This group can't die because it never lived

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

As long as I can remember, this is a place were
Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
YECs.

It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...

I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
"Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
despite everything from the physical evidence to
common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
death.

NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
group, not even at it's height.

> Is there anywhere left to discuss actual hominid evolution?

No.

But to be honest, there never was such a place.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167649669623

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>YECs.
>
>It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...
>
>I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
>GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
>"Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
>despite everything from the physical evidence to
>common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
>quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
>interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
>discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
>ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
>death.
>
>NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
>group, not even at it's height.

It's nice that you have a fantasy memory, one to comfort you in your
dotage.


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> It's nice that you have a fantasy memory, one

It's nice the way you performed a simple even
rudimentary search on the Google archive before
hitting reply, because the truth means just so
gosh darn much to you and...

Oops. Never mind.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167688516633

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:03:32 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> It's nice that you have a fantasy memory, one
>
>It's nice the way you performed a simple even
>rudimentary search on the Google archive before
>hitting reply, because the truth means just so
>gosh darn much to you and...
>
>Oops. Never mind.

Don't feel bad. Lots of people invent alternate facts. Who knows, you
might become President someday.

[Sean Dillon]

And yet you keep posting here...

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> And yet you keep posting here...

Life would be so much easier for you if it was
just you and some obvious religious trolling.

...so much easier to convince yourself that
you're not an idiot.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167688516633

[Sean Dillon]

This isn't about me, JTEM, it is about you. If you think the place is so worthless, don't let the door hitcha where there good lord splitcha. I promise not to miss you too much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:46:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>>Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>>they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>>YECs.
>>
>>It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...
>>
>>I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
>>GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
>>"Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
>>despite everything from the physical evidence to
>>common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
>>quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
>>interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
>>discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
>>ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
>>death.
>>
>>NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
>>group, not even at it's height.
>
>
>It's nice that you have a fantasy memory, one to comfort you in your
>dotage.

You mean at the current time?
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:24:57 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

Is there a "compulsive masochism" entry in the latest DSM?

[Sean Dillon]

Only if he gets off on it sexually, which... I mean, it wouldn't shock me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:55:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:46:18 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>>>Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>>>they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>>>YECs.
>>>
>>>It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...
>>>
>>>I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
>>>GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
>>>"Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
>>>despite everything from the physical evidence to
>>>common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
>>>quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
>>>interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
>>>discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
>>>ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
>>>death.
>>>
>>>NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
>>>group, not even at it's height.
>>
>>
>>It's nice that you have a fantasy memory, one to comfort you in your
>>dotage.
>
>You mean at the current time?

You noticed that too.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> You mean at the current time?

Honestly; imagine someone is a free thinker, an
open minded individual. Imagine someone is exactly
the type of person you pretend to be -- fact driven,
empirical. Such a person already Googled it, they
saw what a fucking idiot you are (not to mention
lazy, not to mention so self loathing that you never
even cared enough about yourself to check on a
fact BEFORE emphatically denying it). They see you
as I see you.

Do you really only want to be respected by emotionally
unstable idiots?

Change. Change if you can. Change quickly. It may
already be too late, who knows? But, it's the only
shot you've got.

Good luck with that.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167649669623

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> This isn't about me, JTEM, it is about you. If you think the place is so worthless

It kind of is about you. It's about the scientific
mantle being taken up by emotional basket cases
whose lack knowledge is surpassed only by their
intellectual curiosity.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167649669623

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

HINT: If the punched missed you wouldn't keep
crying "Ouch!"

Sean Dillon wrote:
> Only if he gets off on it sexually, which...

And here I thought you were an emotionally retarded
idiot who hides his lack of understanding behind
emotional splatters...

Seems I was right.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167649669623

[Sean Dillon]

JTEM, I love you. That's not just wordplay, I really do. Whatever pain you're working out, I hope you work it out.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> JTEM, I love you.

Duh. Even I sometimes catch myself wishing that
I could be me...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167713895137

[jillery]

No, you can't have his Bud Light.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob, you have been “bested” by the likes of jonathan and JTEM. How are you
able to sleep at night. It must be intimidating to be on the radar of such
self-styled geniuses.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:22:31 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Yeah, and The Good DrDr, too; the "Imbecilic Triumvirate" as
it were, and one could even add a couple of other "pot,
kettle, black" candidates. I'm amazed that I can still carry
on...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:11:48 -0500, the following appeared

Yep, although "dotage" may be incorrect; he/she/it could be
a recent gradeschool dropout, and younger than my
granddaughter.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:35:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Now you done insulted decent gradeschool dropouts everywhere.

[northe...@outlook.com]

As a relative newcomer here, perhaps you could assist me with the parameters of that simple Google search. For example, what name did you post under then? When were these posts made, as in which year? You didn't specify. What where the name or names of the thread or threads involved? It would seem to me to be just a little difficult to create a valid search using just the data currently available. No doubt a true genius, such as yourself, can do it, but us merely normal mortals can't. Could you provide some assistance? Thanks so much in advance.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:15:48 -0500, the following appeared

Oh, damn...

In my defense, I didn't claim he/she/it is a *typical*
gradeschool dropout...

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

> As a relative newcomer here

I don't believe you.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167887961888

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

I invite anyone REAL to go through this
thread, I want people to read it! I
want everyone to witness for themselves
the emotional spasms that the troll
suffers whenever it isn't in control...

THAT is what usenet is about, and always
has been.

Nobody ever needed moderators or killfiles
to post. You only need those things to
STOP people from posting. And that is the
secret of usenet. It's not been about the
conversation-free-for-all, it has always
been about the control...

"I HAVE KILLFILED YOU! I AM POWERFUL!"




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167887961888



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167887961888

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[snip]

Have you ever read up on narcissists,
sociopaths & psychopaths? Because you
match perfectly. In this example is
your inability to cope with a conversation
NOT about yourself. You must IMMEDIATELY
try to shut down or hijack the conversation,
get it off topic. You have displayed this
trait countless times.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167887961888

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:23:54 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I invite anyone REAL to go through this
>thread, I want people to read it! I
>want everyone to witness for themselves
>the emotional spasms that the troll
>suffers whenever it isn't in control...

Your behavior proves your own words above.

>THAT is what usenet is about, and always
>has been.
>
>Nobody ever needed moderators or killfiles
>to post. You only need those things to
>STOP people from posting. And that is the
>secret of usenet. It's not been about the
>conversation-free-for-all, it has always
>been about the control...
>
> "I HAVE KILLFILED YOU! I AM POWERFUL!"

Killfiles don't stop people from posting. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:20:30 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>Have you ever read up on narcissists,
>sociopaths & psychopaths? Because you
>match perfectly. In this example is
>your inability to cope with a conversation
>NOT about yourself. You must IMMEDIATELY
>try to shut down or hijack the conversation,
>get it off topic. You have displayed this
>trait countless times.

You're describing your image in a mirror.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

So how long do you thing I've been reading this group? And why do you think so? And who do you think I posted as before? And why can't you give some idea as to how to construct that simple Google search?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:20:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by The Incredibly Lucky
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

Nothing to say? OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:23:54 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by The Incredibly Lucky
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>:

>I invite

I decline.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> As long as I can remember, this is a place were
> Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
> they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
> YECs.
>
> It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...
>
> I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
> GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
> "Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
> despite everything from the physical evidence to
> common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
> quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
> interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
> discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
> ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
> death.
>
> NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
> group, not even at it's height.

I must have stopped coming here by the time you started posting about neanderthal introgression, because I used to argue the same thing.
We've had plenty of discussions on the paleoanthropology forums about neanderthals.

I applaud your ability to see through the dogma back then. I also applaud your realization that both chimps and humans evolved from australopithecines (whether you want to call them "homo sapiens" or not).

This is another thing that's "written on the wall," though few seem able to read it.

I disagree that this group never lived, though. It has lived as a prime example of homo sapien barbarism, from the 20th to the 21st century. It's absolutely notorious. When I try to explain usenet to some people, they don't know what the hell I'm talking about until I meantion Talk.Origins.

Oh, they've heard of that. It's where academians exchange hatred and vitriol with nutjobs. it's where the educated pick on the uneducated. It's where equally religious fanatics argue about two subjects which have little or nothing to do with one another.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

> So how

Grow up.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167910890822

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> You're describing

Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
your last three none (f)Laming posts that
are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
and paste the URLs here.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167910890822

[jillery]

So you're here to join the nutjobs. There's something of an
oversupply, but I suppose there's always room for more.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:11:17 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>
>> So how
>
>Grow up.

<PING> Dang it!

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I see that you again decline to show me where I can find your old posts on this subject. This leads me to suspect that these posts do not exist. Unless and until you see fit to provide at least the bare minimum pointer, I'll just drop the subject. Thank you.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

he declines to give me any pointers to where I might find more about this subject. Perhaps you can point me to where I can find some of your old posts?

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>and paste the URLs here.

Here's your OP:

<0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>

Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
> >and paste the URLs here.
>
>
> Here's your OP:
>
> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>

\

This forum was never really about human origins. It was created to host debates between evolutionists and creationists. It has never been anything more. If you're interested in human origins, we have a forum called "paleoanthropology" on usenet and another on reddit.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > Sean Dillon wrote:
> >
> > > And yet you keep posting here...
> >
> > Life would be so much easier for you if it was
> > just you and some obvious religious trolling.
> >
> > ...so much easier to convince yourself that
> > you're not an idiot.
> >
> > -- --
> >
> > http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167688516633
>
> This isn't about me, JTEM, it is about you.

Sorry, Sean: when you criticize someone, the topic can
also involve you.


> If you think the place is so worthless, don't let the door hitcha
> where there good lord splitcha. I promise not to miss you too much.

You would like it if I also left talk.origins, wouldn't you?


That way, you would no longer have to compromise your integrity
by repeatedly telling me that "the only one you are hurting is yourself"
when I persist in demonstrating jillery's dishonesty...

...and then refusing to explain the reasoning behind this taunt
when I try to make sense of it.


And you would no longer have to compromise your integrity in
re the Charlottesville confrontation, the way Mitt Romney
compromised his integrity with his impassioned plea to Trump to
state unequivocally that the violence was 100% the fault
of the Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists.


I could go on like this, but I think you get the message.


Peter Nyikos

[J.LyonLayden]

Nope you'll have to look elsewhere for an ally I'm afraid.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
> >and paste the URLs here.
>
>
> Here's your OP:
>
> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.

The explanation is in the very words of the sentence. Are you ashamed to fulfill his request?

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:01:55 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>> >and paste the URLs here.
>>
>>
>> Here's your OP:
>>
>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>>
>\
>
>This forum was never really about human origins. It was created to host debates between evolutionists and creationists. It has never been anything more. If you're interested in human origins, we have a forum called "paleoanthropology" on usenet and another on reddit.

Good of you to remind your "old friend" about that. Perhaps now the
both of you will stop asking about it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:

> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > As long as I can remember, this is a place were
> > Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
> > they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
> > YECs.

Here's a bit of trivia about Harshman, another favorite target
of JTEM's attacks.

In sci.bio.paleontology, I needled Harshman's insistence on
saying "birds are dinosaurs" and eschewing "birds are descended
from dinosaurs." I said that if he and his fellow cladophiles
had their way, future generations of savvy kids would smile
at "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" saying in a movie of the same name,
"Now, more than ever, I wish I were a fish."

While less knowledgeable children would just be bewildered, the savvy
ones would smile because they would "know" that Mr. Limpet was
already a fish, and was merely wishing to become a different kind of fish.

Harshman is almost completely satire-proof, so he said he
was looking forward to that day.

At this, I mused at the possibilit that Harshman had Asperger's, and
he astounded me by saying that his own wife frequently accuses
him of having Aspergers.

My reaction went: "This one admission has raised my estimation
of you more than months of back and forth. Henceforth, anyone
who calls you a coward will be answerable to me."

Harshman, who cannot bear not to be in control of any situation he
is in, rebuffed the compliment by saying the admission had not
required any courage at all.

> > It's always been that way. Going back YEARS...
> >
> > I personally argued against the group -- THE WHOLE
> > GROUP -- staying that Neanderthals & so called
> > "Moderns" interbred. Not one person agreed with me,
> > despite everything from the physical evidence to
> > common sense SCREAMING that I had to be right. People
> > quoted headlines from mtDNA studies saying that
> > interbreeding never happened, and all attempts to
> > discuss the underlying science AND THE UNDERLYING
> > ASSUMPTIONS died a horrible, rude, dogmatic (f)Lamewar
> > death.
> >
> > NEVER has anyone engaged in real discussion in this
> > group, not even at it's height.
>
>
> I must have stopped coming here by the time you started posting about neanderthal introgression, because I used to argue the same thing.
> We've had plenty of discussions on the paleoanthropology forums about neanderthals.
>
> I applaud your ability to see through the dogma back then. I also applaud your realization that both chimps and humans evolved from australopithecines (whether you want to call them "homo sapiens" or not).

You are needlessly sticking your neck out here, J.Lyon. It is true that
the fossil evidence suggests this, due to the complete absence of
KNOWN chimp fossils apart from one Pleistocene tooth. But you have
to remember that chimps are primarily forest dwellers, and fossils
in forests -- other than in stream beds -- are very hard to come by.

> This is another thing that's "written on the wall," though few seem able to read it.
>
> I disagree that this group never lived, though. It has lived as a prime example of homo sapien barbarism, from the 20th to the 21st century. It's absolutely notorious. When I try to explain usenet to some people, they don't know what the hell I'm talking about until I meantion Talk.Origins.

Even worse: the abortion Usenet groups. Although talk.origins is now
roughly at the same stage they were in back in 1996; now they are
essentially defunct.

> Oh, they've heard of that. It's where academians exchange hatred and vitriol with nutjobs. it's where the educated pick on the uneducated. It's where equally religious fanatics argue about two subjects which have little or nothing to do with one another.

It's also a place where I [1] have tirelessly fought for truth and justice [2]
as I also did in the abortion groups. Only a few people ever support me,
and that rarely. Glenn and Kalkidas are among them, but even Glenn only
went out of the way to support me once [IIRC] against someone, despite my
going several times out of my way to support Glenn.

[1] I am just as convinced of the truth of common descent as anyone
here, and fight creationism [as well as a highly dishonest creationist,
Ray Martinez] more knowledgeably than all but a handful -- you can count
them on the fingers of one hand -- of my fellow "evolutionists". So
I don't fit into any of the molds you've mentioned.

[2] jillery sneeringly adds "and the American Way" despite there being
no such thing any more, if there ever was. I've told her so, but
she is too much in love with the formula to stop.

And she thereby inadvertently reveals how little either truth or justice
mean to her.

> > > Is there anywhere left to discuss actual hominid evolution?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > But to be honest, there never was such a place.

I still do my best at it here, and try not to go out on any limbs. The
truth is fascinating enough as it is.

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

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:42:11 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

>You would like it if I also left talk.origins, wouldn't you?
>
>
>That way, you would no longer have to compromise your integrity
>by repeatedly telling me that "the only one you are hurting is yourself"
>when I persist in demonstrating jillery's dishonesty...

Only in your wet dreams. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>> >and paste the URLs here.
>>
>>
>> Here's your OP:
>>
>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>
>The explanation is in the very words of the sentence.

Argument by innuendo is unscientific. Back up your bald assertions or
back off.

>Are you ashamed to fulfill his request?

Are you ashamed to fulfill my request?

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

>It's also a place where I [1] have tirelessly fought for truth and justice[2]

Only in your wet dreams.

>[1] I am just as convinced of the truth of common descent as anyone
>here, and fight creationism [as well as a highly dishonest creationist,
>Ray Martinez] more knowledgeably than all but a handful -- you can count
>them on the fingers of one hand -- of my fellow "evolutionists". So
>I don't fit into any of the molds you've mentioned.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

>[2] jillery sneeringly adds "and the American Way" despite there being
>no such thing any more, if there ever was. I've told her so, but
>she is too much in love with the formula to stop.
>
>And she thereby inadvertently reveals how little either truth or justice
>mean to her.

Your feigned mindreading notwithstanding, your willful ignorance of
American culture continues to keep you from posting intelligent
comments about it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 01:13:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>>your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>>are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>>and paste the URLs here.
>
>
>Here's your OP:
>
><0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>
>Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.

Nothing there about origins I can see; just a bunch of
self-serving crap about en famille hanky-panky, H.sap. sap.
and H. sap. neanderthalensis "behind the barn", as it
were...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:01:55 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>> >and paste the URLs here.
>>
>>
>> Here's your OP:
>>
>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>>
>\
>
>This forum was never really about human origins. It was created to host debates between evolutionists and creationists.

....neither of which, of course, has anything to do with
human origins. Uh-huh...

Do you even read what you write?

>It has never been anything more.

Nope, although sometimes misposted crap, such as politics,
war and lame poetry, sneaks in. But since it was never
intended to be more than a "dumping ground" to keep the
Creationists from annoying the adults in the serious science
groups, that's not a problem; the opposite, in fact.

> If you're interested in human origins, we have a forum called "paleoanthropology" on usenet and another on reddit.

Who's "we"? Are you a paleoanthropologist? Or *any* sort of
science professional? If not, your place, God help us, is
here.

[J.LyonLayden]

I'd like to bump Peter's post since Jillery and Bob had nothing constructive to say and there's no need to reply to either of their comments.

An aside: Hey, Jill and Bob—You guys sounded reasonably smart and condescending so maybe a few people doubted my remarks because of your well-thought-out objections. Congrats. No real reason for me to reply, though, as most can see through your automatic objections. You both come across as very proud of yourselves.

Feel free to reply again after the adults have spoken.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-5, jillery,
like the proverbial dog, returned to her vomit for the 100+mth time,
in her rewriting of the attribution line to me:

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:42:11 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

The following addition to the vomit is repeated for the 100+m-kth time,
where k is a positive integer but could be as small as 1 AFAIK.

> Is anybody surprised.

Jillery is oblivious to the self-irony to be found in "repetitive" in
her vomit: m is an unknown positive integer-- I haven't been keeping
count, but may start if jillery starts returning to her vomit less frequently.

The following was addressed to Sean Dillon, but jillery is shielding
him from the eyes of those who read her posts but not mine, having
deleted the attribution line to Sean:

> >You would like it if I also left talk.origins, wouldn't you?
> >
> >
> >That way, you would no longer have to compromise your integrity
> >by repeatedly telling me that "the only one you are hurting is yourself"
> >when I persist in demonstrating jillery's dishonesty...
>
>
> Only in your wet dreams.

If you think this juvenile vulgarism is enough to gross me out,
you are incredibly naive.

You are also incredibly naive if you think this vulgarism, or your
Pee Wee Hermanism below, in any way addresses the truth of the
demonstration to which I am referring, or Sean Dillon's compromising
of his integrity in the wake of it.

> Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

You know damn well that you altered the order in which Martin Harran's
text occurred in a post, wrt what you had written, making it look like
he was inhabiting a universe different from the honorable universe
you had described. That was like the "third-rate burglary" in Watergate,
but your dishonest attempts at cover-up were what really showed how
dishonest you can be, just as Nixon's subsequent attempts at cover-up hurt
the Republican Party far more than the original burglary had.

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

I doubt that J.Lyon has any idea how hypocritical it is of you
to keep using this .sig. If he asks, I will tell him. I doubt that
any of the others here give a rat's ass about that, except maybe JTEM.

Casanova in particular... the two of you are like peas in a
pod, with Casanova having given you *carte blanche* [1] to indulge in
as many Pee Wee Hermanisms as your heart desires.

[1] The *carte blanche* is only from Casanova's POV, but if you
think he is a person who can be trifled with, you don't know much
about the dynamics of talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Strange that you should mention Bob Casanova here. I didn't mention
him in the post to which you are replying, but he certainly deserves
to be lumped together with jillery.


> An aside: Hey, Jill and Bob--You guys sounded reasonably smart and condescending

They do a good job arguing against the pathetic creationists who
post here, and also people like JTEM who do not put their best foot
forward; so their dishonesty and hypocrisy only come out when
they start making personal attacks on knowledgeable non-creationists
like myself.

> so maybe a few people doubted my remarks because of your well-thought-out objections. Congrats. No real reason for me to reply, though, as most can see through your automatic objections. You both come across as very proud of yourselves.

They also come across as being extremely proud of each other. I mentioned
one aspect of Casanova's pride in my one reply to jillery here so far.

Casanova's pride in jillery has been reciprocated by jillery twice in
succession, when she pinch hit for Bob in reply to two devastating comebacks
by myself to Bob. The first pinch hitting failed abysmally.

Bob evidently took courage from the fact that I haven't
demolished the second one yet, and posted one of the most hackneyed
comebacks ever concocted by Internet Scoundrels trying to cover a
complete evasion of numerous valid challenges.

I haven't replied to that one either, yet. But then, to closely
paraphrase a famous line,

The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

The original has "God" instead of justice, but jillery is a militant
atheist and Bob probably has no fear of any God of the sort the
original version speaks of. But both have to at least pay lip
service to justice.

> Feel free to reply again after the adults have spoken.

Jillery never waits that long. Without sticking her neck out,
she sort-of-implied that there IS such a thing as "The American Way."
But the USA has always been a hotbed of competing interests and values.

True, at one time there was a lot of talk of there being "the American
Way" because the public schools were reasonably uniform about the way
they treated history and civics.

But if THAT is the right criterion, then "the American Way" is now
in the hands of the mainstream media with their support of the LGBTQ
agenda and of Planned Parenthood and other allied forces, with the
public schools (and most universities) going along by and large.

And I never fought for THAT "American Way." As for that earllier American
way, it was already well on the way out before I turned 21, forcing
me to work out my own set of values and outlooks towards world events.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:48:22 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>An aside: Hey, Jill and Bob雄ou guys sounded reasonably smart and condescending so maybe a few people doubted my remarks because of your well-thought-out objections. Congrats. No real reason for me to reply, though, as most can see through your automatic objections. You both come across as very proud of yourselves.

>
>Feel free to reply again after the adults have spoken.

It's good that you and some of the other nutjob trolls on T.O. have
found each other. That speeds things up. But it's ironic how you
describe your group as adults.

Of course, nobody is obliged to reply to anybody. But most cowardly
liars have another bad habit of going out of their way to pointlessly
point out how they don't have to reply to me. Which is just fine with
me, assuming they actually don't reply to me, because then I wouldn't
have to waste my time noting their stupid lies about me.

Let's see how long it takes you to prove my point for me, by
continuing to talk about me as if you weren't replying to me.

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

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:02:28 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-5, jillery,
>like the proverbial dog, returned to her vomit for the 100+mth time,
>in her rewriting of the attribution line to me:

Your returning to your vomit disqualifies you from complaining about
the alleged same from me. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:42:11 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>The following addition to the vomit is repeated for the 100+m-kth time,
>where k is a positive integer but could be as small as 1 AFAIK.

So you admit you don't know everything. A small thing to be sure, but
a step in the right direction.

>> Is anybody surprised.
>
>Jillery is oblivious to the self-irony to be found in "repetitive" in
>her vomit: m is an unknown positive integer-- I haven't been keeping
>count, but may start if jillery starts returning to her vomit less frequently.

Of course, you're the only one who mentions it. Is anybody surprised.

>The following was addressed to Sean Dillon, but jillery is shielding
>him from the eyes of those who read her posts but not mine, having
>deleted the attribution line to Sean:

Why do you think I would protect one of your strange bedfellows?

>> >You would like it if I also left talk.origins, wouldn't you?
>> >
>> >
>> >That way, you would no longer have to compromise your integrity
>> >by repeatedly telling me that "the only one you are hurting is yourself"
>> >when I persist in demonstrating jillery's dishonesty...
>>
>>
>> Only in your wet dreams.
>
>If you think this juvenile vulgarism is enough to gross me out,
>you are incredibly naive.

Your juvenile vulgarisms disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged juvenile vulgarisms. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>You are also incredibly naive if you think this vulgarism, or your
>Pee Wee Hermanism below,

Your Pee Wee Hermanisms disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged Pee Wee Hermanisms. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>in any way addresses the truth of the
>demonstration to which I am referring, or Sean Dillon's compromising
>of his integrity in the wake of it.

I have zero interest in any demonstration to which you refer, as it's
entirely irrelevant to your posting of your Big Lie against me.

>> Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.
>
>You know damn well that you altered the order in which Martin Harran's
>text occurred in a post, wrt what you had written, making it look like
>he was inhabiting a universe different from the honorable universe
>you had described.

Of course, I know no such thing. To the contrary, I know damn well
you never showed the veracity or relevance of your asinine assertion.
That you repeat such arguments makes you sound like Birthers and
Flat-Earthers and IDiots and, worst of all, Directed Panspermists.

>That was like the "third-rate burglary" in Watergate,
>but your dishonest attempts at cover-up were what really showed how
>dishonest you can be, just as Nixon's subsequent attempts at cover-up hurt
>the Republican Party far more than the original burglary had.

Of course, I covered up nothing, dishonestly or otherwise. To the
contrary, it's your Big Lies which are dishonest evasions of dealing
with relevant issues.

>I doubt that J.Lyon has any idea how hypocritical it is of you
>to keep using this .sig. If he asks, I will tell him. I doubt that
>any of the others here give a rat's ass about that, except maybe JTEM.

Of course, J.Lyon is one of your strange bedfellows, those who are
more interested in mudslinging than relevant facts. It's one of the
many things they do to make T.O. a hellhole.

>Casanova in particular... the two of you are like peas in a
>pod, with Casanova having given you *carte blanche* [1] to indulge in
>as many Pee Wee Hermanisms as your heart desires.

Your Pee Wee Hermanisms disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged Pee Wee Hermanisms. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>[1] The *carte blanche* is only from Casanova's POV, but if you
>think he is a person who can be trifled with, you don't know much
>about the dynamics of talk.origins.

Of course, nobody, including Casanova, has any authority or power to
give carte blanche. You're just making stuff up because you know you
have nothing intelligent to say.

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

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:04:48 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

<cut to chase>

>> I'd like to bump Peter's post since Jillery and Bob had nothing constructive to say and there's no need to reply to either of their comments.
>
>Strange that you should mention Bob Casanova here. I didn't mention
>him in the post to which you are replying, but he certainly deserves
>to be lumped together with jillery.

It's no surprise that you think you control the conversation.

>> An aside: Hey, Jill and Bob--You guys sounded reasonably smart and condescending
>
>They do a good job arguing against the pathetic creationists who
>post here, and also people like JTEM who do not put their best foot
>forward; so their dishonesty and hypocrisy only come out when
>they start making personal attacks on knowledgeable non-creationists
>like myself.

Of course, dishonesty and hypocrisy are your modi operandi, so you're
just projecting again. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> so maybe a few people doubted my remarks because of your well-thought-out objections. Congrats. No real reason for me to reply, though, as most can see through your automatic objections. You both come across as very proud of yourselves.
>
>They also come across as being extremely proud of each other. I mentioned
>one aspect of Casanova's pride in my one reply to jillery here so far.
>
>Casanova's pride in jillery has been reciprocated by jillery twice in
>succession, when she pinch hit for Bob in reply to two devastating comebacks
>by myself to Bob. The first pinch hitting failed abysmally.

Only in your wet dreams.

> Bob evidently took courage from the fact that I haven't
>demolished the second one yet, and posted one of the most hackneyed
>comebacks ever concocted by Internet Scoundrels trying to cover a
>complete evasion of numerous valid challenges.

Here's another wad of wet dream spew. Your momma should change your
knappies.

>I haven't replied to that one either, yet. But then, to closely
>paraphrase a famous line,
>
> The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
>
>The original has "God" instead of justice, but jillery is a militant
>atheist and Bob probably has no fear of any God of the sort the
>original version speaks of. But both have to at least pay lip
>service to justice.

You couldn't recognize justice if you and it were put in a paper bag
together.

>> Feel free to reply again after the adults have spoken.
>
>Jillery never waits that long.

Of course, that you and your strange bedfellows call yourselves adults
is good evidence of Dunning-Kruger.

>Without sticking her neck out,
>she sort-of-implied that there IS such a thing as "The American Way."
>But the USA has always been a hotbed of competing interests and values.

So that could be "The American Way". In either case, your comments
show you're too clueless to understand the irony of you declaring
yourself defender of truth and justice.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:59 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
><joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>>> >and paste the URLs here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's your OP:
>>>
>>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>>
>>The explanation is in the very words of the sentence.
>
>
>Argument by innuendo is unscientific. Back up your bald assertions or
>back off.

No reply. That suggests you're a dishonest coward, but that would be
an insult to honest cowards everywhere.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:35:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:48:22 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >An aside: Hey, Jill and Bob雄ou guys sounded reasonably smart and condescending so maybe a few people doubted my remarks because of your well-thought-out objections. Congrats. No real reason for me to reply, though, as most can see through your automatic objections. You both come across as very proud of yourselves.
> >
> >Feel free to reply again after the adults have spoken.
>
>
> It's good that you and some of the other nutjob trolls on T.O. have
> found each other. That speeds things up. But it's ironic how you
> describe your group as adults.
>
> Of course, nobody is obliged to reply to anybody. But most cowardly
> liars have another bad habit of going out of their way to pointlessly
> point out how they don't have to reply to me. Which is just fine with
> me, assuming they actually don't reply to me, because then I wouldn't
> have to waste my time noting their stupid lies about me.
>
> Let's see how long it takes you to prove my point for me, by
> continuing to talk about me as if you weren't replying to me.

Hi Jill. What would you like to talk about? Just so you know, I don't apply cowardice or bravery to anything people do on the internet so I'm unaffected by your point.

I don't mind talking to you and I won't feel bad about referring to you in the group discussion either.

I did not see anything you said as a prompt to reply or answer. I saw your commentary as a lame attempt at wit. Your comments were neither questions nor challenges.

Perhaps you saw something else in your ongoing commentary?

If you have a burning question or an actual refutation of something I've said, please reiterate it for me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:03:22 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Jill. What would you like to talk about?

Since you asked, back up your bald assertions about me, or retract
them as explicitly as you made them. You're welcome.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:59 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> ><joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
> >>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
> >>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
> >>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
> >>> >and paste the URLs here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here's your OP:
> >>>
> >>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>
> >>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
> >>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
> >>
> >>The explanation is in the very words of the sentence.
> >
> >
> >Argument by innuendo is unscientific. Back up your bald assertions or
> >back off.
>
>
> No reply. That suggests you're a dishonest coward, but that would be
> an insult to honest cowards everywhere.

Ha! Well that's fucking easy, Jill.

Let me explain the context in which the men were speaking.

JTEM said to Bob:

"Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up your last three none (f)Laming posts that are also on the topic of human origins. Copy and paste the URLs here."

Your boyfriend Bob replied:

"Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words."

Darling Jill. Do you really wish for me to explain to you what three posts about human origins have to do with human origins?

Is my present lack of innuendo scientifically sufficient for you?

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:13:22 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

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

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:59 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> ><joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> >>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>> >>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>> >>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>> >>> >and paste the URLs here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here's your OP:
>> >>>
>> >>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>> >>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>> >>
>> >>The explanation is in the very words of the sentence.
>> >
>> >
>> >Argument by innuendo is unscientific. Back up your bald assertions or
>> >back off.
>>
>>
>> No reply. That suggests you're a dishonest coward, but that would be
>> an insult to honest cowards everywhere.
>
>Ha! Well that's fucking easy, Jill.
>
>Let me explain the context in which the men were speaking.

My impression is your definition of "men" is as self-serving as your
definition of "adults".


>JTEM said to Bob:


BZZT! TIBAMJTEM said the following comments to me, not Bob. I know
it can be tricky to follow, because your old friend has a habit of
deleting context, but still, it's not impossible, even for you.

>"Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up your last three none (f)Laming posts that are also on the topic of human origins. Copy and paste the URLs here."
>
>Your boyfriend Bob replied:

BZZT! The following comments are mine, not Bob's.

>"Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words."
>
>Darling Jill. Do you really wish for me to explain to you what three posts about human origins have to do with human origins?

BZZT! None of the posts you identify above are about human origins.
That they incidentally include the phrase "human origins" doesn't make
them about that, any more than it does my post here or your post to
which I replied.

>Is my present lack of innuendo scientifically sufficient for you?

Since you asked, not even close. What you have done above is show
that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Thank you
for again proving my point for me.

[J.LyonLayden]

Your opinion has been noted. Now go make me a sandwich.

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

When did you do this? For whom?

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:09:25 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

So not only do have no fucking clue what you're talking about, you're
proud of your willful stupidity. That's another thing you share with
your old friend.

>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
>
>When did you do this? For whom?

Do what?

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

[Öö Tiib]

Are you really asking when did she die by defending someones right to
tell nonsense, and who was that someone?

[J.LyonLayden]

No I'm asking when she has ever defended the free speech of someone she didn't agree with. I did not assume her love of the quote implied actual death or nonsense.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 28, Öö Tiib wrote
(in article<e2cdaf5c-7696-404f...@googlegroups.com>):

It’s possible that the ‘J’ in his name stands for ‘Jonathan’. In
which case anything is possible, so long as it’s stupid.

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:45:32 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's possible J.LyonLayden and jonathan and JTEM are all sock puppets
of a single "J" source, but I know of no evidence to support such
conjectures.

OTOH that J.LyonLayden's comment above is stupid is an arguable if
pedantic point.

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

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 7:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:45:32 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2017 Nov 28, Öö Tiib wrote
> >(in article<e2cdaf5c-7696-404f...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 07:10:02 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
> >> > > say it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > When did you do this? For whom?
> >>
> >> Are you really asking when did she die by defending someones right to
> >> tell nonsense, and who was that someone?
> >
> >It’s possible that the ‘J’ in his name stands for ‘Jonathan’. In
> >which case anything is possible, so long as it’s stupid.
>
>
> It's possible J.LyonLayden and jonathan and JTEM are all sock puppets
> of a single "J" source, but I know of no evidence to support such
> conjectures.
>
> OTOH that J.LyonLayden's comment above is stupid is an arguable if
> pedantic point.

Having a tag-line on your signature usually indicates that the quote means something to you. it usually means its a mantra in your personal belief system. You're the first person I've met who seems diametrically opposed to their own tag-line in every thought and action.

I would love to see a single case where you have defended someone you didn't agree with.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> > As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>> > Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>> > they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>> > YECs.
>
>Here's a bit of trivia about Harshman, another favorite target
>of JTEM's attacks.

Jesus H. Christ, Peter; grow up.

<snip trivia>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:13:22 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:59 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> ><joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>> >>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>> >>> >your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>> >>> >are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>> >>> >and paste the URLs here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here's your OP:
>> >>>
>> >>> <0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>> >>> origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>> >>
>> >>The explanation is in the very words of the sentence.
>> >
>> >
>> >Argument by innuendo is unscientific. Back up your bald assertions or
>> >back off.
>>
>>
>> No reply. That suggests you're a dishonest coward, but that would be
>> an insult to honest cowards everywhere.
>
>Ha! Well that's fucking easy, Jill.
>
>Let me explain the context in which the men were speaking.

Ooooh, it's a misogynist, it is, just like its butt-buddy
TIBOMJTEM! Color me unsurprised...

>JTEM said to Bob:
>
>"Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up your last three none (f)Laming posts that are also on the topic of human origins. Copy and paste the URLs here."
>
>Your boyfriend Bob replied:
>
>"Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words."

Wrong again; I wrote none of that. But feel free to continue
to make up shit.

>Darling Jill. Do you really wish for me to explain to you what three posts about human origins have to do with human origins?
>
>Is my present lack of innuendo scientifically sufficient for you?

Your inability to properly attribute comments is certainly
enough for me.

HANL

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:09:25 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

....as has your lack of acknowledgement of your errors noted
above; it's becoming clear why you have such admiration for
TIBAMJTEM.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:39 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

Apparently you think that one cannot defend the right of
another to speak while continuing to disagree with that
person. You are wrong.

You have every right to say whatever you wish; I have every
right to disagree, and even to point out the flaws in your
personality and ability to think so revealed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:21:32 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:45:32 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2017 Nov 28, Öö Tiib wrote
>>(in article<e2cdaf5c-7696-404f...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 07:10:02 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
>>> > > say it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > When did you do this? For whom?
>>>
>>> Are you really asking when did she die by defending someones right to
>>> tell nonsense, and who was that someone?
>>
>>It’s possible that the ‘J’ in his name stands for ‘Jonathan’. In
>>which case anything is possible, so long as it’s stupid.
>
>
>It's possible J.LyonLayden and jonathan and JTEM are all sock puppets
>of a single "J" source, but I know of no evidence to support such
>conjectures.
>
>OTOH that J.LyonLayden's comment above is stupid is an arguable if
>pedantic point.

IMHO it's either stupid (or ignorant) or disingenuous, since
anyone with even half a brain knows that defense of a right
has nothing to do with agreement.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:57:04 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

So you're another one who thinks defense of a right requires
agreement? Should I point that out as vacuous?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:12:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 01:13:54 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>
>>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Go onto the Google groups archive. Dig up
>>>your last three none (f)Laming posts that
>>>are also on the topic of human origins. Copy
>>>and paste the URLs here.
>>
>>
>>Here's your OP:
>>
>><0b029c01-52d1-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>Explain what your comment there have to do with the topic of human
>>origins. Don't hurt yourself tripping over your own words.
>

>Nothing there about origins I can see; just a bunch of
>self-serving crap about en famille hanky-panky, H.sap. sap.
>and H. sap. neanderthalensis "behind the barn", as it
>were...

Hey, JLL, is this what you were thinking of when you
misattributed jillery's remarks to me?

Just FYI, and so you'll know better in the future, count the
">"s in front of the text, and subtract one; that will allow
you to determine from the attributions who posted that
particular text.

HTH, and HAND.

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:44:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:21:32 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:45:32 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2017 Nov 28, Öö Tiib wrote
>>>(in article<e2cdaf5c-7696-404f...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 07:10:02 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>> > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
>>>> > > say it.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > When did you do this? For whom?
>>>>
>>>> Are you really asking when did she die by defending someones right to
>>>> tell nonsense, and who was that someone?
>>>
>>>It’s possible that the ‘J’ in his name stands for ‘Jonathan’. In
>>>which case anything is possible, so long as it’s stupid.
>>
>>
>>It's possible J.LyonLayden and jonathan and JTEM are all sock puppets
>>of a single "J" source, but I know of no evidence to support such
>>conjectures.
>>
>>OTOH that J.LyonLayden's comment above is stupid is an arguable if
>>pedantic point.
>
>IMHO it's either stupid (or ignorant) or disingenuous, since
>anyone with even half a brain knows that defense of a right
>has nothing to do with agreement.

It must be another one of his attempts at "humor".

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

[jillery]

Sure you would, if only another excuse to post more of your adolescent
"humor".

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:28:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> > As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>>> > Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>>> > they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>>> > YECs.
>>
>>Here's a bit of trivia about Harshman, another favorite target
>>of JTEM's attacks.
>
>Jesus H. Christ, Peter; grow up.
>
><snip trivia>

Given the possibility of that, you might as well request a perpetual
motion machine.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 28, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<flar1dhuc3bd3nfan...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky
> > > JTEM wrote:
> > > > As long as I can remember, this is a place were
> > > > Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
> > > > they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
> > > > YECs.
> >
> > Here's a bit of trivia about Harshman, another favorite target
> > of JTEM's attacks.
>
> Jesus H. Christ, Peter; grow up.

that’ll never happen.
>
>
> <snip trivia>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:01:12 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:28:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>>On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>> > As long as I can remember, this is a place were
>>>> > Asperger's victims dogmatically parrot the things
>>>> > they learned in the 4th grade, in response to
>>>> > YECs.
>>>
>>>Here's a bit of trivia about Harshman, another favorite target
>>>of JTEM's attacks.
>>
>>Jesus H. Christ, Peter; grow up.
>>
>><snip trivia>
>
>
>Given the possibility of that, you might as well request a perpetual
>motion machine.

Well, since with his Usenet connection we apparently already
have one...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:59:02 -0500, the following appeared

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

Since he insists on conflating "defend the person's
assertions" with "defend the right of the person to make
assertions" I suspect this discussion will go nowhere
useful.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:57:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:

Seems so; a pity.

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:18:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

>>Sure you would, if only [as] another excuse to post more of your adolescent

>>"humor".
>
>Since he insists on conflating "defend the person's
>assertions" with "defend the right of the person to make
>assertions" I suspect this discussion will go nowhere
>useful.

So far, this thread doesn't even qualify as a discussion. And as long
as JLyin thinks it's ok to make asinine insults and evade questions
about comments he makes, no thread he's involved in will go anywhere.

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

[J.LyonLayden]

By all means carry on. I will try to refrain from commenting on this thread anymore. I've said what I wanted about the state of this forum.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:50:11 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

So you agree with my comment noting that "defending the
person's assertions" and "defending the right of the person
to make assertions" are not equivalent, and that therefore
your objection is flawed? OK. Hell, it's even in the sig
line to which you object, that they are not the same.