was impressive, the tech parts, anyway.
Arts&Parties, not so much.

> English and other Lib arts departments were there mainly to
> provide Lib Arts electives to the majority of students in Eng, Sci and
> Ag. Her credentials are really pretty meaningless in judging your
> sophistication.

That’s how I read it.

[RonO]

On 5/24/2018 11:33 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:39:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>
>> On 5/23/2018 4:23 PM, Dexter wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:01:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/18 5:30 AM, StanFast wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-6, John
>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/18 6:19 PM, drlmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> He met some people from here if I recall.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You recall incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>>>> So the stereotype of the person hiding behind their
>>>> keyboard fits you to a tee.
>>>>

>>>>> This seems like an odd jibe for a person hiding behind
>>>>> a nym.
>>>>
>>>> It does, doesn't it? I also like the scare quotes on your
>>>> name in the Subject: field ("Who are you really?"). There
>>>> was an idiot several years back who did the same with
>>>> mine, and TIBAMJTEM seems determined at times to do the
>>>> same.
>>>>
>>>>> I have no
>>>>> idea who you are or even what your previous nym was.
>>>>
>>>> I'd guess he's Dr. L. McCoy. Not a DrDr, though, so not a
>>>> candidate for "The Self-Proclaimed Expert of All
>>>> Things"...
>>>>
>>>> And there's no evidence I've seen of any prior nym.
>>>>
>>>>>> Did you ever briefly have YouTube video up under the
>>>> YouTube mum satoshinakamoto?
>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> McCoy? There was a McCoy here some years back, if I
>>> recall. He of the Little Orange Biology book, I believe.
>>> Could it be he? Reincarnated?
>>>
>>
>> McNameless.
>
> Yep. Seems to be a different guy, though.
>

DeadLast admits that he was banned from TO, and he claims that Eddie and
Ray should have been banned for the same thing. I still do not recall
who he could be. Harshman obviously ticked him off about something
years ago.

Ron Okimoto

[StanFast]

No, I claimed i shouldn't have been banned, idiot, I stayed the ban was wrongful, which it was. Is there something severely defective with your cognitive functioning?
Dana tweedy also had two different accounts. I had the same thing and was open and honest about. I used those due to Google posting limits. You know how tough it is to try to keep up with your posting sprees from all your sockpuppets?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Name them.

> I had the same thing and was open and honest about. I used those due to Google posting limits.

Then perhaps you should have used something other than Google to post. You may notice that I am using Google.

> You know how tough it is to try to keep up with your posting sprees from all your sockpuppets?

Are you saying that Ron has sockpuppets? Name them.

[RonO]

So you admit that you were banned, and my statement was correct. Why do
something this stupid? Does it give you some type of clue as to why you
would be banned and think that it was wrongful?

I have two different accounts, but I sign my name on all my posts.
Eternal september is only on my home computer and it doesn't work all
the time. The multiple accounts ban is pretty much for those that make
up the new accounts to avoid killfiles and don't take the warnings not
to do it seriously. Madman had multiple accounts, and he was warned
about it, but he just made up new accounts. How long was Madman's
behavior tolerated (it was years). My guess is that you were not banned
for having muliple accounts. There is a thread somewhere that discusses
what posters have been banned for, and just two accounts isn't one of
them. Guys like madman and spinny had a lot more accounts than just
two. People have to change their accounts repeatedly. How many
accounts did Great Dane have?

I used to post from AOL and Netscape, now I use Google groups or eternal
september, but I have been posting on TO since the late 1990's and
access can obviously change.

You seem to have used two accounts already in your current efforts, and
you haven't been posting for very long, but my first guess is that you
were not banned for just having two accounts. Someone may have a link
to the old thread and you can check it out to see what you probably were
actually banned for.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

>I am one of the few here who has actually proved who i am. You game?

Nope. You posted a link to a couple of fake pictures. You
haven't "proved" anything beyond a restricted intelligence.

>I mean, you didn't really expect people to believe your name is Casanova or carnegie, did you, 'bob'?

Well, it's certainly not "carnegie", even if that were
properly capitalized. As for your other implied allegations,
see the comment above, the one that ends "...and laugh their
asses off"? Take it to heart.

[StanFast]

Oh really? Phony IDs are a crime.
Why dont you report it then?

[Edna Freon]

This is the kind of thing that makes participating in this
newsgroup such a pain. What I keep hoping to see is rational
discussion yet most posts are about the poster, who said
what rather than what is actually said.

Why not just ignore and refuse to reply to those who disrupt
a conversation? Why encourage them with any reply at all?

Bill

[erik simpson]

For once, I totally agree.

[jillery]

Could you please make up your mind whether or not you support the
intent of T.O. as specified in its charter, to attract disruptive
posters away from "science" newsgroups? I get whiplash trying to
follow your flipflops.

[jillery]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 13:39:14 -0500, Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Including you?

[erik simpson]

Whether I approve of the intent or not is irrelevant, since whatever purpose it
ever had has long since become irrelevant. It is my opinion that people like
StanFast are best ignored. The same wrt to DrDr. You, of course, are free to
disagree, as you surely will.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/3/18 4:58 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast

>>>> [...]

>>>>> I mean, you didn't really expect people to believe your
>>>>> name is Casanova or carnegie, did you, 'bob'?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's certainly not "carnegie", even if that were
>>>> properly capitalized. As for your other implied
>>>> allegations, see the comment above, the one that ends
>>>> "...and laugh their asses off"? Take it to heart.
>>>
>>> This is the kind of thing that makes participating in this
>>> newsgroup such a pain. What I keep hoping to see is rational
>>> discussion yet most posts are about the poster, who said
>>> what rather than what is actually said.
>>>
>>> Why not just ignore and refuse to reply to those who disrupt
>>> a conversation? Why encourage them with any reply at all?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> For once, I totally agree.
>
>
> Could you please make up your mind whether or not you support the
> intent of T.O. as specified in its charter, to attract disruptive
> posters away from "science" newsgroups? I get whiplash trying to
> follow your flipflops.

The purpose of this newsgroup is to attract creationists (and some other
crackpots) away from science groups. Nobody anywhere wants stalkers and
trolls.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 11:06:00 -0700 (PDT), the following

You're not worth the effort. Besides, by "fake" I meant "not
yours"; they could well be real pics of some *other* idiot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 13:39:14 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>:

Why indeed?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 08:13:53 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

Your comment seems to indicate that you think that
"creationists and some other crackpots" and "trolls" are
mutually exclusive. In several cases, StanFast and DrDr to
cite only two of the more egregious examples, they're not.
IMHO, of course; YMMV.

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote in message news:pf10j2$nuv$1...@dont-email.me...

You're one of the trolls, and crackpots.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/talk.origins/zPm0l4lXlQc/1pu-6-tHJFIJ

[jillery]

You illustrate part of the problem; one person's voice of reason is
another person's troll and crackpot. It's all ad hoc "I know it when
I see it". Reasonable group actions require an effort to make
objective specifications.

[jillery]

Of course, your comments above are technically correct. But the
different groups you mention above have a lot of overlap. My
experience is a majority of self-identified creationists, and almost
all of "other crackpots", qualify as stalkers or trolls, and a
significant fraction of non-creationists and non-crackpots also
qualify as stalkers or trolls.

For example, I can think of one poster who is responsible for a large
fraction of posts in T.O., either from him or to him, and has enjoyed
explicit encouragement from several so-called village elders, but
whose posting habits objectively qualify him as both a stalker and a
troll.

Since that poster enjoys from this froup the very opposite of being
ignored, despite meeting the qualifications you specify above, on what
basis can you justify a call to ignore anyone?

And to be explicitly clear, I assume you're not talking about
individual decisions on to whom to reply, but instead on a call for
collective action.

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 08:07:31 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson

>Whether I approve of the intent or not is irrelevant, since whatever purpose it
>ever had has long since become irrelevant. It is my opinion that people like
>StanFast are best ignored. The same wrt to DrDr. You, of course, are free to
>disagree, as you surely will.

Of course, I have stated my opinion about such things numerous times,
so your prediction requires no foreknowledge, but is a certainty,
probability one.

OTOH you had recently expressed at least a tacit acceptance of a
transplant from an different froup of an off-topic thread
appropriately described as "crap". IMO said thread was certainly as
"disruptive" as anything Stanfast posted. So I am understandably
confused about how you identify "people like Stanfast".

To be explicit, my point here is there is no consensus on what or who
is "disruptive". For example, I would make a good argument that the
person with whom you "totally agree" above is one of them, while it
wouldn't surprise me if he thinks I am one of them. And Glenn
elsethread accused Mark Isaak of being one of them.

ISTM without a prior consensus on *what* is disruptive, ad hoc calls
to ignore specific posters arbitrarily apply unwritten rules, a recipe
for abuse and special privilege, and violates the spirit of T.O.

[erik simpson]

I have no idea, and I doubt there is any identifiable consensus about the
"spirit of T.O.". As I did say, it's my opinion, and I call's 'em as I sees
'em. For the record, I think "Bill" is not so disruptive as he's just
irritating. His post in question presented an opinion with which I agree.
That's the whole story.

[Mark Isaak]

These are difficult issues, and I am far from confident that my
suggestions are the best advice, but they are the best I know of.

Regarding collective action, I don't see such calls being effective.
Such calls are equivalent to trying to herd cats by yelling at them from
a distance.

But trolls, by definition, thrive on the responses they provoke. If
people stop providing the responses, the trolls have less incentive to
post. They may not stop, but it might lessen the quantity. Plus,
responses to trolls rarely have any material which has value to anyone
besides its author. Not answering trolls certainly reduces that source
of noise.

I know that not feeding trolls will not make them go away completely.
Some posters, I think, post mostly for the pleasure of seeing their name
in the "From" field. I ignore those posters largely because I view them
more as pitiful than bothersome. Other posters have ideas of substance
to contribute, and begin contributing them, but then find that insulting
other people is easier and (to them) more enjoyable. I don't know how
to handle such people. Comments about their hostility only give them
more reason (in their view) to be hostile.

Finally -- and it should be my foremost consideration, though I admit
that is not always the case -- there is my own well-being to consider.
I don't want to be the kind of person who reacts rather than responds.
I don't want to be someone known mostly for yelling at others. Others,
I expect, consider such issues when doing their own posting, and gentle
reminders may help them.

[jillery]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:35:31 -0700, Mark Isaak

I raise below some points about your comments above:

1) Claims of other posters' motives or state of mind, unsupported by
said posters' words, are imaginary mindreading, and are almost by
definition unresponsive evasions. Such comments are likely to
generate negative replies for that reason alone.

2) The absence of a response is necessarily ambiguous. I often don't
respond to posts which make the same points I do, as replying to them
would be mere repetition. So not responding to someone can be
interpreted as agreement, which is not the message to send to trolls.

3) IMO a better solution is to state explicitly what I find
objectionable to a poster's comments, so they don't have to guess, and
have an opportunity to change if they choose. My impression is many
of them are either delusional and/or incompetent, so are incapable of
figuring it out for themselves. And only after beating my head
against a brick wall for some arbitrary interval, am I justified in
treating them as trolls.

[Mark Isaak]

I mostly agree. I believe another good reason for not replying to a
post I disagree with is when others have already done so. Also, I think
as many brick walls come from cranks as from trolls. (You can probably
guess the main offender I have in mind.) With cranks, there is reason
for responding to them occasionally even though you know you are talking
to a brick, to counter their misinformation. (Too much of that, though,
besides being a waste of time, makes one sound like a brick wall oneself.)