Multiple concurrent nyms

[jillery]

There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
"nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
Or do some posters get special consideration?

<759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>

<ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Mike Dworetsky]

jillery wrote:
> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>
> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>

I think it is allowed by the moderator DIG for those posting from
googlegroups, to get around imposed limitations on the number of posts per
day (or something). The other proviso is that it should be clear from the
nym employed that it is the same person in such cases.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[jillery]

Of course, I'm not DIG, and he's not accountable to me how he
interprets his rules. However, if he interpreted that rule as you
say, that would violate the rule's expressed purpose.

I don't know what GG's posting limits are, or even if GG has posting
limits. But if someone violates them, that could be interpreted as a
sign that they should use some other posting method, rather than have
T.O. enable their lack of personal responsibility.

And IIUC the proviso wrt identity is to provide for exceptional cases.
This particular violation has been going on long enough to moot that
claim.

[deadrat]

How about we just ask DIG to let you ban anyone who annoys you? Then
you could have the place to yourself.

[Burkhard]

My understanding is that you don't get banned for using different nyms
as such (which can just be the result of using different newsreaders
with different setting), but using different "from" addresses as this
evades filters. At least I don't know of any case where someone was
banned just because the nym. My filter for Peter works just fine, so
this seems not to be an issue here

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:06:48 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/15 1:45 AM, jillery wrote:
>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>
>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>

>How about we just ask DIG to let you ban anyone who annoys you? Then
>you could have the place to yourself.

How about you learn to control your compulsive stupidity? Of all the
stupid paraphrases you have posted, your comment above has to be among
the stupidest.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

If in fact that's DIG's interpretation, then you have a valid point.

[deadrat]

As someone once asked, "Strike a little too close to home?"

[jillery]

And you just keep on spewing more stupid.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>
> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>

The real rule is of course: we don't want annoying behaviour here.
The 'rules' are no more than guidelines.

DIG can ban as he sees fit, with or without rules.
Behaviour is annoying if and only if it annoys him.
Your annoyances are irrelevant.

Someone of your immense intelligence might have seen that,

Jan

[A Non E Mouse]

On 2015-02-18 07:45:11 +0000, jillery said:

> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>
> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>

Jeez, I don't like Peter the Grate either, but get a grip. It's quite
clear exactly who is posting. He's not trying to hide. Just ignore the
twit... or killfile him.

[jillery]

If only I said anything about annoyances. Someone of your
intelligence is expected to misrepresent what I wrote.

[jillery]

Apparently mob rule has once again taken over. Stop projecting your
motivations onto me.

[RonO]

When I was first posting to TO I used to have two accounts that I would
post from, but I'd always sign my posts. I used to post from the
Netscape browser and I had an account with AOL. I bet some posters
don't know what I am talking about. My take is that it is OK. I didn't
even mind Madman's nyms. Once you figured out who it was, he only had
around half a dozen. I still have a Google groups account that I don't
use since switching to eternal september.

Could Nyikos and Sneaky be the same poster? It seems strange that there
would be two people that would manipulate posts in the same way in order
to deny reality and be the only two to deny that the ID perps have been
running the bait and switch on creationist rubes for over a decade. It
was deja vu all over again when Sneaky was denying that the bait and
switch had gone down while removing the evidence from the posts and
pretending that the evidence didn't exist.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 08:50:43 UTC, jillery wrote:
> I don't know what GG's posting limits are, or even if GG has posting
> limits. But if someone violates them, that could be interpreted as a
> sign that they should use some other posting method, rather than have
> T.O. enable their lack of personal responsibility.

I don't know what Google Groups' limit formula is,
but it's "too much" and IMO is a reason to pause.
If you registered a second account just so you can
carry on posting, there's something wrong with you.

For a normal person, the trick of not hitting that
post limit is to write one reply that addresses
more than one person's points. This isn't good
for following thread branches, but otherwise, it
seems to be working for me. My posts even get read
sometimes. :-)

> And IIUC the proviso wrt identity is to provide for exceptional cases.
> This particular violation has been going on long enough to moot that
> claim.

As long as you can block any post matching %nyikos%
what's the problem? ;-)

[jillery]

Even without spoofing headers, it's trivially easy to post from
multiple accounts, each with their own signature. That's all a simple
computer script can look at. The trickier part would be to detect
what you describe, to detect similar identities from characteristics
of the body text. That requires more sophisticated programs than
scripts.

There are a number of posters on T.O. whose texts display similar
personalities. Which is not to say they are in fact the same person,
as similar professions and interests tend to attract similar
personalities. With the limited number of posters who access T.O., a
decent pattern-recognition program should be able to match different
nyms to the same person despite different headers.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 06:30:44 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 08:50:43 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> I don't know what GG's posting limits are, or even if GG has posting
>> limits. But if someone violates them, that could be interpreted as a
>> sign that they should use some other posting method, rather than have
>> T.O. enable their lack of personal responsibility.
>
>I don't know what Google Groups' limit formula is,
>but it's "too much" and IMO is a reason to pause.
>If you registered a second account just so you can
>carry on posting, there's something wrong with you.

That depends on the reasonableness of GG's limits and how they fit the
users' needs. Different points of view and different needs yield
different opinions of what's reasonable.

>For a normal person, the trick of not hitting that
>post limit is to write one reply that addresses
>more than one person's points. This isn't good
>for following thread branches, but otherwise, it
>seems to be working for me. My posts even get read
>sometimes. :-)

I don't know if it matters to you, but I read all of your posts to
T.O. Sometimes I reply if I agree with your comments, or if I don't
agree, or if I just want to add a comment I think is relevant. And
sometimes I don't reply at all.

>> And IIUC the proviso wrt identity is to provide for exceptional cases.
>> This particular violation has been going on long enough to moot that
>> claim.
>
>As long as you can block any post matching %nyikos%
>what's the problem? ;-)

My OP doesn't refer to blocking anybody. It does refer to the rules
of this newsgroup, as implemented by the moderator.

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>this seems not to be an issue here.

Filters can work on the name (author) part of the from field or the
address. But my understanding is that you don't get banned for using
different strings in either unless your behavior is egregiously an
attempt to bypass filters. There are legitimate reasons for using
more than one name and address when you post from different machines
using news readers that you configured at very different times under
different circumstances. I can't see any difficulty whatsoever in
posting sometimes under one of the two indicators jillery describes
and posting sometimes under the other. In both cases it is very clear
exactly who is posting. Peter most definitely has no obvious
intention to hide his identity.

I don't know about using google groups but it seems that with any real
news reader it is trivial to avoid reading a post from a poster you
dislike. In any case it is simple to stop reading as soon as you see
something you dislike and move on to another post or another task.

[deadrat]

Mob rule! How dramatic, but to be expected from She Who's Title Must
Not Be Named.

Just so no one reads your mind to guess at your motivations, tell us why
you want PN banned. Dedication to the rule of law or simple pique?

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:23:44 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>
>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>

>>My understanding is that you don't get banned for using different nyms
>>as such (which can just be the result of using different newsreaders
>>with different setting), but using different "from" addresses as this
>>evades filters. At least I don't know of any case where someone was
>>banned just because the nym. My filter for Peter works just fine, so
>>this seems not to be an issue here.
>
>Filters can work on the name (author) part of the from field or the
>address. But my understanding is that you don't get banned for using
>different strings in either unless your behavior is egregiously an
>attempt to bypass filters. There are legitimate reasons for using
>more than one name and address when you post from different machines
>using news readers that you configured at very different times under
>different circumstances. I can't see any difficulty whatsoever in
>posting sometimes under one of the two indicators jillery describes
>and posting sometimes under the other. In both cases it is very clear
>exactly who is posting. Peter most definitely has no obvious
>intention to hide his identity.
>
>I don't know about using google groups but it seems that with any real
>news reader it is trivial to avoid reading a post from a poster you
>dislike. In any case it is simple to stop reading as soon as you see
>something you dislike and move on to another post or another task.

Apparently not enough posters take advantage of this feature often
enough, including yourself. In any case, using said feature has
nothing to with the point of my OP.

[deadrat]

But it's about the rules, dontchaknow.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:18:36 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>Just so no one reads your mind to guess at your motivations, tell us why
>you want PN banned. Dedication to the rule of law or simple pique?

Tell us why do you want screw your mother.

[RSNorman]

The last time I checked, the rules for a moderated news group is that
the moderator can do whatever he damn well pleases. (DIG, in case you
read all this stuff, I don't think that is a bad rule at all.)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote in news:mc2158$ld9$1...@dont-email.me:
[snip]

> When I was first posting to TO I used to have two accounts that I
> would post from, but I'd always sign my posts. I used to post from
> the Netscape browser and I had an account with AOL. I bet some
> posters don't know what I am talking about. My take is that it is OK.
> I didn't even mind Madman's nyms. Once you figured out who it was,
> he only had around half a dozen. I still have a Google groups account
> that I don't use since switching to eternal september.
>
> Could Nyikos and Sneaky be the same poster?

Why stop there? Maybe Nyikos, Sneaky, and *Okimoto* are the same
poster!

'I' could point to the posts in which 'Nyikos' and 'I' have seemingly
disagreed, but 'you' could point to the posts in which 'you' have seemed
to disagree with 'me', and 'Nyikos' could point to posts in which 'he'
has seemed to disagree with both of 'us'! Gasp!

> It seems strange that there would be two people that would manipulate
> posts in the same way in order to deny reality

'Okimoto' has been observed to deny the reality that the validity of a
scientific term is determined by whether or not scientists use it. In
that reality, the fact that numerous scientists have used the term
'newborn chick' in scientific journals demonstrates that 'newborn chick'
is a valid term. So that's one point in favor of the OkiNykiSneaki
hypothesis. Hmm!

> and be the only two to deny that the ID perps have been running the
> bait and switch on creationist rubes for over a decade.

Well, now 'you're' ('I'm'?) just being silly. The 'ID perps' and the
'creationist rubes' are one and the same. 'Intelligent Design' *is*
Creationism.

'Nyikos' seems to imagine that 'his' vacuous notions about space sperm
can put 'Intelligent Design' on a sound scientific footing. This is, of
course, nonsense. From a scientific perspective, there is no plausible
evidence that life on Earth was the result of design. The exact
circumstances of the abiogenesis event may never be known, but there's
no scientific justification for throwing a designer into the mix. At
least, that's what 'I' think. What do 'you' think?

> It was deja vu all over again when Sneaky was denying that the bait
> and switch had gone down while removing the evidence from the posts
> and pretending that the evidence didn't exist.

Yeah, okay, fun's fun and all, but for the record, no, I am neither
Peter Nyikos nor Ron Okimoto. Duh. I often behave foolishly and
counterproductively, but I've yet to sink to the level of pretending
to argue with myself.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:37 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Could be, but that would be getting into content moderation,
which is outside the intended purview of the moderation bot.
IIRC, t.o is specifically moderated for crossposting only,
with nymshifting (judged by DIG, not by the bot) and bans of
specific individuals only on an "as-needed" basis.
--

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

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:28:48 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>But it's about the rules, dontchaknow.

You're channeling Steadly really well. I can hardly tell your posts
apart.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:04:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Yeppers, that's what I said.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:38:02 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

So nice of you to agree with me.

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>"nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>Or do some posters get special consideration?

><759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>

><ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>

One is quite likely his school account, the other is probably
his home account.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[deadrat]

Last time I checked, I still wasn't marking these posts as ironic.
Perhaps I need to reconsider this policy.

[deadrat]

On 2/18/15 12:27 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:28:48 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> But it's about the rules, dontchaknow.
>
>
> You're channeling Steadly really well. I can hardly tell your posts
> apart.
>

Seems like a cognitive problem for you.

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 1:45:42 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>
> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.

Multiple 'nyms are only a problem if they're being used for sockpuppetry
(pretending to be multiple individuals). Peter's not doing that AFAIK.
Hence, lack of bannage.

I too find the notion of needing multiple 'nyms to get around GG's posting
limits (which I had no idea existed - shows you how active I am on Usenet
these days) somewhat weird and concerning; Peter needs to find better
ways to waste his time. But, again, not a bannable offense.

[jillery]

Be sure to start with your own posts.

[jillery]

It seems that way to you because of your cognitive problems. Tu
quoque!

[jillery]

Thank you for sharing.

[deadrat]

The only posts I could mark as ironic would be my own.

[deadrat]

So you apparently believe, and thus your problem. I doubt anyone else
would confuse a post of mine with a Steadly Nochops post.

[Chris Thompson]

On 2/18/2015 7:39 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 2/18/2015 1:45 AM, jillery wrote:
>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>
>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is never insulting.
>>
>
> When I was first posting to TO I used to have two accounts that I would
> post from, but I'd always sign my posts. I used to post from the
> Netscape browser and I had an account with AOL. I bet some posters
> don't know what I am talking about. My take is that it is OK. I didn't
> even mind Madman's nyms. Once you figured out who it was, he only had
> around half a dozen. I still have a Google groups account that I don't
> use since switching to eternal september.
>
> Could Nyikos and Sneaky be the same poster?

No. Just...no.

Were you thinking of Steady Eddie? Again, no, but...

Chris

[William Morse]

On 02/18/2015 03:47 AM, jillery wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:07:24 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>
>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>

>> I think it is allowed by the moderator DIG for those posting from
>> googlegroups, to get around imposed limitations on the number of posts per
>> day (or something). The other proviso is that it should be clear from the
>> nym employed that it is the same person in such cases.
>
>
> Of course, I'm not DIG, and he's not accountable to me how he
> interprets his rules. However, if he interpreted that rule as you
> say, that would violate the rule's expressed purpose.

>
> I don't know what GG's posting limits are, or even if GG has posting
> limits. But if someone violates them, that could be interpreted as a
> sign that they should use some other posting method, rather than have
> T.O. enable their lack of personal responsibility.
>

> And IIUC the proviso wrt identity is to provide for exceptional cases.
> This particular violation has been going on long enough to moot that
> claim.
>

I don't think Peter has ever tried to hide his identity as a poster. And
I see no evidence of his flooding the newsgroup with spurious posts. Not
that I often agree with Peter, but I don't understand your beef.
> Intelligence is never insulting.
>

[jillery]

Apparently you have a distinctive definition of "spurious".

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:54:40 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/15 4:17 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:36:15 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/15 12:27 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:28:48 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it's about the rules, dontchaknow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're channeling Steadly really well. I can hardly tell your posts
>>>> apart.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a cognitive problem for you.
>
>> It seems that way to you because of your cognitive problems. Tu
>> quoque!
>
>So you apparently believe, and thus your problem.

The belief is yours. Tu quoque!

> I doubt anyone else
>would confuse a post of mine with a Steadly Nochops post.

The only relevant confusion here is yours. Tu quoque!

[jillery]

So what's stopping you?

[deadrat]

It's not as much fun for me if I have to.

[Mitchell Coffey]

And Nyikos is clearly not either intentionally or unintentionally
evading filters.

Mitchell

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:54:40 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2/18/15 4:17 PM, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:36:15 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/15 12:27 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:28:48 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But it's about the rules, dontchaknow.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're channeling Steadly really well. I can hardly tell your posts
> >>>> apart.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Seems like a cognitive problem for you.
> >
> >> It seems that way to you because of your cognitive problems. Tu
> >> quoque!
> >
> >So you apparently believe, and thus your problem.
>
>
> The belief is yours. Tu quoque!

Great, you have learned two new words here.

Keep it up,

Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:16:16 -0500, William Morse
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:

Since you claim to not see his spurious posts, I assume you haven't
read his most recent examples:

<1b9d5159-4d51-442d...@googlegroups.com>

<f508d113-64b5-4257...@googlegroups.com>

<e6400db4-63f3-4ee1...@googlegroups.com>

<6bb6c825-9c10-4a91...@googlegroups.com>

<6d21a788-d4b3-4f03...@googlegroups.com>

<9275c98c-a5ce-41e5...@googlegroups.com>

<0ed98640-4a1f-4988...@googlegroups.com>

<587992a8-c0d7-4159...@googlegroups.com>

<43e10fec-c5ac-4530...@googlegroups.com>

<fc388293-4684-48ac...@googlegroups.com>

<2672ebcc-124b-4332...@googlegroups.com>

<48679f93-5565-42a3...@googlegroups.com>

<91c90ed2-90f5-4c92...@googlegroups.com>

<9bd25b9d-b1e2-4eae...@googlegroups.com>

<f3334772-2ac8-4208...@googlegroups.com>

<8185cb3c-7be2-43eb...@googlegroups.com>

<d564372f-d96b-4a0a...@googlegroups.com>

<1f624ef3-27c6-4ceb...@googlegroups.com>

<602342b3-c088-4fe6...@googlegroups.com>

<9dea336e-5331-4bd4...@googlegroups.com>

<f9c70be5-e7b8-4c66...@googlegroups.com>

<05294788-3a99-4998...@googlegroups.com>

[jillery]

So you again admit it's all about you.

[jillery]

That's two more than you.

[jillery]

That fact didn't slow down rnorman from harrassing me about it when I
was diagnosing T.O./GG conflicts.

[deadrat]

I post for my own amusement. I have never said otherwise.

Why do you post?

[deadrat]

How can anyone "harass" you on a newsgroup?

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 11:45:42 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>
> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>

> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.

Peter is under your skin; and you're not smart enough to take him on, so you try to get him banned. I'm sure the Moderator will see or has seen your topic as I just described.

Ray

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:42:17 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:

>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> >> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
> >> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
> >> Or do some posters get special consideration?
> >>
> >> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
> >>
> >> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
> >

> >The real rule is of course: we don't want annoying behaviour here.
> >The 'rules' are no more than guidelines.
> >
> >DIG can ban as he sees fit, with or without rules.
> >Behaviour is annoying if and only if it annoys him.
> >Your annoyances are irrelevant.
> >
> >Someone of your immense intelligence might have seen that,
>
>
> If only I said anything about annoyances. Someone of your
> intelligence is expected to misrepresent what I wrote.

You didn't because you missed the point of it all,
o mighty intelligence,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

You learned only to parrot the words,
you still have to learn what they mean,

Jan

[jillery]

Which is all that's needed to explain why you started your compulsive
trolls in the first place.


>Why do you post?


Don't ask me. You don't believe what I say, and you think you already
know the answer.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:41:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 11:45:42 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>
>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>

>Peter is under your skin;

So are other blood-sucking parasites. What's your point?

> and you're not smart enough to take him on,

It doesn't take any smarts to deflate a self-righteous, self-promoting
bag of hot air.

>so you try to get him banned.

I never suggested nor implied any such thing. I have never tried to
get anyone banned. You're just repeating a lie others posted.

>I'm sure the Moderator will see or has seen your topic as I just described.

Then your post is pointless, just like most of your posts.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:10:28 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I did not comment at all on google group anything. In fact I only
made one post in this thread and it was in response to Burkhard, not
to you. If that constitutes harassment, then I clearly have powers
yet untapped.

[Chris Thompson]

On 2/19/2015 5:42 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:41:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 11:45:42 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>
>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>
>> Peter is under your skin;
>
>
> So are other blood-sucking parasites.

Anyone out there planning on competing in the next Olympic Couch Jump
should just give it up right now.

Chris

[William Morse]

Thanks for taking the time to put together that list, but it didn't help
me any - when I click on the link my newsreader just tries to send an
e-mail to that address. And on my newsreader the most recent threads I
see that were started by Peter are one dated 2/13/15 and one dated
12/1/14. He may have contributed some "spurious" follows in other
threads but I often ignore his follows.

Yours,
Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:07:47 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

You might want to wake up completely *before* you post.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:50:34 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Mindreading isn't one of your talents.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:04:49 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

If you say so.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:42:57 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Anyone out there planning on competing in the next Olympic Couch Jump
>should just give it up right now.

When you troll, try using original material. That way you don't sound
like a complete ass.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:06:34 -0500, William Morse

Keeping your eyes closed is one way to not see spurious posts. But
there are many posters who do as you do, so you have lots of company
here.

[deadrat]

If you need an explanation....

And what's that two-word Latin phrase you misuse?

>
>> Why do you post?

> Don't ask me. You don't believe what I say,

I believe that you're a compulsively over-excitable drama queen, but I
don't think I've ever doubted what you say. If you say you think you're
the victim of mob action on a newsgroup, I may think that's silly, but I
see no reason to doubt that's what you really think.

> and you think you already know the answer.

Really, I have no idea why you post. If you tell me why, then I still
wouldn't know for sure, but I'd be willing to take your word for it.

If you don't want to tell me, then so be it.

[jillery]

You're the one who asked for an explanation.

>And what's that two-word Latin phrase you misuse?
>
>>
>>> Why do you post?
>
>> Don't ask me. You don't believe what I say,
>
>I believe that you're a compulsively over-excitable drama queen,

You're the one who jumps in with your idiotic trolls to cover your
fellow circle jerks as they run away from supporting their own
assertions. That makes you the compulsively over-excitable drama
queen here. Tu quoque! Be sure to clean up the fainting couch after
you get up.

>but I
>don't think I've ever doubted what you say. If you say you think you're
>the victim of mob action on a newsgroup, I may think that's silly, but I
>see no reason to doubt that's what you really think.


>> and you think you already know the answer.
>
>Really, I have no idea why you post. If you tell me why, then I still
>wouldn't know for sure, but I'd be willing to take your word for it.
>
>If you don't want to tell me, then so be it.

What's that word you misuse? Oh yeah. Whatever.

[deadrat]

You've got your explainer and explainee confused here, Sanjakbeyan.

>
>
>> And what's that two-word Latin phrase you misuse?
>>
>>>
>>>> Why do you post?
>>
>>> Don't ask me. You don't believe what I say,
>>
>> I believe that you're a compulsively over-excitable drama queen,
>
>
> You're the one who jumps in with your idiotic trolls to cover your
> fellow circle jerks as they run away from supporting their own
> assertions.

I understand that's your fantasy.

> That makes you the compulsively over-excitable drama
> queen here.

But even if that fantasy were close to reality, it wouldn't make me a
drama queen. That's your territory. You know, like thinking some
conspiracy of trolls is harassing you on a newsgroup.

I know! You can try to get some people banned.

> Tu quoque!

> No, and you just admitted to fallacious arugment.

> Be sure to clean up the fainting couch after
> you get up.

Get help. Please.

>> but I
>> don't think I've ever doubted what you say. If you say you think you're
>> the victim of mob action on a newsgroup, I may think that's silly, but I
>> see no reason to doubt that's what you really think.
>
>>> and you think you already know the answer.
>>
>> Really, I have no idea why you post. If you tell me why, then I still
>> wouldn't know for sure, but I'd be willing to take your word for it.
>>
>> If you don't want to tell me, then so be it.
>
> What's that word you misuse? Oh yeah. Whatever.

As always, Sanjakbeyan, it's up to you.

I suppose you'll now say I'm hysterical because you won't answer, but as
you parrot -- whatever.

[jillery]

Nope. That would be you, arsehole. Tu quoque!

>>> And what's that two-word Latin phrase you misuse?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you post?
>>>
>>>> Don't ask me. You don't believe what I say,
>>>
>>> I believe that you're a compulsively over-excitable drama queen,
>>
>>
>> You're the one who jumps in with your idiotic trolls to cover your
>> fellow circle jerks as they run away from supporting their own
>> assertions.
>
>I understand that's your fantasy.

You understand wrong.

>> That makes you the compulsively over-excitable drama
>> queen here.
>
>But even if that fantasy were close to reality, it wouldn't make me a
>drama queen.

Denial ain't a river in Egypt. Tu quoque!


>That's your territory.


Sez the drama queen who compulsively starts trolls just for the fun of
it.

>You know, like thinking some
>conspiracy of trolls is harassing you on a newsgroup.

That's called reality.

>I know! You can try to get some people banned.

And you can try to post something intelligent. That's two things that
have never been done.


>> Tu quoque!
>
> > No,


Yes

> and you just admitted to fallacious arugment.

Nope. I just pointed out your fallacious argument.

>> Be sure to clean up the fainting couch after
>> you get up.
>
>Get help. Please.

Help yourself. Just clean up afterward.

>>> but I
>>> don't think I've ever doubted what you say. If you say you think you're
>>> the victim of mob action on a newsgroup, I may think that's silly, but I
>>> see no reason to doubt that's what you really think.
>>
>>>> and you think you already know the answer.
>>>
>>> Really, I have no idea why you post. If you tell me why, then I still
>>> wouldn't know for sure, but I'd be willing to take your word for it.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to tell me, then so be it.
>>
>> What's that word you misuse? Oh yeah. Whatever.
>
>As always, Sanjakbeyan, it's up to you.

Then you have no reason to continue replying to me, arsehole.

>I suppose you'll now say I'm hysterical because you won't answer, but as
>you parrot -- whatever.

Nope, you're just a compulsively hysterical trolling arsehole.

[A Non E Mouse]

On 2015-02-18 11:32:40 +0000, jillery said:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 06:03:48 -0500, A Non E Mouse
> <non...@the.above.net> wrote:

>
>> On 2015-02-18 07:45:11 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>
>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>

>> Jeez, I don't like Peter the Grate either, but get a grip. It's quite
>> clear exactly who is posting. He's not trying to hide. Just ignore the
>> twit... or killfile him.
>
>
> Apparently mob rule has once again taken over. Stop projecting your
> motivations onto me.

Well... what _is_ your reason for even bothering to bring this up?

[Glenn]

"jillery" wrote

>
> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
> "nyi...@bellsouth.net".
>

Yes, that is quite apparent.

>
>There are other posters who have been banned
> for less than that.
>

Really? For "less than that"? Who. When. What. Why.

>
>Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked? Or
>

Where did you get this "rule" that you think applied to all?

>
> do some posters get special consideration?
>

Depends partly on what "special" means to you, of course,
but the answer is a resounding yes with respect to all posters.

It appears you want to believe there is such a rule and that Peter
should not receive special consideration, and should be banned.
You are after all a fair and impartial judge, right?

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:19:29 -0500, A Non E Mouse

Why didn't you ask that question in the first place, instead of aping
minion tripe? At least you recognize the possibility you were wrong,
even as you imply there could no other reasonable interpretation.

The rule is no multiple nyms. The application of the rule is beyond
my powers. My reason is only to remark on the violation of the rule.
Said violation can be trivially and easily remedied by having said
poster limit himself to one nym. To insist I'm trying to get anyone
banned is too stupid for words.

[A Non E Mouse]

Err... So _what_ if Peter the Grate has multiple nyms? How does this
affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
cut to being unpopular, don't you?

And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up? I'm
having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:56:58 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The rule, no doubt, is clearly listed along with the rules for Chez
Watt.

It has been years since DIG did his bi-monthly posting of moderation
policy. Even then, the posted policy deviated signifiantly from what
the moderating bot actually did according to the bot script which was
also made available.

So why do you think that "no multiple nyms" is an absolute inflexible
rule?

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:34:01 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

So why did you stop beating your wife? Please wait until you can post
a reply to me without blatantly mangling the facts.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:54:19 -0500, A Non E Mouse

Do you admit that he's using multiple nyms in clear violation of the
rule? If not, your question is irrelevant.

>How does this
>affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
>nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
>something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
>rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
>cut to being unpopular, don't you?
>
>And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up?

What part of my answer don't you understand? Why are you insisting on
your inference of my motives which you can't possibly know, as opposed
to my clear and explicit statement?

>I'm
>having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
>to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.

You have no objective basis for assuming that DIG is even now aware of
this situation, much less was aware of it before I noted it. Any
conclusion you make based on that assumption is premature at best, and
merely affirms your own prejudices.

In fact, DIG has used the multiple nyn rule on several occasions in
the past to ban personalities from T.O. To have anyone habitually
violate this rule with impunity makes it difficult to justify its
application to anybody. It's similar to a judge who hands out
multi-year sentences for pot possession to those he considers
low-lifes, while dismissing similar charges against his friends and
family.

Apparently you're comfortable with having a privileged class of people
who assume the rules don't apply to them. That explains your alleged
difficulty in seeing how this is of concern to everybody who posts to
T.O.

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:04:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

You write "The rule is no multiple nyms." That seems to me to be a
statement of fact. Where is that rule written?

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:23:33 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

You have shifted from your assertion that I'm trying to get someone
banned, to your assertion that I think "no multiple nyms" is an
absolute inflexible rule, to your implication that the rule doesn't
even exist. Let me know when you come up with something that you're
willing to stick with.

[Paul J Gans]

Seems to me that the intent of the rule was to not allow one person to
pretend to be several different people. Seems to me that Peter and
Peter2 simply reflect two different ISP's with no intent to fool
anybody at all.

This can easily come about, for example, if one has a work account
that goes out over one ISP and a home one that connects to another
ISP.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:


>Seems to me that the intent of the rule was to not allow one person to
>pretend to be several different people. Seems to me that Peter and
>Peter2 simply reflect two different ISP's with no intent to fool
>anybody at all.
>
>This can easily come about, for example, if one has a work account
>that goes out over one ISP and a home one that connects to another
>ISP.

You might be embarrassed to know that in this case, both nyms are from
the *same* ISP.

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:10:25 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I never asserted that you are trying to get someone banned.
I dio imply that the rule doesn't even exist.

You can prove it does by citing where it is written. Otherwise you
are simply manufacturing arguments to avoid providing that citation.

But you do as you wish -- you do anyway.

[Glenn]

"jillery" wrote

> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>>Seems to me that the intent of the rule was to not allow one person to
>>pretend to be several different people. Seems to me that Peter and
>>Peter2 simply reflect two different ISP's with no intent to fool
>>anybody at all.
>>
>>This can easily come about, for example, if one has a work account
>>that goes out over one ISP and a home one that connects to another
>>ISP.
>
> You might be embarrassed to know that in this case, both nyms are from
> the *same* ISP.
>

My retained post list shows that up to around 10AM on 2/6/15 his "from" line has for a long time been "nyikos2-at-bellsouth.net", and his next post made later that same day, until his most recent post, he has used "Peter Nyikos <nyikos2-at-bellsouth.net."

From this it does not appear that he is using "multiple concurrent nyms" in talk.origins. You may be embarrassed to know this, if you were capable of it.

[A Non E Mouse]

yep, you're a rules mechanic.

Have fun.

>
>
>> How does this
>> affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
>> nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
>> something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
>> rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
>> cut to being unpopular, don't you?
>>
>> And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up?
>
>
> What part of my answer don't you understand? Why are you insisting on
> your inference of my motives which you can't possibly know, as opposed
> to my clear and explicit statement?

'cause your statement was not a sufficient answer. You still haven't
answered it.

>
>
>> I'm
>> having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
>> to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.
>
>
> You have no objective basis for assuming that DIG is even now aware of
> this situation, much less was aware of it before I noted it. Any
> conclusion you make based on that assumption is premature at best, and
> merely affirms your own prejudices.

So why didn't you just send him a private message, if all you wanted to
do was to make him aware of Peter the Grate's transgression?

>
> In fact, DIG has used the multiple nyn rule on several occasions in
> the past to ban personalities from T.O. To have anyone habitually
> violate this rule with impunity makes it difficult to justify its
> application to anybody. It's similar to a judge who hands out
> multi-year sentences for pot possession to those he considers
> low-lifes, while dismissing similar charges against his friends and
> family.

DIG is the moderator. That means that he is God Incarnate on this
newsgroup. If it is will that you close each post with 'I now kneel
before David', you have a choice of either closing each post with 'I
now kneel before David' or not posting.

>
> Apparently you're comfortable with having a privileged class of people
> who assume the rules don't apply to them. That explains your alleged
> difficulty in seeing how this is of concern to everybody who posts to
> T.O.

I don't actually give a shit. It's none of my business. And, so far as
I can see, none of yours.

[A Non E Mouse]

You have not answered the question.

Where is the alleged rule written?

Who has been banned under it?

When where they banned?

How can you be sure that the reason why they were banned was because of
this alleged rule?

Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, didn't you just email
him privately?

Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, did you include the
phrase "There are other posters who have been banned for less than
that"?

Why are you insisting on being a rules mechanic... despite the apparent
absence of a rule to be a mechanic about?

Enquiring minds wanna know.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:06:59 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>But you do as you wish -- you do anyway.

As do you, so your comment above is an unremarkable truism.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:22:02 -0500, A Non E Mouse

Whatever you think that means.


>Have fun.


Thanks for your permission.

>>> How does this
>>> affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
>>> nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
>>> something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
>>> rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
>>> cut to being unpopular, don't you?
>>>
>>> And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up?
>>
>>
>> What part of my answer don't you understand? Why are you insisting on
>> your inference of my motives which you can't possibly know, as opposed
>> to my clear and explicit statement?
>
>'cause your statement was not a sufficient answer. You still haven't
>answered it.

Your inability to understand written English is noted. And you still
haven't explained your false assumption of my motives.

>>> I'm
>>> having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
>>> to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.
>>
>>
>> You have no objective basis for assuming that DIG is even now aware of
>> this situation, much less was aware of it before I noted it. Any
>> conclusion you make based on that assumption is premature at best, and
>> merely affirms your own prejudices.
>
>So why didn't you just send him a private message, if all you wanted to
>do was to make him aware of Peter the Grate's transgression?

What possible reason might I have to send DIG a private message?

>> In fact, DIG has used the multiple nyn rule on several occasions in
>> the past to ban personalities from T.O. To have anyone habitually
>> violate this rule with impunity makes it difficult to justify its
>> application to anybody. It's similar to a judge who hands out
>> multi-year sentences for pot possession to those he considers
>> low-lifes, while dismissing similar charges against his friends and
>> family.
>
>DIG is the moderator. That means that he is God Incarnate on this
>newsgroup. If it is will that you close each post with 'I now kneel
>before David', you have a choice of either closing each post with 'I
>now kneel before David' or not posting.

Your paragraph is a series of silly non-sequiturs. Despite DIG's
god-like powers relative to T.O., he isn't omniscient.

>> Apparently you're comfortable with having a privileged class of people
>> who assume the rules don't apply to them. That explains your alleged
>> difficulty in seeing how this is of concern to everybody who posts to
>> T.O.
>
>I don't actually give a shit. It's none of my business. And, so far as
>I can see, none of yours.

Then why are you wasting your time posting your stupid comments?

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:29:57 -0500, A Non E Mouse

What question?

>Where is the alleged rule written?

What alleged rule?

>Who has been banned under it?

What is "it"?


>When where they banned?


Does not parse.

>How can you be sure that the reason why they were banned was because of
>this alleged rule?

I can answer that one. I can't be sure about anything. Thanks for
asking.

>Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, didn't you just email
>him privately?

Why did you stop beating your wife?

>Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, did you include the
>phrase "There are other posters who have been banned for less than
>that"?

Why did you stop beating your wife? (two can play your game).

>Why are you insisting on being a rules mechanic... despite the apparent
>absence of a rule to be a mechanic about?

Define "rules mechanic"


>Enquiring minds wanna know.


You already admitted you don't give a shit, so you're not one of them.

[A Non E Mouse]

Oh, I was clear enough.

>
>
>> Have fun.
>
>
> Thanks for your permission.

You're quite welcome.

>
>
>>>> How does this
>>>> affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
>>>> nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
>>>> something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
>>>> rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
>>>> cut to being unpopular, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up?
>>>
>>>
>>> What part of my answer don't you understand? Why are you insisting on
>>> your inference of my motives which you can't possibly know, as opposed
>>> to my clear and explicit statement?
>>
>> 'cause your statement was not a sufficient answer. You still haven't
>> answered it.
>
>
> Your inability to understand written English is noted. And you still
> haven't explained your false assumption of my motives.

I read what you posted. I simply don't belive it.

>
>
>>>> I'm
>>>> having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
>>>> to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no objective basis for assuming that DIG is even now aware of
>>> this situation, much less was aware of it before I noted it. Any
>>> conclusion you make based on that assumption is premature at best, and
>>> merely affirms your own prejudices.
>>
>> So why didn't you just send him a private message, if all you wanted to
>> do was to make him aware of Peter the Grate's transgression?
>
>
> What possible reason might I have to send DIG a private message?

To avoid dragging something not your business out into public.

>
>
>>> In fact, DIG has used the multiple nyn rule on several occasions in
>>> the past to ban personalities from T.O. To have anyone habitually
>>> violate this rule with impunity makes it difficult to justify its
>>> application to anybody. It's similar to a judge who hands out
>>> multi-year sentences for pot possession to those he considers
>>> low-lifes, while dismissing similar charges against his friends and
>>> family.
>>
>> DIG is the moderator. That means that he is God Incarnate on this
>> newsgroup. If it is will that you close each post with 'I now kneel
>> before David', you have a choice of either closing each post with 'I
>> now kneel before David' or not posting.
>
>
> Your paragraph is a series of silly non-sequiturs. Despite DIG's
> god-like powers relative to T.O., he isn't omniscient.

That's nice. I repeat: if all you wanted to do was to bring this to his
attention, a private message would have been all that was necessary and
sufficient. You elected to do otherwise. This leads me, and many
others, to wonder as to your true motives.

>
>
>>> Apparently you're comfortable with having a privileged class of people
>>> who assume the rules don't apply to them. That explains your alleged
>>> difficulty in seeing how this is of concern to everybody who posts to
>>> T.O.
>>
>> I don't actually give a shit. It's none of my business. And, so far as
>> I can see, none of yours.
>
>
> Then why are you wasting your time posting your stupid comments?

'Cause yanking your chain is even more fun than yanking Steady Eddie's.

[A Non E Mouse]

His question was "So why do you think that "no multiple nyms" is an
absolute inflexible rule?" You have failed to answer it. Three times,
now. When a creationist does that, it's called dodging.

>
>
>> Where is the alleged rule written?
>
>
> What alleged rule?

That "no multiple nyms" is an absolute, inflexible, ban-able, offense.

>
>
>> Who has been banned under it?
>
>
> What is "it"?

Sigh. 'No multiple nyms".

>
>
>> When where they banned?
>
>
> Does not parse.

It's called a typo. I meant 'were'. And I'm quite sure you know it.
When were posters banned for having multiple nyms?

>
>
>> How can you be sure that the reason why they were banned was because of
>> this alleged rule?
>
>
> I can answer that one. I can't be sure about anything. Thanks for
> asking.

So why are you making such a fuss in this case?

>
>
>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, didn't you just email
>> him privately?
>
>
> Why did you stop beating your wife?

I see that you have no answer. Hint: you have stated that you wanted to
let DIG know about Peter the Grate's ban-able offense. So why didn't
you just do that?

>
>
>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, did you include the
>> phrase "There are other posters who have been banned for less than
>> that"?
>
>
> Why did you stop beating your wife? (two can play your game).

I see that you have no answer. You have stated that you don't want
Peter the Grate banned. So why did you, in the original post, state
that "There are other posters who have been banned for less than that"?
And you have declined to name even one such poster. Or say when this
occurred. Or why you think that the poster was banned for 'multiple
nyms' and not for something else. In short, you're acting like a
creationist. You cannot support your position, and all you can do is
flail about, screaming insults. It does you position no good at all.
Just as it does Steady Eddie and passerby no good at all when they do
it.

>
>
>> Why are you insisting on being a rules mechanic... despite the apparent
>> absence of a rule to be a mechanic about?
>
>
> Define "rules mechanic"

Someone who is bound and determined to enforce every rule, no matter
what, no matter if the rule in question is inconsequential, no matter
if the rule in question was not intended for the situation, no matter
if the rule does not even actually exist.

>
>
>> Enquiring minds wanna know.
>
>
> You already admitted you don't give a shit, so you're not one of them.

I don't give a shit about your alleged rule. I'm having fun yanking your chain.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:35:55 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:06:59 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>But you do as you wish -- you do anyway.
>
>
>As do you, so your comment above is an unremarkable truism.

Once again you avoid every question about wherein lies the rule
against using multiple names. You simply snip all reference to the
actual subject, just as I suggested.

So I repeat, please inform us all how you come to write "The rule is
no multiple nyms." That strongly hints at the existence of a rule.

[A Non E Mouse]

On 2015-02-18 18:26:32 +0000, jillery said:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:04:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:37 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 06:39:39 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2015 1:45 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>>>
>>>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>

>>>>> --
>>>>> Intelligence is never insulting.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> When I was first posting to TO I used to have two accounts that I would
>>>> post from, but I'd always sign my posts. I used to post from the
>>>> Netscape browser and I had an account with AOL. I bet some posters
>>>> don't know what I am talking about. My take is that it is OK. I didn't
>>>> even mind Madman's nyms. Once you figured out who it was, he only had
>>>> around half a dozen. I still have a Google groups account that I don't
>>>> use since switching to eternal september.
>>>>
>>>> Could Nyikos and Sneaky be the same poster? It seems strange that there
>>>> would be two people that would manipulate posts in the same way in order
>>>> to deny reality and be the only two to deny that the ID perps have been
>>>> running the bait and switch on creationist rubes for over a decade. It
>>>> was deja vu all over again when Sneaky was denying that the bait and
>>>> switch had gone down while removing the evidence from the posts and
>>>> pretending that the evidence didn't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even without spoofing headers, it's trivially easy to post from
>>> multiple accounts, each with their own signature. That's all a simple
>>> computer script can look at. The trickier part would be to detect
>>> what you describe, to detect similar identities from characteristics
>>> of the body text. That requires more sophisticated programs than
>>> scripts.
>>>
>>> There are a number of posters on T.O. whose texts display similar
>>> personalities. Which is not to say they are in fact the same person,
>>> as similar professions and interests tend to attract similar
>>> personalities. With the limited number of posters who access T.O., a
>>> decent pattern-recognition program should be able to match different
>>> nyms to the same person despite different headers.
>>
>> Could be, but that would be getting into content moderation,
>> which is outside the intended purview of the moderation bot.
>> IIRC, t.o is specifically moderated for crossposting only,
>> with nymshifting (judged by DIG, not by the bot)

And it's really, really, REALLY hard to see that two accounts both with
Peter the Grate's actual name in them constitute nymshifting.

>> and bans of
>> specific individuals only on an "as-needed" basis.

I, for one, would object to Peter the Grate being banned for this.
There are some things I'd _love_ to see him banned for, but not this.
What he's doing simply doesn't rise to ban-able levels. Indeed, it
barely rises to _noticeable_ levels. Only someone truly obsessed with
him would pay so close attention. Or care.

>
>
> Yeppers, that's what I said.

Nope. It's pretty clear that you're being a petty, vindictive, rules
mechanic. You picked an unpopular target and tried to raise a stink
about a minor issue, and now you're annoyed because the majority of
other regulars on t.o don't support you. Yes, technically, Peter is
using two accounts at the same time. However... as there is only a
minor difference in the two accounts, and it is very clear who is
posting, this is a distinction which makes no difference. Except to the
dangerously obsessed. It is not a problem which warrants any action at
all. Personally, I go to the next post every time I see 'nyikos' in the
From: header. And he always has 'nyikos' in the From: header. He's not
hiding. He's not dodging. He's not actually nymshifting, not in any
meaningful way. I simply cannot see why you're making such a fuss.

[A Non E Mouse]

On 2015-02-19 19:10:28 +0000, jillery said:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:08:07 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:52:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>>
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There appears to be one poster who posts under "Peter Nyikos" and
>>>> "nyi...@bellsouth.net". There are other posters who have been banned
>>>> for less than that. Is the rule of multiple concurrent nyms revoked?
>>>> Or do some posters get special consideration?
>>>
>>>> <759d3d11-d9e6-4daa...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>> <ab934165-1222-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>
>>>

>>> One is quite likely his school account, the other is probably
>>> his home account.
>>
>> And Nyikos is clearly not either intentionally or unintentionally
>> evading filters.
>
>
> That fact didn't slow down rnorman from harrassing me about it when I
> was diagnosing T.O./GG conflicts.

Ah. So now the motive becomes clear. It's not about what Peter is
doing, it's about what you think was done to you.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:47:40 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:35:55 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:06:59 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But you do as you wish -- you do anyway.
>>
>>
>>As do you, so your comment above is an unremarkable truism.
>
>Once again you avoid every question about wherein lies the rule
>against using multiple names. You simply snip all reference to the
>actual subject, just as I suggested.

The actual subject is rockhead's multiple nyms. Nothing I snipped
referred to that. Try to keep up.

>So I repeat, please inform us all how you come to write "The rule is
>no multiple nyms." That strongly hints at the existence of a rule.

Are you admitting that I'm not trying to get anyone banned?

Are you retracting your assumption that I think the rule is
inflexible?

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:18:57 -0500, A Non E Mouse

If you say so. Since everything I wrote is at least as clear as that,
then you should have no problem understanding my answer.

>>> Have fun.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your permission.
>
>You're quite welcome.

That's nice.

>>>>> How does this
>>>>> affect you? Why do you care? If DIG doesn't think that Peter's multiple
>>>>> nyms is a concern, which it appears that he doesn't, or he'd have done
>>>>> something about it, why are _you_ concerned? Or are you simply being a
>>>>> rules mechanic? You _do_ know that being a rules mechanic is a short
>>>>> cut to being unpopular, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, oh, if you didn't want him banned, why did you bring it up?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of my answer don't you understand? Why are you insisting on
>>>> your inference of my motives which you can't possibly know, as opposed
>>>> to my clear and explicit statement?
>>>
>>> 'cause your statement was not a sufficient answer. You still haven't
>>> answered it.
>>
>>
>> Your inability to understand written English is noted. And you still
>> haven't explained your false assumption of my motives.
>
>I read what you posted. I simply don't belive it.

Congratulations, you act just like a fundy asshole. I'm not surprised
that's a style you want to follow.

>>>>> I'm
>>>>> having difficulty seeing how any of this is of any concern whatsoever
>>>>> to anyone except DIG and Peter. I really am.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no objective basis for assuming that DIG is even now aware of
>>>> this situation, much less was aware of it before I noted it. Any
>>>> conclusion you make based on that assumption is premature at best, and
>>>> merely affirms your own prejudices.
>>>
>>> So why didn't you just send him a private message, if all you wanted to
>>> do was to make him aware of Peter the Grate's transgression?
>>
>>
>> What possible reason might I have to send DIG a private message?
>
>To avoid dragging something not your business out into public.

Even assuming it's not my business, it was already in public, so
that's not even a reason. Your answer is just another one of your
silly non-sequiturs.

>>>> In fact, DIG has used the multiple nyn rule on several occasions in
>>>> the past to ban personalities from T.O. To have anyone habitually
>>>> violate this rule with impunity makes it difficult to justify its
>>>> application to anybody. It's similar to a judge who hands out
>>>> multi-year sentences for pot possession to those he considers
>>>> low-lifes, while dismissing similar charges against his friends and
>>>> family.
>>>
>>> DIG is the moderator. That means that he is God Incarnate on this
>>> newsgroup. If it is will that you close each post with 'I now kneel
>>> before David', you have a choice of either closing each post with 'I
>>> now kneel before David' or not posting.
>>
>>
>> Your paragraph is a series of silly non-sequiturs. Despite DIG's
>> god-like powers relative to T.O., he isn't omniscient.
>
>That's nice.

So you admit that your paragraph was just a series of silly
non-sequiturs.


>I repeat:


You can repeat your silly assumptions all you want, that doesn't make
them valid

>if all you wanted to do was to bring this to his
>attention, a private message would have been all that was necessary and
>sufficient. You elected to do otherwise. This leads me, and many
>others, to wonder as to your true motives.

You already admitted you don't give a shit what my motives are.

>>>> Apparently you're comfortable with having a privileged class of people
>>>> who assume the rules don't apply to them. That explains your alleged
>>>> difficulty in seeing how this is of concern to everybody who posts to
>>>> T.O.
>>>
>>> I don't actually give a shit. It's none of my business. And, so far as
>>> I can see, none of yours.
>>
>>
>> Then why are you wasting your time posting your stupid comments?
>
>'Cause yanking your chain is even more fun than yanking Steady Eddie's.

You're hallucinating. What you're yanking isn't a chain and it isn't
mine. Look in a mirror and you will see you're playing with yourself.
Try to clean up after yourself.

In the meantime, I'm having a great time showing how stupid you can
be.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:33:04 -0500, A Non E Mouse

I neither stated nor implied that such a rule exists. Your question
is a non-sequitur.

>>> Who has been banned under it?
>>
>>
>> What is "it"?
>
>Sigh.

Don't like it when I play your game? Too bad.


>'No multiple nyms".


What about "no multiple nyms"?

>>> When where they banned?
>>
>>
>> Does not parse.
>
>It's called a typo. I meant 'were'. And I'm quite sure you know it.

You have no idea what I know.

>When were posters banned for having multiple nyms?

In the past. Since you admit you don't give a shit, that's more of an
answer than you need.

>>> How can you be sure that the reason why they were banned was because of
>>> this alleged rule?
>>
>>
>> I can answer that one. I can't be sure about anything. Thanks for
>> asking.
>
>So why are you making such a fuss in this case?

Not me. You're the one prattling on about things you don't give a
shit about.

>>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, didn't you just email
>>> him privately?
>>
>>
>> Why did you stop beating your wife?
>
>I see that you have no answer.

Nope. You have no legitimate question.

>Hint: you have stated that you wanted to
>let DIG know about Peter the Grate's ban-able offense. So why didn't
>you just do that?

I stated nor implied any such thing. That's more of your asinine
assumptions, aggravated by your inability to understand written
English, and your willingness to apply imaginary assumptions.

>>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, did you include the
>>> phrase "There are other posters who have been banned for less than
>>> that"?
>>
>>
>> Why did you stop beating your wife? (two can play your game).
>
>I see that you have no answer.

Nope. You have no legitimate question.

>You have stated that you don't want
>Peter the Grate banned.

I stated nor implied any such thing.

>So why did you, in the original post, state
>that "There are other posters who have been banned for less than that"?

To illustrate the serious nature of the behavior. Thanks for asking.
Now feel free to ignore what I wrote and continue with your imaginary
assumptions.

>And you have declined to name even one such poster. Or say when this
>occurred. Or why you think that the poster was banned for 'multiple
>nyms' and not for something else. In short, you're acting like a
>creationist. You cannot support your position, and all you can do is
>flail about, screaming insults. It does you position no good at all.
>Just as it does Steady Eddie and passerby no good at all when they do
>it.

You're the one who bases your conclusions on imaginary assumptions.
You're the one who can't ask legitimate questions. That makes you the
one acting like a fundy asshole.

>>> Why are you insisting on being a rules mechanic... despite the apparent
>>> absence of a rule to be a mechanic about?
>>
>>
>> Define "rules mechanic"
>
>Someone who is bound and determined to enforce every rule, no matter
>what, no matter if the rule in question is inconsequential, no matter
>if the rule in question was not intended for the situation, no matter
>if the rule does not even actually exist.

NOTA applies to me. You might have me confused with rockhead. He's
the one who tilts at windmills.

>>> Enquiring minds wanna know.
>>
>>
>> You already admitted you don't give a shit, so you're not one of them.
>
>I don't give a shit about your alleged rule. I'm having fun yanking your chain.

It's obvious that you're a whanker.

[Glenn]

"A Non E Mouse" <non...@the.above.net> wrote in message news:2015022408235...@the.above.net...
>
snip

>
>Yes, technically, Peter is
> using two accounts at the same time.
>

Support that claim.

[A Non E Mouse]

Suuure yu are.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:08:23 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:47:40 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:35:55 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:06:59 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>But you do as you wish -- you do anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>As do you, so your comment above is an unremarkable truism.
>>
>>Once again you avoid every question about wherein lies the rule
>>against using multiple names. You simply snip all reference to the
>>actual subject, just as I suggested.
>
>
>The actual subject is rockhead's multiple nyms. Nothing I snipped
>referred to that. Try to keep up.
>
>
>>So I repeat, please inform us all how you come to write "The rule is
>>no multiple nyms." That strongly hints at the existence of a rule.
>
>
>Are you admitting that I'm not trying to get anyone banned?
>
>Are you retracting your assumption that I think the rule is
>inflexible?

What I am doing is asking you to support your claim which, in your own
words, reads " The rule is no multiple nyms." You have now
repeatedly failed to provide any support that there exists such a
rule.

Your original post appeared, to me at least, to be a request that the
(supposed) rule should be enforced and not be allowed to be evaded.
You also wrote "The application of the rule is beyond my powers. My
reason is only to remark on the violation of the rule". Perhaps using
the term "inflexible" was a bit of a stretch and I hereby retract it.
That does not excuse you from providing evidence that such a rule
actually exists.

[A Non E Mouse]

then what _is_ your problem?

>
>
>>>> Who has been banned under it?
>>>
>>>
>>> What is "it"?
>>
>> Sigh.
>
>
> Don't like it when I play your game? Too bad.
>
>
>> 'No multiple nyms".
>
>
> What about "no multiple nyms"?

You're not helping your cause.

>
>
>>>> When where they banned?
>>>
>>>
>>> Does not parse.
>>
>> It's called a typo. I meant 'were'. And I'm quite sure you know it.
>
>
> You have no idea what I know.

Oh, it's clear what you _don't_ know.

>
>
>> When were posters banned for having multiple nyms?
>
>
> In the past. Since you admit you don't give a shit, that's more of an
> answer than you need.

And you're dodging again. You simply cannot answer the question. And
it's such a simple question, too.

>
>
>>>> How can you be sure that the reason why they were banned was because of
>>>> this alleged rule?
>>>
>>>
>>> I can answer that one. I can't be sure about anything. Thanks for
>>> asking.
>>
>> So why are you making such a fuss in this case?
>
>
> Not me. You're the one prattling on about things you don't give a
> shit about.

You're the one who's replying to my chain-yanking.

>
>
>>>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, didn't you just email
>>>> him privately?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why did you stop beating your wife?
>>
>> I see that you have no answer.
>
>
> Nope. You have no legitimate question.

And again you're dodging.

>
>
>> Hint: you have stated that you wanted to
>> let DIG know about Peter the Grate's ban-able offense. So why didn't
>> you just do that?
>
>
> I stated nor implied any such thing. That's more of your asinine
> assumptions, aggravated by your inability to understand written
> English, and your willingness to apply imaginary assumptions.

Why do you care?

>
>
>>>> Why, if all you wanted to do was to alert DIG, did you include the
>>>> phrase "There are other posters who have been banned for less than
>>>> that"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why did you stop beating your wife? (two can play your game).
>>
>> I see that you have no answer.
>
>
> Nope. You have no legitimate question.

Still dodging.

>
>
>> You have stated that you don't want
>> Peter the Grate banned.
>
>
> I stated nor implied any such thing.

Oh? So you _do_ want him banned? Tell me more.

>
>
>> So why did you, in the original post, state
>> that "There are other posters who have been banned for less than that"?
>
>
> To illustrate the serious nature of the behavior. Thanks for asking.
> Now feel free to ignore what I wrote and continue with your imaginary
> assumptions.

Except that it's not serious at all.

>
>
>> And you have declined to name even one such poster. Or say when this
>> occurred. Or why you think that the poster was banned for 'multiple
>> nyms' and not for something else. In short, you're acting like a
>> creationist. You cannot support your position, and all you can do is
>> flail about, screaming insults. It does you position no good at all.
>> Just as it does Steady Eddie and passerby no good at all when they do
>> it.
>
>
> You're the one who bases your conclusions on imaginary assumptions.
> You're the one who can't ask legitimate questions. That makes you the
> one acting like a fundy asshole.

The truth hurts, eh, Ms Rules Mechanic...

>
>
>>>> Why are you insisting on being a rules mechanic... despite the apparent
>>>> absence of a rule to be a mechanic about?
>>>
>>>
>>> Define "rules mechanic"
>>
>> Someone who is bound and determined to enforce every rule, no matter
>> what, no matter if the rule in question is inconsequential, no matter
>> if the rule in question was not intended for the situation, no matter
>> if the rule does not even actually exist.
>
>
> NOTA applies to me. You might have me confused with rockhead. He's
> the one who tilts at windmills.

you're the one who started this thread...over absolutely nothing of
significance.

>
>
>>>> Enquiring minds wanna know.
>>>
>>>
>>> You already admitted you don't give a shit, so you're not one of them.
>>
>> I don't give a shit about your alleged rule. I'm having fun yanking your chain.
>
>
> It's obvious that you're a whanker.

That's yanker. And this is fun.

[A Non E Mouse]

He has the nyikos and the nykios2 accounts. Both appear to be at
bellsouth. I think that he uses Google Groups, and that there is some
kind of limit as to the total number of posts per month at GG (I don't
know for sure, I don't use GG) and so the two accounts is an effort to
get around GG's limits. It's certainly not any big deal. Nor is it even
noticeable, under normal circumstances. At least I didn't notice it
until jillery started making a fuss about it. Furthermore, it seems
that the vast majority of his posts are from the nyikos2 account;
jillery made me actually go an look at Peter the Grate's posts. Ick.

[Glenn]

"A Non E Mouse" <non...@the.above.net> wrote in message news:2015022410001...@the.above.net...

> On 2015-02-24 14:23:27 +0000, Glenn said:
>
>> "A Non E Mouse" <non...@the.above.net> wrote in message
>> news:2015022408235...@the.above.net...
>>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Yes, technically, Peter is
>>> using two accounts at the same time.
>>>
>> Support that claim.
>
> He has the nyikos and the nykios2 accounts. Both appear to be at
> bellsouth.

Support that claim.