Exploding Roots

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" wrote
> John Harshman wrote

snip

>> Increased rates of evolution are
>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>
> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>
John's claim may be difficult to parse "correctly".


"Measuring rates of evolution captures an important aspect of shape or trait evolution, but high rates of evolution may not translate simply into high diversity, or vice versa. For example, if taxa are constrained developmentally or ecologically to a particular range of shapes, they may show high rates of evolution and high amounts of convergence in form, but low overall morphological disparity [17],[62],[63]. In this scenario, analyses could accurately recover high rates of evolution but this would not show that the taxa of interest are repeatedly exploring the same range of morphospace rather than expanding into new morphologies. Alternatively, a clade could achieve high disparity through slow evolution if each shift moved into new regions of morphospace. Combining analyses of rates and morphological disparity thus allows for a more complete analysis of tempo and mode in the evolution of diversity. Under a model of diffusive evolution, we would predict that fissipeds would have greater disparity than fissi

peds because fissipeds are the more taxonomically diverse and ancient clade."
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/15/8

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
> > John Harshman wrote
>
> snip
>
> >> Increased rates of evolution are
> >> increased rates of generation of disparity.
> >
> > Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
> > blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.

Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
burden of proof onto my shoulders:

"I'm surprised you can't see this. Under what model would evolution
in different species not create increasing disparity? Divergence
is pretty much unavoidable."

> John's claim may be difficult to parse "correctly".

John seems to have been bluffing. Thanks for digging up the
article below.

> "Measuring rates of evolution captures an important aspect of
shape or trait evolution, but high rates of evolution may not
translate simply into high diversity, or vice versa. For example,
if taxa are constrained developmentally or ecologically to a
particular range of shapes, they may show high rates of evolution
and high amounts of convergence in form, but low overall
morphological disparity [17],[62],[63]. In this scenario,
analyses could accurately recover high rates of evolution
but this would not show that the taxa of interest are repeatedly
exploring the same range of morphospace rather than expanding
into new morphologies. Alternatively, a clade could achieve high
disparity through slow evolution if each shift moved into new
regions of morphospace. Combining analyses of rates and
morphological disparity thus allows for a more complete
analysis of tempo and mode in the evolution of diversity.
Under a model of diffusive evolution, we would predict that
fissipeds would have greater disparity than fissipeds

That second "fissipeds" should read "pinnipeds": seals, sea lions,
walruses etc.

> because fissipeds are the more taxonomically diverse and ancient clade."

"clade" is incorrect: fissipeds form a paraphyletic taxon, the result
of snipping off Pinnipedia from Carnivora.

I wonder what would cause the authors of the article to commit such
an oversight. Perhaps the fact that the two capitalized taxons are
clades led to carelessness.

> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/15/8

Another nice comment from the article:

"Further, in terms of marine mammals, cetaceans underwent a rapid
increase in body size disparity early in the clade's history
despite the lack of a rapid initial taxonomic diversification [24]."

Not only that, but if you compare them with other artiodactyls, the
disparity *between* these two groups (cetaceans a clade, other
artiodactyls a paraphyletic group) is gigantic. Small wonder that
the conventional wisdom for about a century was that whales descended
from creodonts - which in turn were once put into Carnivora. Even
with the omnivority of some swine as a clue, I doubt that any paleontologist
suspected that cetaceans were artiodactyls until the 1960's.

In defense of Harshman, he did include branch length in his overall
"measure of disparity," but he still has an uphill climb against
such statements as:

"Alternatively, a clade could achieve high disparity through
slow evolution if each shift moved into new regions of morphospace."

[Quoted from abstract above.]

Harshman is ill equipped by his background as a cladophile to
quantify "morphospace," which smacks of "body plans" which
in turn smacks of "phyla, classes, etc." which he dogmatically
dismisses in absolute terms as "arbitrary". No quantification
of "arbitrary" for him, no siree!

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[RSNorman]

No, I am not John Harshman and he can speak for himself but, as long
as you can continue without excessive personal animosity against
ancient feuds and grievances, I can comment on this.

You confuse what different people mean by "disparity" or "divergence"
or "diversity". In one case, look at the tree of descent and count
the total number of branches. In another case look to see how
different those branches are in appearance. Those are two very
different concepts. John very clearly is counting the number of
branches no matter how similar they may appear. Are all the sister
species of the fruit fly, Drosophila, an example of the morphological
disparity studied in that paper? Are the different species of Darwin
Finches, birds that cannot readily be identified as different in the
field, an example? The first sentence in that paper says: "Which
factors influence the distribution patterns of morphological diversity
among clades?" In other words, only *morphological* diversity of of
interest and simple branching without significant morphological change
is not considered. Yet simple branching without significant
morphological change is most definitely divergence in evolution.

You also misidentify the nature of cladistics. The fact that phyla
and classes are indeed arbitrary has nothing whatsoever to do with the
fact that different phyla and different classes most definitely belong
to very different branches of the tree of life, to different clades.
The problem is that the tree includes an enormous number of branching
points starting from, say, the presumed bilaterian ancestor and ending
up with all the species of bilateral animals we now see. Just which
branch point corresponds with the division into phyla and which branch
point with the division into classes? That is an arbitrary decision.
Nevertheless, the phylum branch must occur before the class branch
which occurs before the order... The simple fact is that animals are
not simply divided into phylum and class. What about the protostome
vs. deuterostome split, the lophotrochozoan vs ecdysozoan split...
why don't we attach names and levels of classification to these? The
simple answer is that Linneaus didn't know all the detail that we now
know nor did the later systemacists who established the seven
taxonomic ranks we use as "official."

[John Harshman]

On 3/3/15, 11:25 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
>>> John Harshman wrote
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>>>
>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>
> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
> burden of proof onto my shoulders:

> "I'm surprised you can't see this. Under what model would evolution
> in different species not create increasing disparity? Divergence
> is pretty much unavoidable."

I'm still surprised. That isn't ducking the challenge. Let me see a
peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
challenge you.

>> John's claim may be difficult to parse "correctly".
>
> John seems to have been bluffing. Thanks for digging up the
> article below.

Any sentence in which you judge the motives of another should be viewed
with great suspicion, including by you. You're just bad at it.

>> "Measuring rates of evolution captures an important aspect of
> shape or trait evolution, but high rates of evolution may not
> translate simply into high diversity, or vice versa. For example,
> if taxa are constrained developmentally or ecologically to a
> particular range of shapes, they may show high rates of evolution
> and high amounts of convergence in form, but low overall
> morphological disparity [17],[62],[63]. In this scenario,
> analyses could accurately recover high rates of evolution
> but this would not show that the taxa of interest are repeatedly
> exploring the same range of morphospace rather than expanding
> into new morphologies. Alternatively, a clade could achieve high
> disparity through slow evolution if each shift moved into new
> regions of morphospace. Combining analyses of rates and
> morphological disparity thus allows for a more complete
> analysis of tempo and mode in the evolution of diversity.
> Under a model of diffusive evolution, we would predict that
> fissipeds would have greater disparity than fissipeds

True. There may indeed be a limited number of possible states, and
increases in disparity may level off after a time. For example, there
are only four possible states of a DNA site: A, C, G, or T. Assuming
equal frequencies, no two sequences can be expected to become less than
25% identical. But that sort of problem only arises after some initial
period of increasing disparity. Is it relevant to the Cambrian
explosion? I think not.

> In defense of Harshman, he did include branch length in his overall
> "measure of disparity," but he still has an uphill climb against
> such statements as:
>
> "Alternatively, a clade could achieve high disparity through
> slow evolution if each shift moved into new regions of morphospace."

It's unclear to me that this statement contradicts my claim in any way.
Perhaps you could explain.

> Harshman is ill equipped by his background as a cladophile to
> quantify "morphospace," which smacks of "body plans" which
> in turn smacks of "phyla, classes, etc." which he dogmatically
> dismisses in absolute terms as "arbitrary". No quantification
> of "arbitrary" for him, no siree!

You have no idea what you're saying here. Quantification of morphospace
is orthogonal to assignment of taxonomic ranks. Well, mostly. I suppose
you could attempt to assign taxonomic ranks based on some quantification
of disparity, but that would certainly conflict with also trying to
represent phylogeny. Cue Ernst Mayr rant. Did I mention that you have no
idea what you're saying here?

[John Harshman]

Sorry, no. John is counting the length (in character state changes) of a
given sister pair of lineages (a lineage is a pathway of branches from
root to tip) to estimate disparity between the two end points. Clade
disparity might be estimated as the mean length over all lineages
originating at a single node.

Lee et al. are doing something a bit different: they are comparing the
lengths of individual branches to their durations, and counting that
ratio as a measure of increase in disparity per unit time.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:10:59 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Let me see a
>peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
>challenge you.

Sorry about the "disparity measure" error on my part. Here is a paper
that justifies that water is wet.
"Why wet feels wet? A neurophysiological model of human cutaneous
wetness sensitivity"
http://jn.physiology.org/content/112/6/1457

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <c5ecfa5g90te9tuq1...@4ax.com>,

So that paper is about why water *feels* wet. Has the question of why
water *is* wet been satisfactorally answered?

(Based on my now very out-of-date education, the behavior of water is very
"unexpected"; the properties of many other substances are far easier to
predict from first principles.)

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
dot com | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
Autoreply disabled | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

[erik simpson]

In the brave new world of reality as a social construct, 'feeling wet' is
equivalent to being wet. Another example would be 'looks designed, therefore
is designed'.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:04:16 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <c5ecfa5g90te9tuq1...@4ax.com>,
>RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:10:59 -0800, John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me see a
>>>peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
>>>challenge you.
>>
>>Sorry about the "disparity measure" error on my part. Here is a paper
>>that justifies that water is wet.
>> "Why wet feels wet? A neurophysiological model of human cutaneous
>>wetness sensitivity"
>> http://jn.physiology.org/content/112/6/1457
>
>So that paper is about why water *feels* wet. Has the question of why
>water *is* wet been satisfactorally answered?
>
>(Based on my now very out-of-date education, the behavior of water is very
>"unexpected"; the properties of many other substances are far easier to
>predict from first principles.)

In one of the earliest proponents of the fine-tuning notion, Henderson
wrote "The Fitness of the Environment" in 1913 which heavily
emphasized how the properties of water made it especially suited for
life. Wetness is just one of its weirdnesses.

However pretty much all of those properties can be explained by the
polar nature of the water molecule which allows for hydrogen bonding
so that the molecules interact somewhat strongly with each other and
with other compounds. I say "explain" but it really is an ex post
facto explanation. Now that we know the properties we can see where
they come from. Starting with the properties of hydrogen and oxygen,
predicting the properties not just of the water molecule but of a
large volume of liquid water is another story. That gets into the
slippery slope of emergence.

In any event, "wetness" seems simply to be the ability of water to
adhere to a surface and spread across it. Many solvents "wet" a
surface. Incidentally, a peer-reviewed paper about that is "Adhesion:
Molecules and Mechanics"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/263/5154/1720

[John Harshman]

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for a reason why water feels wet, or even
why it is wet. I'm asking for peer-reviewed proof of the claim *that* it
is wet.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:14:50 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/3/15, 11:25 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
> >>> John Harshman wrote
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>> Increased rates of evolution are
> >>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
> >>>
> >>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
> >>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
> >
> > Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
> > burden of proof onto my shoulders:
>
> > "I'm surprised you can't see this. Under what model would evolution
> > in different species not create increasing disparity? Divergence
> > is pretty much unavoidable."
>
> I'm still surprised. That isn't ducking the challenge. Let me see a
> peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
> challenge you.

Two can play this game, only I can play it honestly. Let's see you find
a peer-reviewed paper that QUANTIFIES wetness.

And whether you do or not, you might take note of the fact that you've
ducked the "quantifications" challenge a second time. This despite your
unsupported speculation that Lee et. al chose arthropods because there
is plenty of QUANTIFIABLE disparity there.

Of course, RSNorman was oblivious to all these shenanigans of yours
in his palsy-walsy reaction to your "water is wet" flamebait.

> >> John's claim may be difficult to parse "correctly".
> >
> > John seems to have been bluffing. Thanks for digging up the
> > article below.
>
> Any sentence in which you judge the motives of another should be viewed
> with great suspicion, including by you.

OK, have it your way. You were bullshitting. :-)

> You're just bad at it.

You've been running this scam for over three years now, with unsupported
claims that I have misjudged your motives, yet essentially NEVER saying
what your motives HAD been. Here, you don't even directly deny
that you were bluffing, and anyone who has seen you twice duck the
quantification challenge can start having their own suspicions about
you.

Especially since you have your own measure of quantification, for which
you ALSO failed to find peer-review support.

> >> "Measuring rates of evolution captures an important aspect of
> > shape or trait evolution, but high rates of evolution may not
> > translate simply into high diversity, or vice versa. For example,
> > if taxa are constrained developmentally or ecologically to a
> > particular range of shapes, they may show high rates of evolution
> > and high amounts of convergence in form, but low overall
> > morphological disparity [17],[62],[63]. In this scenario,
> > analyses could accurately recover high rates of evolution
> > but this would not show that the taxa of interest are repeatedly
> > exploring the same range of morphospace rather than expanding
> > into new morphologies. Alternatively, a clade could achieve high
> > disparity through slow evolution if each shift moved into new
> > regions of morphospace. Combining analyses of rates and
> > morphological disparity thus allows for a more complete
> > analysis of tempo and mode in the evolution of diversity.
> > Under a model of diffusive evolution, we would predict that
> > fissipeds would have greater disparity than fissipeds
>
> True. There may indeed be a limited number of possible states, and
> increases in disparity may level off after a time. For example, there
> are only four possible states of a DNA site: A, C, G, or T. Assuming
> equal frequencies, no two sequences can be expected to become less than
> 25% identical. But that sort of problem only arises after some initial
> period of increasing disparity. Is it relevant to the Cambrian
> explosion? I think not.

Is this paragraph of yours relevant to anything in the article? or
to your having twice ducked the "quantification" challenge? I think not.

> > In defense of Harshman, he did include branch length in his overall
> > "measure of disparity," but he still has an uphill climb against
> > such statements as:
> >
> > "Alternatively, a clade could achieve high disparity through
> > slow evolution if each shift moved into new regions of morphospace."
>
> It's unclear to me that this statement contradicts my claim in any way.
> Perhaps you could explain.
>
> > Harshman is ill equipped by his background as a cladophile to
> > quantify "morphospace," which smacks of "body plans" which
> > in turn smacks of "phyla, classes, etc." which he dogmatically
> > dismisses in absolute terms as "arbitrary". No quantification
> > of "arbitrary" for him, no siree!
>
> You have no idea what you're saying here. Quantification of morphospace
> is orthogonal to assignment of taxonomic ranks. Well, mostly. I suppose
> you could attempt to assign taxonomic ranks based on some quantification
> of disparity,

Of course, as anyone who can appreciate the old traditional taxonomists
like Romer can readily see.

> but that would certainly conflict with also trying to
> represent phylogeny.

There is no conflict here, except in the eyes of those who cannot tolerate
paraphyletic taxa in an official classification--in a word, cladophiles.
The two representations can go on, side by side, with no conflict
whatsoever. Romer did that all the time.

And even you use paraphyletic taxa, every time you use "stem groups".
Well, almost every time. Christine Janis insisted stem groups had
to be paraphyletic, but I think you will disagree if you think about
it long enough.

> Cue Ernst Mayr rant. Did I mention that you have no
> idea what you're saying here?

I have a lot of respect for Ernst Mayr. Do you have as much contempt
for him as you have for Alan Feduccia?

Peter Nyikos

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:18:05 -0800, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/15, 2:50 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:10:59 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me see a
>>> peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
>>> challenge you.
>>
>> Sorry about the "disparity measure" error on my part. Here is a paper
>> that justifies that water is wet.
>> "Why wet feels wet? A neurophysiological model of human cutaneous
>> wetness sensitivity"
>> http://jn.physiology.org/content/112/6/1457
>>
>Thanks, but I wasn't asking for a reason why water feels wet, or even
>why it is wet. I'm asking for peer-reviewed proof of the claim *that* it
>is wet.

That is like asking for proof that a rose is red even when given proof
that it looks red. What is "wetness" other than what we sense as wet?

Yes, I do know what you really intended by bringing up the subject but
would you really prefer to return to Glenn and Peter?

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 3:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
>>> John Harshman wrote
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>>>
>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>
> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
> burden of proof onto my shoulders:

He does that often, surprised?

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:o_KdnWMefP-g0mvJ...@giganews.com...

You might find what you are looking for in one of the Wiki refs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_Wetness_Index

[Peter Nyikos]

Not at all. I've had four years of experience with him ducking challenges,
and AlwaysAskingQuestions has called him to task for this. As have others.
For instance:

Challenged, you change the subject. That's not sensible.
I'd like to know who you are, what you have done with
John Harshman, and why you are posting in his name.
--Charles Brenner in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a904d4db0a781e52?dmode=source
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/yM3vszXTTTc/Uh54CtvUBKkJ
Message-ID: <4142bd91-bb59-47ef...@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

But with palsy-walsy buddies like RNorman and Erik Simpson to hobnob with,
and self-appointed "attack his attackers" allies like Sneaky O. Possum
picking up on Harshman flamebait and running with it against me,
and Giant-Sequoia-sized chip-on-shoulder jerks like "Roger Shrubber" to
sling mud at me in thread after thread where Harshman is posting flamebait,
Harshman can be counted on to avoid ever cleaning up his act.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Goodbye, Peter.

[Peter Nyikos]

Is that for this thread, or does that also include the thread,
"The roots of the Cambrian explosion" of which this is a spinoff?
It may become interesting again if Shrubber can see his way
clear to answering my questions about the Cambrian explosion.
I don't care if he posts a huge
pile of mudslinging to go with that--I want to see what his
perspective on natural selection is in the context of
the Cambrian explosion.

Too bad sci.bio.paleontology has been so thoroughly trashed
by Thrinaxodon (and copycats?). You and I [and others I have
named] could otherwise use that as a sort of "embassy"
where we could lay aside our talk.origins differences, like the
best sorts of ambassadors can lay their aside even though the respective
counties are on unfriendly terms.

How would you like to interact on sci.bio.evolution? That newsgroup
could sure use some new blood. If we can't keep s.b.p. from going
under, maybe we could prevent a similar fate for s.b.e. Lately
that newsgroup has allowed some purely paleontological posts
by "Oxyaena".

I'll still post occasionally to sci.bio.paleontology, especially
if I see a break of a week or more in the [expletive deleted] spam,
if I don't hear from you on this.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It's my policy to completely ignore Glenn. I'd be happy to return to
Peter if he stayed on topic.

[John Harshman]

On 3/3/15, 5:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 7:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:
>> On 2015-03-03 3:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
>>>>> John Harshman wrote
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
>>>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
>>>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>>>
>>> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
>>> burden of proof onto my shoulders:
>>
>> He does that often, surprised?
>
> Not at all.

Does it ever annoy you that your cheering section consists almost
entirely of creationists?

[John Harshman]

On 3/3/15, 4:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:14:50 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/3/15, 11:25 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
>>>>> John Harshman wrote
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
>>>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
>>>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>>>
>>> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
>>> burden of proof onto my shoulders:
>>
>>> "I'm surprised you can't see this. Under what model would evolution
>>> in different species not create increasing disparity? Divergence
>>> is pretty much unavoidable."
>>
>> I'm still surprised. That isn't ducking the challenge. Let me see a
>> peer-reviewed article that justifies the claim that water is wet. I
>> challenge you.
>
> Two can play this game, only I can play it honestly. Let's see you find
> a peer-reviewed paper that QUANTIFIES wetness.

Oddly enough, Glenn has just posted something like that. But thanks for
once more accusing me of dishonesty.

> And whether you do or not, you might take note of the fact that you've
> ducked the "quantifications" challenge a second time. This despite your
> unsupported speculation that Lee et. al chose arthropods because there
> is plenty of QUANTIFIABLE disparity there.

This really should be a no-brainer. Lee et al. coded lots of characters,
each of which encapsulates a particular difference between species. The
more differences, the more different the species are. The number of
changes along a branch is a measure of accumulating difference (until,
as Glenn noted, given a limited number of possible states, we reach the
point of diminishing returns -- but that's unlikely to apply here.)

>> True. There may indeed be a limited number of possible states, and
>> increases in disparity may level off after a time. For example, there
>> are only four possible states of a DNA site: A, C, G, or T. Assuming
>> equal frequencies, no two sequences can be expected to become less than
>> 25% identical. But that sort of problem only arises after some initial
>> period of increasing disparity. Is it relevant to the Cambrian
>> explosion? I think not.
>
> Is this paragraph of yours relevant to anything in the article? or
> to your having twice ducked the "quantification" challenge? I think not.

I was presenting an example of the phenomenon mentioned in the article,
one much more familiar.

>>> In defense of Harshman, he did include branch length in his overall
>>> "measure of disparity," but he still has an uphill climb against
>>> such statements as:
>>>
>>> "Alternatively, a clade could achieve high disparity through
>>> slow evolution if each shift moved into new regions of morphospace."
>>
>> It's unclear to me that this statement contradicts my claim in any way.
>> Perhaps you could explain.
>>
>>> Harshman is ill equipped by his background as a cladophile to
>>> quantify "morphospace," which smacks of "body plans" which
>>> in turn smacks of "phyla, classes, etc." which he dogmatically
>>> dismisses in absolute terms as "arbitrary". No quantification
>>> of "arbitrary" for him, no siree!
>>
>> You have no idea what you're saying here. Quantification of morphospace
>> is orthogonal to assignment of taxonomic ranks. Well, mostly. I suppose
>> you could attempt to assign taxonomic ranks based on some quantification
>> of disparity,
>
> Of course, as anyone who can appreciate the old traditional taxonomists
> like Romer can readily see.

Oh? Just where and when did Romer quantify disparity?

>> but that would certainly conflict with also trying to
>> represent phylogeny.
>
> There is no conflict here, except in the eyes of those who cannot tolerate
> paraphyletic taxa in an official classification--in a word, cladophiles.
> The two representations can go on, side by side, with no conflict
> whatsoever. Romer did that all the time.

No, Romer tried to balance the two and ended up representing neither
unambiguously or well.

> And even you use paraphyletic taxa, every time you use "stem groups".
> Well, almost every time. Christine Janis insisted stem groups had
> to be paraphyletic, but I think you will disagree if you think about
> it long enough.

I will not disagree. Why would you think stem groups don't have to be
paraphyletic? At any rate, I don't use stem groups. I do use the prefix
stem-, which is a good way to say what a species is not.

>> Cue Ernst Mayr rant. Did I mention that you have no
>> idea what you're saying here?
>
> I have a lot of respect for Ernst Mayr. Do you have as much contempt
> for him as you have for Alan Feduccia?

Certainly not. But he had his odd obsessions, and his views on
classification were among them. I have no real interest in discussing
your own odd obsession with paraphyly.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:264d9ab4-da41-49e3...@googlegroups.com:

[snip]

> But with palsy-walsy buddies like RNorman and Erik Simpson to hobnob
> with, and self-appointed "attack his attackers" allies like Sneaky O.
> Possum picking up on Harshman flamebait and running with it against
> me, and Giant-Sequoia-sized chip-on-shoulder jerks like "Roger
> Shrubber" to sling mud at me in thread after thread where Harshman is
> posting flamebait, Harshman can be counted on to avoid ever cleaning
> up his act.

If you'll recall, Fruity, I started picking on you because you were
making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage. I couldn't care
less what you say about Harshman: he's neither my friend nor my ally.
Now, if he were in the habit of weaving elaborate conspiracy theories
about his critics' motives; if he spewed hateful cryptotheistic
propaganda against people he doesn't approve of; if he espoused vacuous
fantasies about space sperm - why, then, I'd pick on him, too.

And speaking of hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people you
don't approve of, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think
community service is an appropriate punishment for someone who commits an
act that you think is a crime comparable to infanticide.
--
S.O.P.

[Peter Nyikos]

Correction: one creationist, Nashton, his "cheers" completely
overwhelmed by the hisses and boos of another creationist,
Ray Martinez.

And both are out-gunned by someone who calls himself a creationist
but utterly loathes me, has massively libeled me, and has
condemned me to the ranks of twitching sphincters by his POV.

I've never seen Glenn commit himself/herself one way or the other.
And since you've killfiled him, you have no reason to think that
his opinions on evolution have NOT changed since you last saw
anything from him/her (if any) on that score.

And all four of the above are overshadowed by non-creationists with
whom I get along with quite nicely, far more nicely than I ever got
along with you here in talk.origins. This number exceeds the number
of people who have ragged on me unjustly, such as yourself.

Does any of this bother YOU?

Anyway, to answer your asinine question:

It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
creationist.

And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 3/4/15, 9:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/3/15, 5:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 7:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:
>>>> On 2015-03-03 3:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
>>>>>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
>>>>>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
>>>>> burden of proof onto my shoulders:
>>>>
>>>> He does that often, surprised?
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>> Does it ever annoy you that your cheering section consists almost
>> entirely of creationists?
>
> Correction: one creationist, Nashton, his "cheers" completely
> overwhelmed by the hisses and boos of another creationist,
> Ray Martinez.

Don't forget Glenn.

> And both are out-gunned by someone who calls himself a creationist
> but utterly loathes me, has massively libeled me, and has
> condemned me to the ranks of twitching sphincters by his POV.
>
> I've never seen Glenn commit himself/herself one way or the other.
> And since you've killfiled him, you have no reason to think that
> his opinions on evolution have NOT changed since you last saw
> anything from him/her (if any) on that score.

Please. That's just an attempt to defend your cheering section. Anyway,
I haven't killfiled him. I just ignore him.

> And all four of the above are overshadowed by non-creationists with
> whom I get along with quite nicely, far more nicely than I ever got
> along with you here in talk.origins. This number exceeds the number
> of people who have ragged on me unjustly, such as yourself.
>
> Does any of this bother YOU?

No, since I don't think I've ragged on you unjustly. There are those who
carry it to an extreme, but you are at least partly to blame.

> Anyway, to answer your asinine question:
>
> It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
> in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
> creationist.
>
> And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
> daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
> which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.

Well, it should bother you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/4/15, 9:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/3/15, 5:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 7:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-03-03 3:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> "Peter Nyikos" wrote
> >>>>>>> John Harshman wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Increased rates of evolution are
> >>>>>>>> increased rates of generation of disparity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sez you. Let's see a peer reviewed article that justifies this
> >>>>>>> blanket statement in detail, with quantifications.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Harshman ducked the challenge, and tried to shift the
> >>>>> burden of proof onto my shoulders:
> >>>>
> >>>> He does that often, surprised?
> >>>
> >>> Not at all.
> >>
> >> Does it ever annoy you that your cheering section consists almost
> >> entirely of creationists?
> >
> > Correction: one creationist, Nashton, his "cheers" completely
> > overwhelmed by the hisses and boos of another creationist,
> > Ray Martinez.
>
> Don't forget Glenn.

You are implying Glenn is a creationist, based on WHAT exactly?

> > And both are out-gunned by someone who calls himself a creationist
> > but utterly loathes me, has massively libeled me, and has
> > condemned me to the ranks of twitching sphincters by his POV.

His definition is "someone who believes in
the existence of a creator." Does that conform to
your usage of "creationist"?

If not, did you ever let anyone like that know that his definition is
inappropriate to this newsgroup? That it is likely to mislead
people unless he spells out his definition each and every time
he calls himself or others that?

> > I've never seen Glenn commit himself/herself one way or the other.
> > And since you've killfiled him, you have no reason to think that
> > his opinions on evolution have NOT changed since you last saw
> > anything from him/her (if any) on that score.
>
> Please. That's just an attempt to defend your cheering section.

Get real. It is an attempt to show that you may be saying
what you did on a false assumption.

You are adding an extra dimension to your
ALLEGED suspicions, in the teeth of everything I wrote, that
I am a Meyer partisan.

Seems like BOTH my correcting falsehoods uttered by your kind about
creationists, AND creationists defending me against falsehoods
uttered by your kind, are grounds for suspicion that I am
a partisan of creationists.

Does it also lead to ALLEGED suspicions that I am a creationist
myself?

If yes, on what grounds do you consider your allegations to be
rational? Or do you cheerfully embrace irrationalism when
it comes to polemic against people who aren't on good terms
with you?

> Anyway, I haven't killfiled him. I just ignore him.

Check. By the way, do you consider Ray Martinez to be part
of my cheering section even though he's denounced me more
strongly than I've ever seen him denounce ANYONE ELSE
in this newsgroup?

> > And all four of the above are overshadowed by non-creationists with
> > whom I get along with quite nicely, far more nicely than I ever got
> > along with you here in talk.origins. This number exceeds the number
> > of people who have ragged on me unjustly, such as yourself.
> >
> > Does any of this bother YOU?
>
> No, since I don't think I've ragged on you unjustly.

Your refusal to look at massive evidence that I have been
unjustly maligned by others leaves you with no grounds
on which to hold this opinion.

As for you, I have presented you with evidence time and again
that YOU have attacked me unjustly. Would you like for me to refresh
your memory about the four typical methods you use to ignore
the evidence?

>There are those who
> carry it to an extreme, but you are at least partly to blame.

Yeah, like the kid who is beaten bloody for daring to finally
hit back against a bully who has tormented him numerous
times is partly to blame for being beaten bloody.

Your head-in-the-sand attitude leaves you with no basis on
which to challenge this analogy. But if you were ever
willing to look at even one-tenth of the evidence, you would
know how apt it is.

> > Anyway, to answer your asinine question:
> >
> > It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
> > in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
> > creationist.
> >
> > And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
> > daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
> > which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.
>
> Well, it should bother you.

Why? Do you consider creationists like Nashton to be vermin?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

His tendency to snipe at random pro-evolution posts. I'll agree that
he's quite cryptic, and often it's impossible to tell what he means to
show with his citations, but I assume we can at least tell they are
supposed to be arguments against the previous, pro-evolution post.

I really would prefer to discuss the Cambrian explosion.

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:49:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>Anyway, to answer your asinine question:
>
>It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
>in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
>creationist.
>
>And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
>daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
>which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.

I challenge that: 1. Nashton got seriously attacked, 2. for supporting
you, and 3. he actually supported you.

Instead: 1. he was mocked, 2. for the for the vacuity of his posts,
and 3. he attacked others for criticizing you.


--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Peter Nyikos]

Do you look upon all the posts you have done are "pro-evolution"
with my role as "sniping at them"?

Anyway, you've illustrated one of the four ways in which you
cope with evidence of mine that you are ragging on me unjustly.
You delete almost everything and claim to prefer to discuss
________________ [a purely scientific topic] or just purely
scientific topics in general.

By the way, Glenn did NOT post a site on quantification of
wetness, only of percentage of water present, coupled with the
influences on that percentage.

That was ANOTHER distraction from the Cambrian explosion, in
which a number of people joined, and you welcomed their input.
Will you have the same attitude when your next distraction
results in another dilution of the thread?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

No.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:49:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Anyway, to answer your asinine question:
> >
> >It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
> >in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
> >creationist.
> >
> >And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
> >daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
> >which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.

Harshman has not said anything about whether he is happy to know
this, but his action of deleting the above along with much else
was an action which spoke louder than any words could.

>
> I challenge that: 1. Nashton got seriously attacked, 2. for supporting
> you, and 3. he actually supported you.

> Instead: 1. he was mocked, 2. for the for the vacuity of his posts,
> and 3. he attacked others for criticizing you.

and 2. for reasons unspecified, as you did with your claim that
you would give his post all the attention it deserves.

But hanks for the correction: it illustrates the way people
ignore the actual content of the attack and do the *ad hominem* bit;
no attempt to show that the criticism Nashton was attacking
was NOT way out of line.

But I didn't let it rest there. I gave Nashton some good reasons
why he was right on target:

___________________________repost_______________________
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:28:13 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:

> Wow, never seen so many people display such pettiness towards another
> human being, judging him based on a quote from a discussion on a blog,
> for which the context is all but known.

Most of these people have judged me a long time ago based on how
I am a maverick, and most of them are taking advantage of this opportunity
to get back at me for the many exposes I have done of their dishonesty,
hypocrisy, and cowardice.

NONE of these are features of the Amazon.com post on which their feeding
frenzy is centered. So they are forced to fall back on pop psychological
speculation about why I am supposedly ignorant about the effect my words
have on others.

By the way, although deadrat is the most conspicuous about the "fall-back"
theme here, he is not thirsting for revenge in the way some people
here are, because I have not yet done any exposes about reprehensible
traits he may or may not have. That may account for his independence
from such people as Coffey.

> I think the whole lot of you ought to get a life, no really.

Fortunately, they are a highly unrepresentative sample of the general
membership of talk.origins.

Incidentally, I think you meant to say, "for which the context is all but
UNknown" and that is certainly true. By now the context goes back almost
a year and a half, and includes a fascinating evolution of various
characteristics of Christine Janis.

Christine deteriorated badly during that period, even in purely
scientific issues, and I had her on the ropes in several issues very
relevant to Meyer's _Darwin's Doubt_ and Prothero's hatchet job on it.
My post, which was actually meant to help Satak to look upon her as
a person rather than a one-dimensional character, came as manna from
heaven to her, enabling her to "see only those posts of mine that
she wants to see" from that point on.

Peter Nyikos
====================== end of post archived at
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4d2ae9d5-753a-401d...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/pxU8DjYMuDQ/LNglolbfq6E\
J

Christine has deteriorated even further since then. One of many
aspects of that: at times she sounds like you with her use of smart-alecky
baseless juvenile comebacks in lieu of genuine criticism or refutation.
I may even dig up a Pee Wee Hermanism or two by her if you are interested.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Amusing bit of trivia: your message of "No" shows up in Google with
the caption, "Translate message to English".

Would you like to produce a translation yourself? :-)

But seriously, what distinguishes your description of what Glenn
"tends to do" from what I do? You don't claim his OP falls under the
rubric of "sniping at pro-evolution posts," do you?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 3/4/15, 1:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/4/15, 12:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 2:54:47 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/15, 11:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>> You are implying Glenn is a creationist, based on WHAT exactly?
>>>>
>>>> His tendency to snipe at random pro-evolution posts. I'll agree that
>>>> he's quite cryptic, and often it's impossible to tell what he means to
>>>> show with his citations, but I assume we can at least tell they are
>>>> supposed to be arguments against the previous, pro-evolution post.
>>>
>>>> I really would prefer to discuss the Cambrian explosion.
>>>
>>> Do you look upon all the posts you have done are "pro-evolution"
>>> with my role as "sniping at them"?
>>
>> No.

> But seriously, what distinguishes your description of what Glenn
> "tends to do" from what I do? You don't claim his OP falls under the
> rubric of "sniping at pro-evolution posts," do you?

If you recognize that description, I can't stop you. But that isn't what
you generally do. It is, however, what Glenn generally does. Now in this
particular case he was sniping at something I said but not with an
explicitly anti-evolution message. Or so I suppose.

The single-word answer was intended to get you to stop. Didn't work.
Next thing to try: a zero-word answer.

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:49:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Anyway, to answer your asinine question:
>> >
>> >It does not bother me that Nashton, who has said something
>> >in support of me this past year, TWICE <gasp> to boot, is a confirmed
>> >creationist.
>> >
>> >And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
>> >daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
>> >which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.
>
>Harshman has not said anything about whether he is happy to know
>this, but his action of deleting the above along with much else
>was an action which spoke louder than any words could.
>
>>
>> I challenge that: 1. Nashton got seriously attacked, 2. for supporting
>> you, and 3. he actually supported you.
>
>> Instead: 1. he was mocked, 2. for the for the vacuity of his posts,
>> and 3. he attacked others for criticizing you.
>
>and 2. for reasons unspecified, as you did with your claim that
>you would give his post all the attention it deserves.

Your 2. is covered in my 2. It got more attention than it deserved,
because of the vacuity of his posts.

>But hanks for the correction: it illustrates the way people
>ignore the actual content of the attack and do the *ad hominem* bit;

One can't ignore what doesn't exist. There was no ad hominem attack
on Nashton. OTOH Nashton provided plenty of that all by himself.
That's pretty much his entire schtick. But your elcome anyway.

>no attempt to show that the criticism Nashton was attacking
>was NOT way out of line.

That wasn't a point you made before. If you had, I would mentioned
it.

[...]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 5:59:48 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> >> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:49:46 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >> >And you will be happy to know that Nashton got seriously attacked for
> >> >daring to speak up against my attackers on that earlier occasion,
> >> >which was back in 2014, though not yet a year ago.
> >
> >Harshman has not said anything about whether he is happy to know
> >this, but his action of deleting the above along with much else
> >was an action which spoke louder than any words could.
> >
> >>
> >> I challenge that: 1. Nashton got seriously attacked, 2. for supporting
> >> you, and 3. he actually supported you.
> >
> >> Instead: 1. he was mocked, 2. for the for the vacuity of his posts,
> >> and 3. he attacked others for criticizing you.
> >
> >and 2. for reasons unspecified, as you did with your claim that
> >you would give his post all the attention it deserves.

> Your 2. is covered in my 2. It got more attention than it deserved,
> because of the vacuity of his posts.

Only if you believe in the non-vacuity of extrasensory perception,
specifically "mind-reading over the great distance between oneself
and the person whose posts appear under the `jillery' byline."
Otherwise, how could one tell whether you decided it got more
attention than it deserved because it was a defense of me, or
because of the vacuity of posts that were nowhere in evidence?

You don't think all the people who participated in that thread
are gifted with clairvoyance? enabling them to see this *ex post
facto* description of what lay behind your comment?

>
> >But [thanks] for the correction: it illustrates the way people

> >ignore the actual content of the attack and do the *ad hominem* bit;

> One can't ignore what doesn't exist. There was no ad hominem attack
> on Nashton. OTOH Nashton provided plenty of that all by himself.

Look up "ad hominem fallacy" in a book on logic and get back to me, OK?

But cheer up: you aren't the only one acting as though people were
clairvoyant. Just today I noticed "Puck Mendelssohn" on an Amazon comments
section expecting me to be clairvoyant, and called him out on it:

_________________repost____________________________
"Peter, I think it is hilarious that you can post nonsense like this"

What do you know about whether ANY of it is nonsense? You, who have
misrepresented me hundreds of times? When did you ever make a close
study of what transpires between me and others in talk.origins?

Did you even survey the thread which your loyal henchwoman, Christine Janis,
began in talk.origins? For instance, did you see the following post?

Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4d2ae9d5-753a-401d...@googlegroups.com>

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/pxU8DjYMuDQ/LNglolbfq6EJ

"and still insist that you don't enthusiastically embrace every creationist troll who happens along. Evidently you've forgotten that other people can read what you write."

Evidently you've forgotten that I am not privy to everything you know about people like "Eclectic Critic". I don't recall seeing anything from him before this, and it says volumes about how divorced from reality you are that I'm supposed to know that he is a creationist just from the two posts he has done here.

All I can see from them is that he has a low opinion of this particular "Anonymous" [and so do I -- do you?] and that he dislikes the atheists who dominate what I call the "blogosphere". This is my shorthand for the totality of internet forums in the usual sense of the word "forum," and not in the miserably narrow sense in which some idiot co-opted the word to mean a very specialized kind of forum.

At least Eclectic Critic posts in the open [yeah, he posts under a pseudonym, but so do you] and is not one of the numerous lovers of censorship who never do any posts, but who vote posts up or down based on how much they like or dislike the person. You and your fellow fanatic David A. Rintoul have each summoned some of these cowards to sink posts out of sight that you can't bear to look at, any more than "God" could bear to look at his reflection in the play "Steambath."

One thing more: you fit perfectly into Eclectic's description: "Smug, supercilious opinions with little regard for objective truth based on logic seems to be the norm for this type. And arguing rationally with them is pointless." The only trouble is, it hardly alludes to the many aspects of what an insincere, hypocritical person you are.

But your smugness is undeniable, because you know you can have my post voted out of plain sight any time you choose. Do the people at Amazon.com who read the "Report abuse" reports know that you and Rintoul wield this kind of power?
===================end of repost from page 25 of:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R59UJIX9304AJ

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:04:21 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

Apparently you confused yourself again. It doesn' t matter why
Nasty's post got more attention than it deserved.

[...]

>Look up "ad hominem fallacy" in a book on logic and get back to me, OK?

There's no way any published book would have used your personal
definition.

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm always on the horns of a dilemma when confronted with posts like the
one to which I am replying. In this case it is:

1. If I do not reply, Harshman will seem like a paragon of patience
to people like Vince Maycock, in comparison to the jerk who posted
it; and they (most certainly including Maycock) might cling to the
illusion that the jerk to whom I am replying is NOT a part-time troll.

2. If I do reply, it will further give ammunition to people, either
studiously ignored or aided, abetted and comforted by Harshman, who
lie through their teeth that

a. I attack anyone who disagrees with me and

b. I am not really interested in on-topic discussion with Harshman,
because I keep delaying replies to him in favor of counterattacking
people who can safely be ignored.

I judge the danger of a. to be minimal, and so I here opt
for 2. as the lesser evil.

[All of the above, unfortunately, is grist for the mill of Harshman's
canard that I am "paranoid". But he has shown that he has a radically
different definition for that word than the dictionary definition,
so let the chips fall where they may.]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 12:29:47 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:264d9ab4-da41-49e3...@googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
> > But with palsy-walsy buddies like RNorman and Erik Simpson to hobnob
> > with, and self-appointed "attack his attackers" allies like Sneaky O.
> > Possum picking up on Harshman flamebait and running with it against
> > me, and Giant-Sequoia-sized chip-on-shoulder jerks like "Roger
> > Shrubber" to sling mud at me in thread after thread where Harshman is
> > posting flamebait, Harshman can be counted on to avoid ever cleaning
> > up his act.
>
> If you'll recall, Fruity, I started picking on you because you were
> making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage.

I commented on this vile, baseless attack on me on another thread:

_______________________ excerpt ____________________________
One reason ERA failed to pass was
that the feminists pushing it adamantly refused to allow a modification
that would say the amendment does not give a fundamental right to abortion
[including that radical stance I mention above]. In fact, it might have
been the only real reason -- people who suggested that it might
make same-sex marriage a right were simply laughed at back then.

[My, how far we have come! Now I have someone denouncing me
on the talk.origins thread "Exploding Roots" for
"making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage" without
any hint as to what those alleged slurs might have been. Most of my
"slurs" boil down to the statement that there is no fundamental
human right to a label such as "marriage" if all the legal rights
of marriage are conferred upon people in other "civil union"
contracts.]
================ end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/11spodOntzk/rRUQSK8m2QgJ

> I couldn't care
> less what you say about Harshman: he's neither my friend nor my ally.

Thus speaketh the dummy-analogue "Sneaky" when its ventriloquist-analogue
"Toady," thrice in the same page, typed a taunt about me
not having read a book that Harshman was aggressively
pushing, to the point of Harshman lying that I won't read it.

And this was after I told Erik Simpson exactly why I had delayed
sending for that book on interlibrary loan, but sparing him the gory details.

And let's not forget about an earlier Harshman-supporting incident,
documented here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/PxLN0CNphw0/rOWphJCE9csJ

> Now, if he were in the habit of weaving elaborate conspiracy theories
> about his critics' motives; if he spewed hateful cryptotheistic
> propaganda against people he doesn't approve of; if he espoused vacuous
> fantasies about space sperm - why, then, I'd pick on him, too.

Trolling, sugar-coated by an "if" clause.

> And speaking of hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people you
> don't approve of,

There is nothing cryptotheistic about it. My moderate stance against
abortion, identical with that of Portugal except in secondary details,
is based on an agnostic world view, the fruit of years of study of
the philosophy of mind, in defiance of the pro-life stance of REAL
cryptotheists.

Hint: if I were basing my stance on theism, I would probably be
pro-choice by default, reasoning that God will right any wrongs
done to the fetus by killing it, in a hereafter that the Catholic
Church takes as an article of faith. But I would still be
morally opposed to killing it, for reasons I could explain. Whether
these explanations get through to the anonymous, human,
ventriloquist-analogue is something over which I have no control.

> I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think
> community service is an appropriate punishment for someone who commits an
> act that you think is a crime comparable to infanticide.

It's the abortionist who actually commits it, and the woman may have
been driven to it by a cad who threatened to leave her if she didn't
get an abortion, or a "loving" father who ordered her: "get an abortion,
or get out."

I can relate a moving story about a latter sort of incident, but
I think the ventriloquist-analogue has been manipulating "Sneaky"
so long that he is no longer able to be reached by such stories.

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:681d0311-c052-4e26...@googlegroups.com:

[snip a lot of things of interest only to Fruity]

[snip]

>> If you'll recall, Fruity, I started picking on you because you were
>> making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage.
>
> I commented on this vile, baseless attack on me on another thread:
>
> _______________________ excerpt ____________________________
> One reason ERA failed to pass was
> that the feminists pushing it adamantly refused to allow a
> modification that would say the amendment does not give a fundamental
> right to abortion [including that radical stance I mention above]. In
> fact, it might have been the only real reason -- people who suggested
> that it might make same-sex marriage a right were simply laughed at
> back then.

Please cite some independently verifiable evidence that people suggested
that the ERA might make same-sex marriage a right and other people
laughed at them.

> [My, how far we have come! Now I have someone denouncing me
> on the talk.origins thread "Exploding Roots" for
> "making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage" without
> any hint as to what those alleged slurs might have been. Most of my
> "slurs" boil down to the statement that there is no fundamental
> human right to a label such as "marriage" if all the legal rights
> of marriage are conferred upon people in other "civil union"
> contracts.]

Who do you think you're fooling, Fruity? Do you honestly imagine that
the people who criticized your vile, baseless slurs don't remember them?

> ================ end of excerpt from
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/11spodOntzk/rRU
> QSK8m2QgJ
>
>> I couldn't care less what you say about Harshman: he's neither my
>> friend nor my ally.
>
> Thus speaketh the dummy-analogue "Sneaky" when its
> ventriloquist-analogue "Toady," thrice in the same page, typed a
> taunt about me not having read a book that Harshman was aggressively
> pushing, to the point of Harshman lying that I won't read it.

I think you know quite well that Erwin and Valentine is generally
acknowledged as the most comprehensive and scholarly work about the
Cambrian Explosion presently available in English. On the other hand, I
can't discount the possibility that you honestly believe Harshman
is 'pushing' it on you for nefarious reasons that have nothing to do
with its quality.

Regardless of what you believe, you act as though people are trying to
trick you into reading Erwin and Valentine. It's as though you imagine
it's really a book-shaped box and snakes are going to pop out when you
open out, discomfiting you and amusing your enemies. As long as you
maintain that attitude, I'm going to make fun of it.

> And this was after I told Erik Simpson exactly why I had delayed
> sending for that book on interlibrary loan, but sparing him the gory
> details.

It couldn't have been very exact if it lacked detail.

> And let's not forget about an earlier Harshman-supporting incident,
> documented here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/PxLN0CNphw0/rOW
> phJCE9csJ

You really have no idea how hilarious it is when you talk about things
like 'ventriloquist-analogues' and 'Harshman-supporting incidents', do
you?

>> Now, if he were in the habit of weaving elaborate conspiracy theories
>> about his critics' motives; if he spewed hateful cryptotheistic
>> propaganda against people he doesn't approve of; if he espoused
>> vacuous fantasies about space sperm - why, then, I'd pick on him,
>> too.
>
> Trolling, sugar-coated by an "if" clause.

It would only be trolling if you didn't weave elaborate conspiracy
theories about your critics' motives (which you've just reconfirmed with
your blather about 'ventriloquist analogues' and 'Harshman-supporting
incidents'), or spew hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people
you don't approve it (e.g., gay men and women), or espouse vacuous
fantasies about space sperm. You do all of these things: Harshman does
none of them.

As a curious irony, that makes you a more interesting poster than
Harshman, whose opinions are often depressingly conventional.

>> And speaking of hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people you
>> don't approve of,
>
> There is nothing cryptotheistic about it.

You feel justified in refusing to accept my denial of atheism; I feel
equally justified in refusing to accept your denial of cryptotheism.

> My moderate stance against abortion,

You misspelled 'incoherent'.

> identical with that of Portugal except in secondary details,
> is based on an agnostic world view, the fruit of years of study of
> the philosophy of mind, in defiance of the pro-life stance of REAL
> cryptotheists.

Pro-lifers are not crypto- about their theism.

> Hint: if I were basing my stance on theism, I would probably be
> pro-choice by default, reasoning that God will right any wrongs
> done to the fetus by killing it, in a hereafter that the Catholic
> Church takes as an article of faith.

By that 'reasoning', theists should support the right to choose to kill
regardless of who or what gets killed: God will right all wrongs done to
the deceased. Curiously, few if any theists argue that adults have the
right to choose to kill other adults.

> But I would still be morally opposed to killing it, for reasons I
> could explain.

It's rather comical that you're willing to treat women like a separate
species for purposes of punishment but unwilling to acknowledge the
unambiguous physical difference between men and women that lies at the
heart of the question. Your moral opposition to a choice you cannot make
is irrelevant.

> Whether these explanations get through to the anonymous, human,
> ventriloquist-analogue is something over which I have no control.

Would you mind paying more attention to your tenses? Consistency
requires 'Whether these explanations *would* get through', etc.

>> I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think
>> community service is an appropriate punishment for someone who
>> commits an act that you think is a crime comparable to infanticide.
>
> It's the abortionist who actually commits it, and the woman may have
> been driven to it by a cad who threatened to leave her if she didn't
> get an abortion, or a "loving" father who ordered her: "get an
> abortion, or get out."

How wonderfully sexist of you. If a woman commissions someone to murder
a third party, her legal culpability is not less than the hireling's,
and she's subject to exactly the same penalties as the hireling. I doubt
very much that she would receive much sympathy if she claimed that she
was 'driven to it by a cad who threatened to leave her'.

Arguing that all women who commission late-term abortions should receive
a slap on the wrist because some of them may have been 'driven to it'
implies that women are generally less capable of taking responsibility
for their actions than men are. You're effectively saying 'We can't
blame the poor dears, they just don't know any better!'

> I can relate a moving story about a latter sort of incident, but
> I think the ventriloquist-analogue has been manipulating "Sneaky"
> so long that he is no longer able to be reached by such stories.

If 'the ventriloquist-analogue' is a reference to my experiences
interacting with actual women, then you may be right: I've learned from
those experiences that women and men are precisely equal with regard to
their ability to act under their own volition. A man can knowingly
commit a crime under exonerating circumstances: so can a woman. That's a
matter for a jury to decide.

If commissioning a late-term abortion is a crime nearly as bad as
infanticide, then both parties to that crime should be punished only
slightly less severely than a person who commits infanticide. But you
don't really believe that commissioning a late-term abortion is a crime,
do you? You just believe that your superior moral sense gives you the
right to prevent women from obtaining one.
--
S.O.P.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:681d0311-c052-4e26...@googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip a lot of things of interest only to Fruity]

Oh, I think the ventriloquist-analogue who typed the above words
is VERY interested in how much of a nuisance he has succeeded in
making out of himself, with Harshman as his collateral beneficiary.
[Keywords: horns of a dilemma]
Of course, what he has his dummy-analogue "Sneaky" say is another matter.

> [snip]
> >> If you'll recall, Fruity, I started picking on you because you were
> >> making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage.
> >
> > I commented on this vile, baseless attack on me on another thread:
> >
> > _______________________ excerpt ____________________________
> > One reason ERA failed to pass was
> > that the feminists pushing it adamantly refused to allow a
> > modification that would say the amendment does not give a fundamental
> > right to abortion [including that radical stance I mention above]. In
> > fact, it might have been the only real reason -- people who suggested
> > that it might make same-sex marriage a right were simply laughed at
> > back then.
>

<snip>

> > [My, how far we have come! Now I have someone denouncing me
> > on the talk.origins thread "Exploding Roots" for
> > "making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage" without
> > any hint as to what those alleged slurs might have been. Most of my
> > "slurs" boil down to the statement that there is no fundamental
> > human right to a label such as "marriage" if all the legal rights
> > of marriage are conferred upon people in other "civil union"
> > contracts.]
>
> Who do you think you're fooling, Fruity? Do you honestly imagine that
> the people who criticized your vile, baseless slurs don't remember them?

Were you inspired by "Puck Mendelssohn's" utterly ridiculous, hypocritical,
and totally insincere bluff?

"Evidently you've forgotten that other people can read what you write."

--documented in my last reply to jillery on this thread

I'm not even calling your bluff. Where you take it from here on in
is totally up to the ventriloquist-analogue.

> > ================ end of excerpt from
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/11spodOntzk/rRU
> > QSK8m2QgJ
> >
> >> I couldn't care less what you say about Harshman: he's neither my
> >> friend nor my ally.
> >
> > Thus speaketh the dummy-analogue "Sneaky" when its
> > ventriloquist-analogue "Toady," thrice in the same page, typed a
> > taunt about me not having read a book that Harshman was aggressively
> > pushing, to the point of Harshman lying that I won't read it.
>
> I think you know quite well that Erwin and Valentine is generally
> acknowledged as the most comprehensive and scholarly work about the
> Cambrian Explosion presently available in English.

FWIW. Like saying Romer's _Vertebrate Paleontology_ was the most
comprehensive and scholarly work available in the subject back in 1949.

But I doubt that "Toady" knows anything about the analogy I am making.

> On the other hand, I
> can't discount the possibility that you honestly believe Harshman
> is 'pushing' it on you for nefarious reasons that have nothing to do
> with its quality.

I think he is wildly enthusiastic about it for reasons that are only
secondarily due to its quality.

> Regardless of what you believe, you act as though people are trying to
> trick you into reading Erwin and Valentine.

The foregoing BS was not worth the effort required for "Toady" to
type it.

<snip evidence that Toady is not afraid of snakes> :-)

> As long as you
> maintain that attitude, I'm going to make fun of it.

As long as "Toady" posts such GIGO, I'll generally snip either
the GI or the GO, or both, with exceptions where I think it is instructive
to leave the whole GIGO in.

> > And this was after I told Erik Simpson exactly why I had delayed
> > sending for that book on interlibrary loan, but sparing him the gory
> > details.
>
> It couldn't have been very exact if it lacked detail.

It was exact as far as it went. ["Toady" evidently has decided
not to let "Sneaky" believe any of it.]

> > And let's not forget about an earlier Harshman-supporting incident,
> > documented here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/PxLN0CNphw0/rOW
> > phJCE9csJ
>
> You really have no idea how hilarious it is when you talk about things
> like 'ventriloquist-analogues' and 'Harshman-supporting incidents', do
> you?

The former serves the purpose of alerting the readership that you are deep
in the "troll" part of your part-time troll persona. The actual human
person involved can always distance himself psychologically from
full commitment to the words being typed, telling himself that it
isn't really himself, but only the persona, that is talking.

Sort of like playing "Dungeons and Dragons."

As for the latter, I have seen no attempt to argue against it.

"Do you laugh, Polus? Well, this is a new kind of refutation --
when any one says anything, instead of refuting him to laugh at him."
-- Socrates in Plato's "Gorgias":
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt

> >> Now, if he were in the habit of weaving elaborate conspiracy theories
> >> about his critics' motives; if he spewed hateful cryptotheistic
> >> propaganda against people he doesn't approve of; if he espoused
> >> vacuous fantasies about space sperm - why, then, I'd pick on him,
> >> too.
> >
> > Trolling, sugar-coated by an "if" clause.
>
> It would only be trolling if you didn't weave elaborate conspiracy
> theories about your critics' motives

Which I don't. I've explained the dynamics of most of the relationships
to which you refer with an allusion to "Cool Hand Luke."
Keywords: "targets of opportunity"

Every person who talks like you just did is either trolling or
uncritically repeating scuttlebutt.

<snip GIGO>

> or spew hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people
> you don't approve it (e.g., gay men and women),

More trolling by "Sneaky" here.

> or espouse vacuous
> fantasies about space sperm.

People who make cracks like that are either trolling or deserve to
be made fun of by depicting them as thinking,

Mother Earth did it [abiogenesis], this I know
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.

> You do all of these things: Harshman does
> none of them.

Harshman is dishonest and hypocritical. I am neither.

>
> As a curious irony, that makes you a more interesting poster than
> Harshman, whose opinions are often depressingly conventional.

Yeah, including his suspicions that I am enthusiastic about Meyer's
far out ideas. Not to mention the contempt he has for Feduccia's
refusal to jump on the "birds are theropods" bandwagon.

> >> And speaking of hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people you
> >> don't approve of,
> >
> > There is nothing cryptotheistic about it.
>
> You feel justified in refusing to accept my denial of atheism; I feel
> equally justified in refusing to accept your denial of cryptotheism.

You make no attempt to explain your real opinion; I am very liberal
with mine.

> > My moderate stance against abortion,
>
> You misspelled 'incoherent'.

Polemic-based opinion noted; not sure whether the buck stops with "Sneaky"
on this one, or only with "Toady."

> > identical with that of Portugal except in secondary details,
> > is based on an agnostic world view, the fruit of years of study of
> > the philosophy of mind, in defiance of the pro-life stance of REAL
> > cryptotheists.
>
> Pro-lifers are not crypto- about their theism.

Most of them make no secret of it, true. But even those that are atheists,
like Nat Hentoff, are cryptotheists in your book, aren't they?

>
> > Hint: if I were basing my stance on theism, I would probably be
> > pro-choice by default, reasoning that God will right any wrongs
> > done to the fetus by killing it, in a hereafter that the Catholic
> > Church takes as an article of faith.
>
> By that 'reasoning', theists should support the right to choose to kill
> regardless of who or what gets killed:

You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic which I call The One Shade
of Gray Meltdown. Description on request.

> > But I would still be morally opposed to killing it, for reasons I
> > could explain.
>
> It's rather comical that you're willing to treat women like a separate
> species for purposes of punishment but unwilling to acknowledge the
> unambiguous physical difference between men and women that lies at the
> heart of the question.

Now you are indulging in a Phantom Error Correction Scam.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to some time this month or next.
It takes us too far afield into areas for which time needs to be carefully
rationed.

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:deac3577-246e-4f73...@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:

[snip some more figments of Fruity's limited imagination]

Say, Fruity, I notice that you left in your unsubstantiated claims about
the ERA but snipped out my request for some independently verifiable

evidence that people suggested that the ERA might make same-sex marriage
a right and other people laughed at them.

Now why would you do that, I wonder? It couldn't be that you were
bluffing when you claimed that people suggested that the ERA might make
same-sex marriage a right and other people laughed at them, could it?

>> Who do you think you're fooling, Fruity? Do you honestly imagine that
>> the people who criticized your vile, baseless slurs don't remember
>> them?
>
> Were you inspired by "Puck Mendelssohn's" utterly ridiculous,
> hypocritical, and totally insincere bluff?

No, I was inspired by my memory of your vile, baseless slurs.

> "Evidently you've forgotten that other people can read what you
> write."
> --documented in my last reply to jillery on this thread
>
> I'm not even calling your bluff.

Of course you're not. You can't.

[snip]

>> On the other hand, I
>> can't discount the possibility that you honestly believe Harshman
>> is 'pushing' it on you for nefarious reasons that have nothing to do
>> with its quality.
>
> I think he is wildly enthusiastic about it for reasons that are only
> secondarily due to its quality.

Wildly enthusiastic? Harshman? On what scale could anything Harshman has
ever posted here be characterized as 'wildly enthusiastic'?

>> Regardless of what you believe, you act as though people are trying
>> to trick you into reading Erwin and Valentine.
>
> The foregoing BS was not worth the effort required for "Toady" to
> type it.

...says the Bat who just finished confirming its validity.

[snip]

>> You really have no idea how hilarious it is when you talk about
>> things like 'ventriloquist-analogues' and 'Harshman-supporting
>> incidents', do you?
>
> The former serves the purpose of alerting the readership that you are
> deep in the "troll" part of your part-time troll persona.

'The readership'? Who would that be, Fruity? Are you cloning yourself?

> The actual human person involved can always distance himself
> psychologically from full commitment to the words being typed, telling
> himself that it isn't really himself, but only the persona, that is
> talking.

That's not how ventriloquism works. A ventriloquist who distances himself
psychologically from full commitment to the words he speaks through his
dummy is going to flop, and he is going to flop *hard*.

But you must impugn my sincerity at all costs, mustn't you? You can't
allow yourself to consider the possibility that I might be expressing my
honest opinions about you. You can't allow yourself to consider the
possibility that *anyone* who laughs at your buffoonery honestly finds
you ridiculous. Nah. We must *all* be dishonest hypocrites.

Right?

[snip]

>> >> Now, if he were in the habit of weaving elaborate conspiracy
>> >> theories about his critics' motives; if he spewed hateful
>> >> cryptotheistic propaganda against people he doesn't approve of; if
>> >> he espoused vacuous fantasies about space sperm - why, then, I'd
>> >> pick on him, too.
>> >
>> > Trolling, sugar-coated by an "if" clause.
>>
>> It would only be trolling if you didn't weave elaborate conspiracy
>> theories about your critics' motives
>
> Which I don't.

You don't acknowledge that you do it: whether you're actually deluded
enough to believe you don't do it is a question I leave to 'the
readership'.

> I've explained the dynamics of most of the
> relationships to which you refer with an allusion to "Cool Hand Luke."
> Keywords: "targets of opportunity"
>
> Every person who talks like you just did is either trolling or
> uncritically repeating scuttlebutt.

I think there might be another possibility.

> Harshman is dishonest and hypocritical. I am neither.

HA! Oh, that's precious. The guy who thinks late-term abortion is
practically infanticide *and* thinks a woman who gets a late-term
abortion should be sentenced to community service isn't a hypocrite. The
guy who gets hot and bothered about 'anti-Christian propaganda' while
insisting he's an agnostic isn't a hypocrite. The guy who impugns the
honesty of Meyer's critics while insisting he's not a fan of Meyer isn't
a hypocrite.

>> As a curious irony, that makes you a more interesting poster than
>> Harshman, whose opinions are often depressingly conventional.
>
> Yeah, including his suspicions that I am enthusiastic about Meyer's
> far out ideas. Not to mention the contempt he has for Feduccia's
> refusal to jump on the "birds are theropods" bandwagon.

He really got under your skin, didn't he, Mr. Kaplan?

>> >> And speaking of hateful cryptotheistic propaganda against people
>> >> you don't approve of,
>> >
>> > There is nothing cryptotheistic about it.
>>
>> You feel justified in refusing to accept my denial of atheism; I feel
>> equally justified in refusing to accept your denial of cryptotheism.
>
> You make no attempt to explain your real opinion; I am very liberal
> with mine.

Not all of us feel the need to continually dig up things we've already
said and repost them over and over again: some of us are less in love
with the sound of our own virtual voices. You want to see what I've said
about my agnosticism, you know where to look.

>> > My moderate stance against abortion,
>>
>> You misspelled 'incoherent'.
>
> Polemic-based opinion noted; not sure whether the buck stops with
> "Sneaky" on this one, or only with "Toady."

And you never will be.

>> > identical with that of Portugal except in secondary details,
>> > is based on an agnostic world view, the fruit of years of study of
>> > the philosophy of mind, in defiance of the pro-life stance of REAL
>> > cryptotheists.
>>
>> Pro-lifers are not crypto- about their theism.
>
> Most of them make no secret of it, true. But even those that are
> atheists, like Nat Hentoff, are cryptotheists in your book, aren't
> they?

Nat Hentoff? The jazz critic who gripes about politics in the *Village
Voice*? I'm not familiar with his opinions about theism or abortion. I
know he gets very het up over what he perceives as efforts to abridge the
right to free speech.

>> > Hint: if I were basing my stance on theism, I would probably be
>> > pro-choice by default, reasoning that God will right any wrongs
>> > done to the fetus by killing it, in a hereafter that the Catholic
>> > Church takes as an article of faith.
>>
>> By that 'reasoning', theists should support the right to choose to
>> kill regardless of who or what gets killed:
>
> You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic which I call The One
> Shade of Gray Meltdown. Description on request.

That's okay, I can describe it myself. It's the tactic where I point out
a flagrant error in your logic that you can't refute, so you hide behind
another one of your bullshit neologisms.

By the way, you accidentally deleted the rest of the paragraph. Here,
I'll fix that for you:

'By that "reasoning", theists should support the right to choose to kill

regardless of who or what gets killed: God will right all wrongs done to

the deceased. Curiously, few if any theists argue that adults have the
right to choose to kill other adults.'

How would it make sense for a theist to be pro-choice concerning abortion
by reasoning that God will right any wrongs done to the fetus by killing
it, but not pro-choice concerning murder by reasoning that God will right
any wrongs done to the victim? Explain.

>> > But I would still be morally opposed to killing it, for reasons I
>> > could explain.
>>
>> It's rather comical that you're willing to treat women like a
>> separate species for purposes of punishment but unwilling to
>> acknowledge the unambiguous physical difference between men and women
>> that lies at the heart of the question.
>
> Now you are indulging in a Phantom Error Correction Scam.

Translation: 'Fuck! I can't refute that either!'

> Remainder deleted, to be replied to some time this month or next.
> It takes us too far afield into areas for which time needs to be
> carefully rationed.

Careful, Fruity. You're starting to sound a little gallinaceous.
--
S.O.P.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/5/15 1:47 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip lots, but you aren't missing anything]

>
> Most of them make no secret of it, true. But even those that are atheists,
> like Nat Hentoff, are cryptotheists in your book, aren't they?
>>
>>> Hint: if I were basing my stance on theism, I would probably be
>>> pro-choice by default, reasoning that God will right any wrongs
>>> done to the fetus by killing it, in a hereafter that the Catholic
>>> Church takes as an article of faith.
>>
>> By that 'reasoning', theists should support the right to choose to kill
>> regardless of who or what gets killed:
>
> You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic which I call The One Shade
> of Gray Meltdown. Description on request.
>
>>> But I would still be morally opposed to killing it, for reasons I
>>> could explain.
>>
>> It's rather comical that you're willing to treat women like a separate
>> species for purposes of punishment but unwilling to acknowledge the
>> unambiguous physical difference between men and women that lies at the
>> heart of the question.
>
> Now you are indulging in a Phantom Error Correction Scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism -- Check out the third paragraph.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:deac3577-246e-4f73...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum
> > wrote:
> [snip some more figments of Fruity's limited imagination]

The only figments you snipped were the ones by you which helped
make the following exchange intelligible.

> Say, Fruity, I notice that you left in your unsubstantiated claims about
> the ERA but snipped out my request for some independently verifiable
> evidence that people suggested that the ERA might make same-sex marriage
> a right and other people laughed at them.

That's because I can no longer look up the letters to editors, etc. that
appeared in those long-ago days of the 1970's. These things were very
much in the air, along with ridicule of those who said it would result
in unisex locker rooms, etc. Now we essentially have that -- males
with the right to use women's locker rooms as long as they can
make a case for themselves as transgendered.

<snip>

> >> Who do you think you're fooling, Fruity? Do you honestly imagine that
> >> the people who criticized your vile, baseless slurs don't remember
> >> them?
> >
> > Were you inspired by "Puck Mendelssohn's" utterly ridiculous,
> > hypocritical, and totally insincere bluff?
>
> No, I was inspired by my memory of your vile, baseless slurs.

Nonexistent.

> > "Evidently you've forgotten that other people can read what you
> > write."
> > --documented in my last reply to jillery on this thread
> >
> > I'm not even calling your bluff.
>
> Of course you're not. You can't.

Watch me. I'm calling both the original and this derivative bluff. Show us
what you think is sufficiently "vile" and "baseless" in the way of
"slurs" against ...oops, you snipped all reference to what this figment
of your imagination was about.

But I'll do the readers a favor: they were allegedly about same sex marriage,
and you snipped the ONLY description either of us made about anything
I had written about it:

Most of my
"slurs" boil down to the statement that there is no fundamental
human right to a label such as "marriage" if all the legal rights
of marriage are conferred upon people in other "civil union"
contracts."

You reap what you snip, you twit.

>
> [snip]
> >> On the other hand, I
> >> can't discount the possibility that you honestly believe Harshman
> >> is 'pushing' it on you for nefarious reasons that have nothing to do
> >> with its quality.
> >
> > I think he is wildly enthusiastic about it for reasons that are only
> > secondarily due to its quality.
>
> Wildly enthusiastic? Harshman?

Sure. He even LIED that I would not read it. Why would he do that,
if he weren't trying to browbeat me into reading it on HIS timetable?

<snip>

> >> Regardless of what you believe, you act as though people are trying
> >> to trick you into reading Erwin and Valentine.
> >
> > The foregoing BS was not worth the effort required for "Toady" to
> > type it.
>
> ...says the Bat who just finished confirming its validity.

Wishful thinking is OK up to a point, twit, but you're really
overdoing it here. The word "trick" is wholly inappropriate,
for reasons I have given. Try "browbeat" next time, and you'll
come across as being a lot more sincere.

Why, that would actually undermine the nickname "Toady" I gave the
ventriloquist-analogue who types the words that appear in our
newsreaders [like "foetus", with it's non-USA spelling].

> [snip]
> >> You really have no idea how hilarious it is when you talk about
> >> things like 'ventriloquist-analogues' and 'Harshman-supporting
> >> incidents', do you?
> >
> > The former serves the purpose of alerting the readership that you are
> > deep in the "troll" part of your part-time troll persona.
>
> 'The readership'? Who would that be, Fruity? Are you cloning yourself?

Weird suggestion that jillery, Harshman, Naston, Glenn, etc. stopped
reading this thread before I launched into treating you this way, noted.

> > The actual human person involved can always distance himself
> > psychologically from full commitment to the words being typed, telling
> > himself that it isn't really himself, but only the persona, that is
> > talking.
>
> That's not how ventriloquism works. A ventriloquist who distances himself
> psychologically from full commitment to the words he speaks through his
> dummy is going to flop, and he is going to flop *hard*.

Oh, [s]he does have to enter into the dummy persona he is projecting
WHILE THE ACT IS GOING ON, like any good actor has to enter into
the role being played. But when the act is done, the actor can distance
him/herself from the role---after all, it was only an ACT.

[Chloe Grace Moretz is an especially good example of this. See the
Wikipedia article on "Hit Girl" and note the obscenities that permeate
her "Hit Girl" act vs. the real life Chloe.]

You don't seriously claim not to be savvy enough to know about
such things, do you?

Accordingly, I accuse you of basing "that's not how ventriloquism
works" on premises you know to be false.

> But you must impugn my sincerity at all costs, mustn't you?

What costs?

> You can't
> allow yourself to consider the possibility that I might be expressing my
> honest opinions about you.

Sometimes you do. So what? Like any seasoned Internet Hellion,
you run the whole gamut of comments from obvious joking to
dead seriousness, leaving the readers in the dark as to where
to draw the dividing line.

But you are a mere yeoman at it, the real master of the art in t.o. being
Paul Gans. In contrast, I'd make a bumbling apprentice, so I wouldn't
even try, even if my conscience allowed it--which it does not.

> You can't allow yourself to consider the
> possibility that *anyone* who laughs at your buffoonery honestly finds
> you ridiculous. Nah. We must *all* be dishonest hypocrites.

"Sneaky" feigning kindredness of spirit with all who
ever have laughed at me for anything, noted.

Granted, that was sarcasm, but it was not at an extreme of the gamut
described above. Readers may wonder just how many people YOU imagine
to have laughed at things YOU call buffoonery.

But I doubt that many will. Your performances are not all that
interesting to readers, at least by the implicit admission
("cloning yourself?") of the dummy-analogue "Sneaky".

[Now, where in the above gamut shall I place that implicit
admission?] :-)

Accordingly, I'm deleting the rest, while reserving the option of
dealing with it at some later date.

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:079955eb-7c80-4729...@googlegroups.com:

Your newsreader must be acting up, Fruits: apparently it's showing you
posts from two weeks ago instead of current ones. Well, no matter, I'll
just post my most recent response to you again.

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:ff626580-e96d-4751...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:
[snip]
> I told you why I did not divulge, at the time, what I was referring
> to; the context did not have anything to do with that.

You made comments in your response to brogers31751 for which you offered
no credible evidence, and which were derogatory and/or self-serving.
When confronted with that fact, you tried to defend yourself by claiming
that you had more specifically derogatory comments in mind: you offered
no credible evidence for those comments, either.

> But you snipped that, and are in denial over it (see above).

I have no idea what you think 'in denial over it' means. You made a
derogatory comment for which you've yet to provide an iota of credible
evidence: doing so was - according to you - evidence of trolling. You
had no reason to make that comment in your response to brogers31751, and
you haven't claimed you had any such reason; all you've done is claim
that you had a more specific bit of unsupported derogation in mind when
you wrote it, which is irrelevant even if true.

Yes or no: were you being a part-time troll against brogers31751 when
you made an unnecessary and derogatory comment for which you provided no
credible evidence?
--
S.O.P.

[deadrat]

On 3/18/15 5:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

<snip/>

>> Say, Fruity, I notice that you left in your unsubstantiated claims about
>> the ERA but snipped out my request for some independently verifiable
>> evidence that people suggested that the ERA might make same-sex marriage
>> a right and other people laughed at them.
>
> That's because I can no longer look up the letters to editors, etc. that
> appeared in those long-ago days of the 1970's. These things were very
> much in the air, along with ridicule of those who said it would result
> in unisex locker rooms, etc. Now we essentially have that -- males
> with the right to use women's locker rooms as long as they can
> make a case for themselves as transgendered.

The number of transgendered persons is so few that I doubt it's led to
many locker room changes, let alone to any unisex locker rooms. Is it
your claim that locker rooms are now mostly unisex because so many men
and boys are falsely claiming to be transgendered so they can see the
girls naked?

'Cause you probably shouldn't do that.
<snip/>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 4:19:24 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
> On 3/18/15 5:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> >> Say, Fruity, I notice that you left in your unsubstantiated claims about
> >> the ERA but snipped out my request for some independently verifiable
> >> evidence that people suggested that the ERA might make same-sex marriage
> >> a right and other people laughed at them.
> >
> > That's because I can no longer look up the letters to editors, etc. that
> > appeared in those long-ago days of the 1970's. These things were very
> > much in the air, along with ridicule of those who said it would result
> > in unisex locker rooms, etc. Now we essentially have that -- males
> > with the right to use women's locker rooms as long as they can
> > make a case for themselves as transgendered.

> The number of transgendered persons is so few

I've taught two in just the last three years, and I teach fewer than
a hundred students each semester. In fact, one of them is in a
class I am teaching right now. Would you like for me to put you
in touch with this person?

> that I doubt it's led to
> many locker room changes, let alone to any unisex locker rooms.

You need, SERIOUSLY, to quantify words like "so few" and "many"
when getting on your various political soapboxes.

> Is it
> your claim that locker rooms are now mostly unisex because so many men
> and boys are falsely claiming to be transgendered so they can see the
> girls naked?
>
> 'Cause you probably shouldn't do that.
> <snip/>

Do you pose loaded, highly tendentious questions like this
to numerous t.o. participants?
Or am I unique in being the target of such dirty tactics?
Is even jillery an exception?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:04:25 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:079955eb-7c80-4729...@googlegroups.com:
>
> Your newsreader must be acting up, Fruits: apparently it's showing you
> posts from two weeks ago instead of current ones.

Is this juvenile sarcastic jibe your way of diverting attention
from you having run away from my calling of your bluffs?

I'm referring, of course, to your vile, baseless slurs that I have
made vile, baseless slurs against same sex marriage.

>Well, no matter, I'll
> just post my most recent response to you again.

...from a different thread, which I gave priority over this one,
along with several other threads.

Yes, I saw your asinine March 5 post almost immediately, but I had more
urgent things to attend to at the time. Then, as no one but Mark bothered
to post any more to THIS thread, and his post didn't seem to call for a
reply at all, I figured I'd just put yours on the back burner for a while.

> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:ff626580-e96d-4751...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> > I told you why I did not divulge, at the time, what I was referring
> > to; the context did not have anything to do with that.
>
> You made comments in your response to brogers31751 for which you offered
> no credible evidence,

...at the time. You seem to have a lot of trouble with this simple
prepositional phrase.

> and which were derogatory and/or self-serving.
> When confronted with that fact, you tried to defend yourself by claiming
> that you had more specifically derogatory comments in mind: you offered
> no credible evidence for those comments, either.

...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence, which
I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
self-important as yourself.

TEST OF JILLERY-CASANOVA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
PLEASE IGNORE :-)

> as insufferably self-important as yourself.

Dang, my irony meter broke again.

END OF TEST :-)

[As far as your status as part-time troll is concerned, you fall neatly
between the two being "simulated".]

> > But you snipped that, and are in denial over it (see above).
>
> I have no idea what you think 'in denial over it' means.

Like hell you don't. You are in denial over the thing you
snipped, which was the explanation I gave as to WHY I chose not
to divulge what I had in mind. Are you equally in denial over
my having called your four successive bluffs with the same
essential content?

> You made a
> derogatory comment for which you've yet to provide an iota of credible
> evidence: doing so was - according to you - evidence of trolling. You
> had no reason to make that comment in your response to brogers31751, and
> you haven't claimed you had any such reason; all you've done is claim
> that you had a more specific bit of unsupported derogation in mind when
> you wrote it, which is irrelevant even if true.

For someone who claims he doesn't take me seriously, you sure
can go on and on as if you did.

Are you trying to goad me into doing 1000+ line posts by
documenting everything I say on the spot? What counts is whether
I intend to back up what I say if challenged, and I haven't seen
brogers31751 issue any challenges, only a self-important busybody
whom I've called "Sneaky" and "Toady" and "SOP".

If he HAS issued challenges, then you should have let me know
about it, if you REALLY care about me supporting my comments.

> Yes or no: were you being a part-time troll against brogers31751 when
> you made an unnecessary and derogatory comment for which you provided no
> credible evidence?

See above about "goad me..." No, I was not. And just because
something isn't strictly necessary ("unnecessary"), does not mean it
was inappropriate.

By the way, I could easily have said "No" just on the basis of
"against brogers..." but I'm not taking that sneaky way out.
I have seen no indication that he is one of those atheists
about whom I wrote the way I did.

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

[snip]

>> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:ff626580-e96d-4751...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
>> > wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > I told you why I did not divulge, at the time, what I was referring
>> > to; the context did not have anything to do with that.
>>
>> You made comments in your response to brogers31751 for which you
>> offered no credible evidence,
>
> ...at the time. You seem to have a lot of trouble with this simple
> prepositional phrase.

You've yet to offer any credible evidence.

>> and which were derogatory and/or self-serving.
>> When confronted with that fact, you tried to defend yourself by
>> claiming that you had more specifically derogatory comments in mind:
>> you offered no credible evidence for those comments, either.
>
> ...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence, which
> I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
> spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
> documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
> self-important as yourself.

You've given no evidence, either documented or undocumented, to support
your derogatory characterization of atheists.

[snip]

>> Yes or no: were you being a part-time troll against brogers31751 when
>> you made an unnecessary and derogatory comment for which you provided
>> no credible evidence?
>
> See above about "goad me..." No, I was not.

By that response, I conclude that you're either too delusional to
understand what you're doing or too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.
Either conclusion confirms that continuing to argue with you is no more
productive than literally beating my head against a brick wall would be.
Thus, I retire. See ya!
--
S.O.P.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/19/15 8:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 4:19:24 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>> The number of transgendered persons is so few
>
> I've taught two in just the last three years, and I teach fewer than
> a hundred students each semester. In fact, one of them is in a
> class I am teaching right now. Would you like for me to put you
> in touch with this person?

You're lucky. I have known two (that I know of) in my entire life. One
was sort of a mirror-image of your situation -- one of my college math
professors went through the procedure.

My professor told me that he started receiving death threats even before
he became a she, and this is in a liberal part of California. I can't
imagine what horrors these people must face in the cultural atmosphere
of South Carolina.

[jillery]

Not only am I not an exception, but I am a particular target, to the
point there is little difference between his replies to me and yours.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence,

My impression is most people prefer the documented form of evidence.
Just sayin'.

>which
>I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
>spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
>documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
>self-important as yourself.

You're another poster who claims the mere posting of their opinion is
proof of its own veracity.

>TEST OF JILLERY-CASANOVA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)

This is a lie, so you should probably stop saying it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence,
>
>
> My impression is most people prefer the documented form of evidence.
> Just sayin'.

And if Sneaky explicitly asks for it, I'll comply on the timetable

I gave him. As I've said:

> >which
> >I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
> >spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
> >documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
> >self-important as yourself.
>
>
> You're another poster who claims the mere posting of their opinion is
> proof of its own veracity.

You are confusing me with people like Mitchell Coffey. If you
look really carefully at what I say to him in my reply to
him in the thread you started, you might get an inkling
of why I say this. If not, I will be glad to explain.

Or you could look really carefully at the reply I made to
deadrat earlier today, specifically at what I say in connection
with your travesty:

"Bald assertions are as easily refuted."

> >TEST OF JILLERY-CASANOVA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
>
>
> This is a lie, so you should probably stop saying it.

It's a joke, even labeled as such with smileys, two of which
were in lines you deleted.

Nice to know that the test was successful. :-)

But seriously, thanks for deleting the actual words I suspected
you might have used. Would you have used them, or something
with the same meaning, had I not stolen your thunder?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence,
>>
>>
>> My impression is most people prefer the documented form of evidence.
>> Just sayin'.
>
>And if Sneaky explicitly asks for it, I'll comply on the timetable
>I gave him. As I've said:
>
>> >which
>> >I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
>> >spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
>> >documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
>> >self-important as yourself.
>>
>>
>> You're another poster who claims the mere posting of their opinion is
>> proof of its own veracity.
>
>You are confusing me with people like Mitchell Coffey.

There is no way I could confuse you with Mitchell Coffey. He's honest
and credible.

>If you
>look really carefully at what I say to him in my reply to
>him in the thread you started, you might get an inkling
>of why I say this. If not, I will be glad to explain.

What you said to Mitchell Coffey in some other thread has no relevance
to this thread or that thread.

>Or you could look really carefully at the reply I made to
>deadrat earlier today, specifically at what I say in connection
>with your travesty:
>
> "Bald assertions are as easily refuted."

Replied elsethread. I only note here that your reply includes a
refusal to support your admittedly bald assertions.

>> >TEST OF JILLERY-CASANOVA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
>>
>>
>> This is a lie, so you should probably stop saying it.
>
>It's a joke, even labeled as such with smileys, two of which
>were in lines you deleted.

That you call it a joke doesn't make it any less a lie.

>Nice to know that the test was successful. :-)

For unique meanings of successful. Should I include a smiley here
too?

>But seriously, thanks for deleting the actual words I suspected
>you might have used. Would you have used them, or something
>with the same meaning, had I not stolen your thunder?

I have no idea what words you suspected I might have used. It's
almost certain neither do you. But unlike you and so many others, I
don't claim to be a mind reader.

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery seems to have adopted my way of occasionally replying to
posts months later, and I am indulging in it here again.

The post to which I am replying is one that I originally let slide
because jillery was obviously not trying to hide the fact that her
comments were bullshit, and not to be taken at face value.

Lately, however, the revelation that jillery smokes "Much grass"
makes me wonder whether she was even aware that her comments
had this nature. But I still think she knew, and just didn't care.

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 7:44:18 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >...at the time. But I did give undocumented evidence,
> >>
> >>
> >> My impression is most people prefer the documented form of evidence.
> >> Just sayin'.
> >
> >And if Sneaky explicitly asks for it, I'll comply on the timetable
> >I gave him. As I've said:
> >
> >> >which
> >> >I've known about from various sources and from intense debate
> >> >spanning about two decades. And when asked I posted a promise of
> >> >documentation which should satisfy anyone who isn't as insufferably
> >> >self-important as yourself.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're another poster who claims the mere posting of their opinion is
> >> proof of its own veracity.
> >
> >You are confusing me with people like Mitchell Coffey.
>
>
> There is no way I could confuse you with Mitchell Coffey.

I said "people like..." and since then it has become obvious
that an even better person to have named was Ray Martinez.

> He's honest and credible.

Bullshit. He's just someone who hasn't crossed you, the
way Harshman, deadrat, and Maycock have, let alone the
way I have.

>
> >If you
> >look really carefully at what I say to him in my reply to
> >him in the thread you started, you might get an inkling
> >of why I say this. If not, I will be glad to explain.

> What you said to Mitchell Coffey in some other thread has no relevance
> to this thread or that thread.

Sight unseen, you simply act here as though you have accurately divined
what I said to Mitchell Coffey.

Are you of the philosophy that objective truth is of no importance,
and that what talk.origins is really good for is the scoring
of debating points?

> >Or you could look really carefully at the reply I made to
> >deadrat earlier today, specifically at what I say in connection
> >with your travesty:
> >
> > "Bald assertions are as easily refuted."
>
>

> Replied else thread. I only note here that your reply includes a

> refusal to support your admittedly bald assertions.

No such refusal exists, but IIRC I once carelessly used your
idiosyncratic meaning of "refusal to" as meaning "refraining from."

Did you accuse me of having told "a stupid lie" on account of
this adoption?

> >> >TEST OF JILLERY-CASANOVA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)

> >> This is a lie, so you should probably stop saying it.
> >
> >It's a joke, even labeled as such with smileys, two of which
> >were in lines you deleted.

> That you call it a joke doesn't make it any less a lie.

Most jokes are "lies" in that sense, so it seems you
were implying I should probably stop telling jokes
unless they are literally true.

Does smoking pot produce control-freak tendencies in you?

>
> >Nice to know that the test was successful. :-)

> For unique meanings of successful. Should I include a smiley here
> too?

Probably, because without one, your "unique meanings" just suggests
that you are a bad sport about the whole joke. Did the contents
of the "test" not conform to your posting persona? Here they are:

[repost:]

> as insufferably self-important as yourself.

Dang, my irony meter broke again.

END OF TEST :-)

[end of repost]

> >But seriously, thanks for deleting the actual words I suspected
> >you might have used. Would you have used them, or something
> >with the same meaning, had I not stolen your thunder?

> I have no idea what words you suspected I might have used. It's
> almost certain neither do you.

You snipped the words that make this either a pair of lies
or a delusion of yours. See above repost.

> But unlike you and so many others, I
> don't claim to be a mind reader.

You were BSing to the end. Not only have I never even hinted at such a
claim, but YOU *did* hint at one above, as I commented there.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish. It may have some double
entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Jillery seems to have adopted my way of occasionally replying to
>posts months later, and I am indulging in it here again.

Another one of your stupid lies, trivially documented by the post
dates.

>On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 7:44:18 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Did you run out of bellybutton lint to keep yourself occupied?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:19:59 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
>aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish. It may have some double
>entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".

You're technically correct on all counts, but when rockhead gives his
compulsions free reign, facts are the first things that go out the
window. That's what he does.

[Peter Nyikos]

"Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
this meaning of the term before?

> It may have some double
> entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".

Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.

Now, in reply to you, jillery has written something that reads,
on the surface, like an agreement that she DID mean just "thanks,"
but if you read it carefully, there is no unambiguous implication
to that effect.

And, in the light of her previous acquiescence, jillery's
remaining words in her reply to you are ... bullshit.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
>of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
>interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
>in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.

You and Bill are working from the same self-serving, self-promoting
rulebook. Some trolls just have no creativity.

[Bill]

Yes, my posts serve the purpose of arguing my point of view. Everyone else
posts to enlighten the world, bring the bliss of perfect knowledge and
correct all error. Kind of a variation of the White Man's Burden and for all
the same reasons.

However, I have the benefit of smoking weed from time to time which
introduces new and novel perspectives with which to view the tedious
ordinariness of life. Most people here seem to not only prefer the ordinary,
banal certainties of their lives, but to actively seek it. This frantic
quest for smug assurances guarantees ordinariness which explains why so many
posters here are so boring.

Bill

[erik simpson]

...Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:20:46 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
>>>of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
>>>interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
>>>in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.
>>
>>
>> You and Bill are working from the same self-serving, self-promoting
>> rulebook. Some trolls just have no creativity.
>
>Yes, my posts serve the purpose of arguing my point of view.

If you say so. Everybody can only take your word on that.

>Everyone else
>posts to enlighten the world, bring the bliss of perfect knowledge and
>correct all error. Kind of a variation of the White Man's Burden and for all
>the same reasons.

Still working on your illusion that you're a mindreader, I see.

>However, I have the benefit of smoking weed from time to time which
>introduces new and novel perspectives with which to view the tedious
>ordinariness of life.

Apparently rockhead conflates you and me wrt our expressed
recreational drug habits.

>Most people here seem to not only prefer the ordinary,
>banal certainties of their lives, but to actively seek it. This frantic
>quest for smug assurances guarantees ordinariness which explains why so many
>posters here are so boring.

Perhaps you wouldn't be so bored if you smoked more weed. Even if it
didn't ease your boredom, at least you would have less motivation to
whine about it.

[erik simpson]

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

> <...>

> > This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
> > aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
>
> "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
> this meaning of the term before?

I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
over 60 years.

>
> > It may have some double
> > entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".
>
> Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
> of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
> interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
> in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.
>

> Now, in reply to you, jillery has written something that reads,
> on the surface, like an agreement that she DID mean just "thanks,"
> but if you read it carefully, there is no unambiguous implication
> to that effect.
>
> And, in the light of her previous acquiescence, jillery's
> remaining words in her reply to you are ... bullshit.
>

I think it's more likely she was amused that you were continuing to beat a
broken drum. Anyway, now that Bill has proudly proclaimed his potheadedness,
you have another target. Your exchanges with jillery aren't any more edifying
than deadrat's.

> Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

I wasn't proudly proclaiming anything. Pot is a great way to shake loose the
arrogant smugness of the arrogantly smug. The problem is that those most in
need of insight, don't believe they need it.

Bill

[erik simpson]

"They call them fingers but I've never seen them fing....oh there they go..."

[jillery]

rockhead's rant has nothing to do with your personal drug habits.
Despite your self-absorbed "insight", the Universe doesn't revolve
around you.

[Robert Camp]

"What Jefferson was saying was, Hey! You know, we left this England
place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves
- pronto - we'll just be bogus too! Get it?"

[Ernest Major]

On 22/09/2015 01:23, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> <...>
>>> This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
>>> aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
>>
>> "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
>> this meaning of the term before?
>
> I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
> over 60 years.
>

I'm familiar with the usage, and I don't even live in America.

>
>> Peter Nyikos
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > <...>
> > > This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
> > > aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
> >
> > "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
> > this meaning of the term before?
>
> I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
> over 60 years.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you known the meaning of "wuss"?
I ask because I was called that on talk.abortion back before online
dictionaries were available, and I couldn't find it in any dictionary.

The closest I could come was "wusun" [more commonly spelled "usun"]
in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

You see, people in these newsgroups come from very different
subcultures, and naturally consider others "clueless" when
they aren't *au fait* with the jargon of their subculture.
So it was when I reported back on what I had found.

But that's another story.

> >
> > > It may have some double
> > > entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".
> >
> > Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
> > of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
> > interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
> > in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.
> >
>
> > Now, in reply to you, jillery has written something that reads,
> > on the surface, like an agreement that she DID mean just "thanks,"
> > but if you read it carefully, there is no unambiguous implication
> > to that effect.
> >
> > And, in the light of her previous acquiescence, jillery's
> > remaining words in her reply to you are ... bullshit.
> >
>
> I think it's more likely she was amused that you were continuing to beat a
> broken drum.

A drum whose brokenness she never hinted at.

She is like a six year old who is punished for something she
didn't do because she kept talking about something else
while her dad confronted her with evidence that she had done wrong.
Silent all through the spanking, she thinks to herself:

"Just wait till I tell daddy what really happened. Then he'll be REAL
sorry he spanked me."

> Anyway, now that Bill has proudly proclaimed his potheadedness,
> you have another target.

Which I will use just as judiciously as I did jillery's "revelation."
For instance, as an excuse for finally replying to something I let slide
a long time ago. You forgot all about that, didn't you?

> Your exchanges with jillery aren't any
> more edifying than deadrat's.

Nor is your exchange with me on this thread. Can you say "pot...kettle..."?

The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...

...or do you? Do you make an exception when her target is your
buddy, John Harshman?

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in news:mtqbmg$u2g$1...@dont-email.me:
[snip]

> I wasn't proudly proclaiming anything. Pot is a great way to shake
> loose the arrogant smugness of the arrogantly smug.

You yourself are the counterexample that falsifies that claim.
--
S.O.P.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> > <...>
>> > > This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
>> > > aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
>> >
>> > "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
>> > this meaning of the term before?
>>
>> I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
>> over 60 years.
>
>Just out of curiosity, how long have you known the meaning of "wuss"?
>I ask because I was called that on talk.abortion back before online
>dictionaries were available, and I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
>
>The closest I could come was "wusun" [more commonly spelled "usun"]
>in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
>
>You see, people in these newsgroups come from very different
>subcultures, and naturally consider others "clueless" when
>they aren't *au fait* with the jargon of their subculture.
>So it was when I reported back on what I had found.
>
>But that's another story.

That's correct, and an irrelevant story. NOTA has anything to do
with your asinine accusations against me. But posting noise is what
you do. You just can't help yourself.

>> > > It may have some double
>> > > entendre aspects, but generally it just means "thanks".
>> >
>> > Jillery has repeatedly had the opportunity to demur from my interpretation
>> > of "grass" as "pot," i.e., marijuana. Rest assured that at first my
>> > interpretation was tentative, but jillery has left my interpretation
>> > in reply after reply without attempting to deny its validity.
>> >
>>
>> > Now, in reply to you, jillery has written something that reads,
>> > on the surface, like an agreement that she DID mean just "thanks,"
>> > but if you read it carefully, there is no unambiguous implication
>> > to that effect.
>> >
>> > And, in the light of her previous acquiescence, jillery's
>> > remaining words in her reply to you are ... bullshit.

Apparently you conflate the smell from your own effluence with that
from others. No surprise there.

>> I think it's more likely she was amused that you were continuing to beat a
>> broken drum.
>
>A drum whose brokenness she never hinted at.

Based on the above "reasoning" everybody should conclude that you're a
retarded sociopath with a compulsion to collect bellybutton lint.

>She is like a six year old who is punished for something she
>didn't do because she kept talking about something else
>while her dad confronted her with evidence that she had done wrong.
>Silent all through the spanking, she thinks to herself:

Of course you presented no evidence, other than your bald assertion of
it. One can only wonder why that is.

>"Just wait till I tell daddy what really happened. Then he'll be REAL
>sorry he spanked me."
>
>> Anyway, now that Bill has proudly proclaimed his potheadedness,
>> you have another target.
>
>Which I will use just as judiciously as I did jillery's "revelation."
>For instance, as an excuse for finally replying to something I let slide
>a long time ago. You forgot all about that, didn't you?
>
>> Your exchanges with jillery aren't any
>> more edifying than deadrat's.
>
>Nor is your exchange with me on this thread. Can you say "pot...kettle..."?

Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
>ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
>a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...

Of course I heaped no bullshit on anybody, you or otherwise. You're
just practicing the Big Lie. But that's what you do. You can't help
yourself.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:57:10 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > > This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
> > > > aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
> > >
> > > "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
> > > this meaning of the term before?
> >
> > I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
> > over 60 years.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how long have you known the meaning of "wuss"?
> I ask because I was called that on talk.abortion back before online
> dictionaries were available, and I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
>
> The closest I could come was "wusun" [more commonly spelled "usun"]
> in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
>

You could look it up. Merriam-Webster isn't the best source for slang, but
Google has no trouble.

> You see, people in these newsgroups come from very different
> subcultures, and naturally consider others "clueless" when
> they aren't *au fait* with the jargon of their subculture.
> So it was when I reported back on what I had found.
>
> But that's another story.
>

Just let it go.

No idea what you're talking about here.

>
> > Your exchanges with jillery aren't any
> > more edifying than deadrat's.
>
> Nor is your exchange with me on this thread. Can you say "pot...kettle..."?
>
> The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
> ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
> a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...
>
> ...or do you? Do you make an exception when her target is your
> buddy, John Harshman?

I definitely don't give a rat's ass about your problems with jillery. As I
already said, I probably shouldn't have said anything. Everyone is jillery's
target sooner or later, haven't you noticed?

>
> Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I definitely don't give a rat's ass about your problems with jillery. As I
>already said, I probably shouldn't have said anything. Everyone is jillery's
>target sooner or later, haven't you noticed?

A more accurate statement is that everybody targets Jillery sooner or
later. One can only wonder why you haven't noticed.

[erik simpson]

Touché

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 6:27:07 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:57:10 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > > This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
> > > > > aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
> > > >
> > > > "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
> > > > this meaning of the term before?
> > >
> > > I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
> > > over 60 years.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, how long have you known the meaning of "wuss"?
> > I ask because I was called that on talk.abortion back before online
> > dictionaries were available, and I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
> >
> > The closest I could come was "wusun" [more commonly spelled "usun"]
> > in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

Actually "Wusun" is the accepted term now. "usun" doesn't give you
any good leads online, but you get lots of good online information
with "Wusun".

>
> You could look it up. Merriam-Webster isn't the best source for slang, but
> Google has no trouble.
>
> > You see, people in these newsgroups come from very different
> > subcultures, and naturally consider others "clueless" when
> > they aren't *au fait* with the jargon of their subculture.
> > So it was when I reported back on what I had found.
> >
> > But that's another story.
> >
>
> Just let it go.

Are you thinking I'm miffed at those jerks? They only made fools
of themselves, as you would know if I told you the story. But you
obviously aren't interested, so I won't tell it here.

<snip>

> > > Anyway, now that Bill has proudly proclaimed his potheadedness,
> > > you have another target.
> >
> > Which I will use just as judiciously as I did jillery's "revelation."
> > For instance, as an excuse for finally replying to something I let slide
> > a long time ago. You forgot all about that, didn't you?
>
> No idea what you're talking about here.

Just scroll back up to the first post in half a year, by me, that
rekindled this tempest in a teapot. I announce my reason right at
the beginning. Faulty ones, as it turns out, but perfectly in line
with what I knew at the time.

> > > Your exchanges with jillery aren't any
> > > more edifying than deadrat's.
> >
> > Nor is your exchange with me on this thread. Can you say "pot...kettle..."?
> >
> > The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
> > ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
> > a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...
> >
> > ...or do you? Do you make an exception when her target is your
> > buddy, John Harshman?

You ducked this question. No surprise there.

> I definitely don't give a rat's ass about your problems with jillery. As I
> already said, I probably shouldn't have said anything. Everyone is jillery's
> target sooner or later, haven't you noticed?

Usually not to the same extent Harshman and deadrat and Maycock have been.
And I belong to a completely different dimension of targeting, with me
dealing in morality and jillery dealing in lip service to morality.
Her tiffs with those three fellow atheists of hers are essentially amoral.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 6:27:07 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:57:10 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > <...>

> <...>

> > > The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
> > > ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
> > > a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...
> > >
> > > ...or do you? Do you make an exception when her target is your
> > > buddy, John Harshman?
>
> You ducked this question. No surprise there.
>

I've been snapped at by jillery on a number of occaisions where I hadn't
intended offence. I generally try to stay clear of that kind of exchange.
John Harshman can take care of himself without any 'assistance' from me.

[jillery]

I regret that you feel I ever snapped at you. It probably makes no
difference to you, but whatever it is I said that you recall, I did in
direct reply to comments you made. Whether you intended offense or
not isn't important to me. What matters to me is your criticism of my
posts, while leaving uncommented those to whom I reply that are
behaving similarly.

Take this immediate case as an example. Read his post if you can
stomach it. He yammers on and on about the bullshit I heaped on him,
but nobody knows what he's talking about. And you fell for it. While
you explicitly volunteer unspecified old wounds, you leave unremarked
his obvious and shameless lies. That's not "staying clear". That's
being part of the problem.

I can't do anything about how you choose to react to my replies, but
when you post replies like that, I will reply like this, and I make no
apologies for doing so.

[jillery]

Nobody but you thinks what they call you in other newsgroups is
relevant here.

><snip>
>
>> > > Anyway, now that Bill has proudly proclaimed his potheadedness,
>> > > you have another target.
>> >
>> > Which I will use just as judiciously as I did jillery's "revelation."
>> > For instance, as an excuse for finally replying to something I let slide
>> > a long time ago. You forgot all about that, didn't you?
>>
>> No idea what you're talking about here.
>
>Just scroll back up to the first post in half a year, by me, that
>rekindled this tempest in a teapot. I announce my reason right at
>the beginning. Faulty ones, as it turns out, but perfectly in line
>with what I knew at the time.

Nobody knows what you're talking about here. It's almost certain it
has the most tenuous connection with reality.

>> > > Your exchanges with jillery aren't any
>> > > more edifying than deadrat's.
>> >
>> > Nor is your exchange with me on this thread. Can you say "pot...kettle..."?
>> >
>> > The difference is, you are stuck on one detail and don't give a rat's
>> > ass about the bullshit jillery heaped on me--because you don't give
>> > a rat's ass as to whether her personal attacks are true or false...
>> >
>> > ...or do you? Do you make an exception when her target is your
>> > buddy, John Harshman?
>
>You ducked this question. No surprise there.

You just can't stop throwing mud at anybody and anything, but then,

that's what you do.

>> I definitely don't give a rat's ass about your problems with jillery. As I
>> already said, I probably shouldn't have said anything. Everyone is jillery's
>> target sooner or later, haven't you noticed?
>
>Usually not to the same extent Harshman and deadrat and Maycock have been.
>And I belong to a completely different dimension of targeting, with me
>dealing in morality and jillery dealing in lip service to morality.
>Her tiffs with those three fellow atheists of hers are essentially amoral.

Your hypocrisy and cowardice practically drip off the screen. You
know you can't win by posting at me, so you resort to posting about
me. You don't care how dirty you get, just as long as you can throw
mud. One can only wonder why any rational person treats you with any
respect.

And I note you didn't disclose your employer, so I know that you know
you're just trolling.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/23/15 7:41 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 6:27:07 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:57:10 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>> This is none of my business, so I probably shouldn't butt in, but are you
>>>>>> aware of the meaning of "much grass"? Think Spanish.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Grass" is somewhat removed from "gracias." Where have you encountered
>>>>> this meaning of the term before?
>>>>
>>>> I've known of the expression probably since 7th grade, which means in my case
>>>> over 60 years.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, how long have you known the meaning of "wuss"?
>>> I ask because I was called that on talk.abortion back before online
>>> dictionaries were available, and I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
>>>
>>> The closest I could come was "wusun" [more commonly spelled "usun"]
>>> in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
>
> Actually "Wusun" is the accepted term now. "usun" doesn't give you
> any good leads online, but you get lots of good online information
> with "Wusun".

A great resource worth acquainting oneself with is the Online Etymology
Dictionary, www.etymonline.com. It says of "wuss":

1982, abbreviated from wussy.
Mike Damone: You are a wuss: part wimp, and part pussy
["Fast Times at Ridgemont High" script, 1982]

and of "wussy":

1960s, probably an alteration of pussy (n.2). DAS suggests shortened
from hypothetical pussy-wussy, reduplicated form of pussy (n.1).

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Peter Nyikos]

Which one? Not my Sep 21 post which was the first post to this thread
in 6 months, that's for sure.

> if you can
> stomach it. He yammers on and on about the bullshit I heaped on him,
> but nobody knows what he's talking about.

Stop pretending to speak for anyone but yourself. YOU might not
have known what I was talking about when you wrote this last bit,
because in your reply to that Sep 21 post,
you snipped almost everything. And now you can't be bothered with
reading it for what may be the first time.

It's been obvious since early in 2011: objective truth about people
is not what you are about in this newsgroup. Tidbits of science
and scoring with middle-school-level (and occasionally adult-level)
repartee is where it is at for you.

> And you fell for it. While
> you explicitly volunteer unspecified old wounds, you leave unremarked
> his obvious and shameless lies.

There were none, and you of course give no hint as to what
you are referring to.

Unlike you, Erik left my original post intact as far as I can see,
but he obviously didn't bother to read it because
he even didn't know what I was referring to when I said
I used your "Much grass" and my (faulty, but appropriate to what
I knew at the time) perception of it as an excuse for replying to a post to
which I hadn't previously replied.

And you snipped my replies to your bullshit in that post, counting on
a broken record routine of denial and taunts about "bellybutton"
to cope with the replies that you snipped.

>That's not "staying clear". That's
> being part of the problem.
>
> I can't do anything about how you choose to react to my replies, but
> when you post replies like that, I will reply like this, and I make no
> apologies for doing so.

Very much the amoral tiff you are trying to have with Erik here. But unlike
deadrat, Maycock, and even Harshman, Erik doesn't seem to be going
for the bait.

Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

I suspect that it's coincidence, but apparently wus (one s) is a familar
form of address in South Walian English, derived from a Welsh word
meaning servant.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


Thank your for posting your meaningless, noisy and irrelevant
opinions. Considering they are from a mind that decided it's clever
to spam multiple threads that I'm a pot smoker, and clearly has only a
tenuous connection to reality, you can rest assured that I gave your
opinions more attention than they deserved.

[Steady Eddie]

What would we do for drama without you, Jill?

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:38:03 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 September 2015 15:57:03 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank your for posting your meaningless, noisy and irrelevant
>> opinions. Considering they are from a mind that decided it's clever
>> to spam multiple threads that I'm a pot smoker, and clearly has only a
>> tenuous connection to reality, you can rest assured that I gave your
>> opinions more attention than they deserved.
>

>What would we do for drama without you, Jill?

Well, there's always assholes like you and rockhead. If drama really
bothers you all that much, then deal with those sources.

[Peter Nyikos]

You do make occasional unprovoked attacks on me, though. The worst was
when I quoted something Meyer said on a purely scientific matter regarding systematics, where Meyer was just reporting on some conversations he
had had with systematists who have no more trouble with evolution
than you or John or I have.

But I don't think you want to revive that old attack, so I'm not
holding it against you any more and will only recall the details
if you ask me.

> John Harshman can take care of himself without any 'assistance' from me.

But you provide him with lots of assistance, anyway. Off topic as well
as on topic. That attack from a year ago fit right in with one of John's
agendas, for instance.

To be fair, you did tell Ruben Safir, when he got miffed at something
John said to him in sci.bio.paleontology, not to be concerned about
occasional abrasive comments by John, who just has that kind of
personality.

Also to be fair: you occasionally provide me with assistance in purely
on-topic matters, like when John couldn't answer a question of mine about
Precambrian Lagerstaette and you helped me out with a reference.

And, like I said on another thread to Pete K. last night: the three of us
have an agreement to treat s.b.p. as a kind of "embassy" where
we lay aside our personal differences, and that has worked
out very well, and I hope we keep things that way over there.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:57:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> Thank your for posting your meaningless, noisy and irrelevant
> opinions.

The last refuge of your kind of scoundrel is to snip valid
criticisms which they cannot counter, and label them "opinions."

The pattern was set no later than 2011, when I caught you
in documentable slander: you made false accusations about me
that were refuted by text that you had left in your post.

And, just to show people what criticisms you are running away
from, I'm reposting them below. Note especially the alleged
lies which you talked about to Erik, whose identity you
never hinted at. You are powerless to meet the challenge
I gave you, aren't you?

________________repost_________________________________

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 2:07:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:10:39 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson

- hide quoted text -

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

> Considering they are from a mind that decided it's clever
> to spam multiple threads that I'm a pot smoker, and clearly has only a
> tenuous connection to reality,

Dishonest as ever, pretending that I HAD to know that
"Much grass." was pidgin Spanish. And that you hadn't played
coy in all those threads, and hadn't waited
until Erik Simpson did you a huge favor by assuming
it HAD to mean that.

And "gratitude" is an alien concept to you,
who then tried to stir up a tempest in a teapot
with Erik himself. See above repost.

> you can rest assured that I gave your
> opinions more attention than they deserved.

Dishonest and insincere to the end. A tiger could as easily change
its stripes as you could clean up your act.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

If you can control yourself over there, one can only wonder why you
don't control yourself over here.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:57:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank your for posting your meaningless, noisy and irrelevant
>> opinions.
>
>The last refuge of your kind of scoundrel is to snip valid
>criticisms which they cannot counter, and label them "opinions."

Actually the last refuge of actual scoundrels is to inject irrelevant
noise and personal attacks into topics, and label it "valid
criticisms".

By the way, alt.abortion called. They want their village idiot back.
You should spend more time over there.