A list unlike the ones at which Hemidactylus sneers

[Peter Nyikos]

There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.

A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.

This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
able to add to it.

Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone


Also, eridanus (Leopolodo Perdomo) is someone who once had some
very nasty clashes with me, but in the last year, maybe two, we've
interacted very amicably. I'm very willing to let bygones be
bygones if I see some sign that someone has become reasonable.


There are also many people of whom I have only had a nodding
acquaintance, and so the situation might be too little known to
make it wise to list them despite there never having been
nasty words exchanged between us.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

About the Subject: line...

Hemidactylus has long sneered at some posts of long ago, where
I listed varying numbers of scoundrels like himself.

And so I decided to show that the comparative handful of jerks
like him, who manage to monopolize almost every thread in which
I am involved, are actually a minority of the people in talk.origins
with whom I have interacted. It was quite a pleasant surprise,
for instance, to have Bill Rogers reply to my OP on the thread,
"John Harshman Shows His True Colors," and I did my best to make
him feel welcome.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Steve Carlip? Lotsa laughs! Until he says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.

Ray

[jonathan]

On 12/19/2017 9:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:


> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
>

Ghosts of Christmas past?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[jillery]

Even assuming your definition of "attacked" is accurate, your list is
interesting. I too have had "tough but fair" interactions with
Arkalan, Steve Carlip, Joe Cummings, Mike Dworetsky, William Hyde,
Inez, Andre Isaak, Earle Jones, Ernest Major, and walksalone. My
impression is most posters could say the same about them. Which
suggests to me it has more to do with them than you.

And of course, I could add a few additional names on an equivalent
list for me, names which are notably absent on your list, but I
hesitate to do so, lest I unintentionally leave somebody out.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
>
> A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
>
> This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> able to add to it.
>
> Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones,
> Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Bill
> Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone

You can take me off your list.
I dropped talk.oorigins six months ago,

Jan

[Bill Rogers]

Ray that was not a list of people who Peter claims agree with him. It was a list of people who have not been unpleasant to him. I don't agree with you, but as long as I discount your remarks about raving, hate-filled atheists as just part of your fear-filled mindset, I don't actually find that you've been unpleasant to me, either.

[jillery]

Your comment above reminds me of the one-liner:

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[jillery]

How fortuitous. Unlike Beetlejuice, your name need be mentioned only
once for you to reappear.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:21 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> >> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> >> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >>
> >> A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> >> found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> >> debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> >> would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >>
> >> This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> >> able to add to it.
> >>
> >> Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> >> Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones,
> >> Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Bill
> >> Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> >
> >You can take me off your list.
> >I dropped talk.oorigins six months ago,
> >
> >Jan
>
>
> How fortuitous. Unlike Beetlejuice, your name need be mentioned only
> once for you to reappear.

Filters.

Please fill in last word in the space provided.

...............................................

Bye

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:25:09 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:21 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
>> >> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
>> >> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
>> >>
>> >> A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
>> >> found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
>> >> debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
>> >> would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
>> >>
>> >> This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
>> >> able to add to it.
>> >>
>> >> Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
>> >> Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones,
>> >> Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Bill
>> >> Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
>> >
>> >You can take me off your list.
>> >I dropped talk.oorigins six months ago,
>> >
>> >Jan
>>
>>
>> How fortuitous. Unlike Beetlejuice, your name need be mentioned only
>> once for you to reappear.
>
>Filters.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his personality flaws on his tools.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:33:24 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

In the same sense as "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was
the play?".
--

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

[Ray Martinez]

It's Peter taking advantage of the fact that certain contributors have yet to publicly oppose his viewpoints as deranged, that's all. I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:24:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

OMG this is getting spooky.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 9:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >
>
>
> Ghosts of Christmas past?

Is that supposed to be a veiled dig at me? It certainly seems so,
from the way you apparently tried to buy yourself back on the
cheap after having given yourself away as a scumbag last month.

I am referring to your post on the thread,
"Eric Simpson Shows His True Colors" which you made
5 minutes after you made the post to which I am replying.

I set matters straight in a long reply to you just a tad
over an hour ago:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/PEPe2GZ7EiU/ImUqvA4LAAAJ
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:45:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c83dcdb2-fd22-4559...@googlegroups.com>

Trivia: PST means Pacific Standard Time. Over here at UTC-5 (Eastern
Standard Time) it is now 2:28 PM.

But, since you brought up Christmas, I thought I'd trot out the
closing paragraphs of another post in which I also set you straight:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/_Fh1QpaVCwAJ
Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <11ac8e85-1371-4672...@googlegroups.com>

You've fled ignominiously from that post, so here are those
closing paragraphs which you may be seeing for the first time:

____________________________________


For the same reason, I will not wish you Merry Christmas.
You probably have no use for the "childish" concept of
the Word made flesh, who (see the Epistle to the Philippians)
did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself, becoming first a fetus in the womb
of Miriam, and then a babe in swaddling clothes in a manger.

You probably think that Jesus was just another avatar, and
that you are superior to Jesus because your "God" has had
two thousand extra years to improve.


However, despite the fact that you think yourself beyond
such merely human concepts as "atheism" and "theism",
I do wish you a merry Winter Solstice.

Who knows, you might have picked up some ancient Druid lore that you
can incorporate into your private obsession. You know, the obsession
which is to complexity theory as the Wikipedia "definition" of the integral
is to the real thing.

_____________________________________

NOTE TO READERS:
For those curious about what that "same reason" was, a click on the
url I gave for the 15 Dec. post above will take you right to a
display of that post, on a webpage where Jonathan's post to which
I am replying is close to the top.

If it only displays the first line, you will see the grotesque falsehood,
"Peter hasn't raised any objections,". In the post of today
(also referenced above) I formally charged Jonathan with
having knowingly told a lie with this, and opined that he might very
well avoid entering any kind of plea at all, but might just
run away from that post altogether.

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

[Bill Rogers]

There's just something about Ray that makes it impossible for him to get under my skin. I think he's nuts, but in his own way I think he's completely sincere and I find no personal sting in his attacks on my views.

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, I try, successfully, I hope, not to be unpleasant to you or to Peter. I think that you both have deranged viewpoints, but that doesn't mean I want to call you names. In fact I wouldn't even use the word "deranged" to describe your viewpoints. I just disagree quite strongly with them.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

In other words Peter comforts himself over the fact that a certain slice of group members have yet to publicly condemn his views as deranged. Peter can hardly contain himself and is thrilled that these members have not showered him with contempt. Thus Peter is actually asking this group of persons to maintain their indifference and spare him the humiliation of outright rejection as many other group members have felt compelled to do.

Truly pathetic.

Ray

[erik simpson]

I'll second that sentiment. Ray seems to ne completely sincere and consistent
in his views, even allowing his idiosyncratic vocabulary. A lot of the
criticism he attracts seem to go to efforts not to understand his (pretty
strange) point of view.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:

One surely cannot expect an Atheist-Evolutionist to admit that his Christian-Creationist opponent is under his skin. And I'm glad to be considered nuts by a person who actually thinks the wondrous complexity seen in nature came about via accident (random mutation) and fully material unintelligence (natural selection).

Ray (Paleyan Creationist, Protestant Evangelical)

[Peter Nyikos]

I, on the other hand, think he is a pathological liar, who loves to
get under my skin by endlessly repeating lies that have been
refuted many times over. Since you have not charged him with
dishonesty (or hypocrisy?), there is no reason why he would lie
about you to your face. He has a primitive code of ethics,
far removed from the Christian concept of morality,
for which he has little use.


Here is a small sample of Ray hitting me with oft-refuted lies,
in a post which Ray ran away from, but for which I hit him repeately.

I reposted them in a falsely titled thread of his that he set up for
the purpose of fleeing documentation of earlier lies of his AND
the refutations thereof:

++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> My reply message conveyed the fact that Peter does not accept any evidence of God existing in nature therefore he cannot be a Deist, Theist, or Christian. Peter is, in fact, an Atheist or Materialist (same thing). I want this known

...because it is a willful slander against me, to which I replied
as follows when you originally posted it:

_________________________ excerpt _________________________

> But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world.

That is a bare faced lie. I know of more evidence for the existence
of God than your cosmology-challenged brain can ever understand.
But I ALSO know of various arguments for interpreting that evidence
in naturalistic ways. This is the hypothesis of the existence of
a multiverse with an incomprehensibly large number of universes
like the one we know about.

And your mind is utterly incapable of grasping this hypothesis,
and so with profound ignorance, you claim there is enough evidence
pro and con to come down on one side or the other.


> He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.

This is a diabolically cunning equivocation. It can be read either
in the lying way you said it up there, or it can be interpreted
to mean "decisive evidence" in line with your profoundly ignorant
"up or down" claim.

+++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/APVDl13d9eE/3QCmnq2MAQAJ
Subject: Re: The true colors of Peter Nyikos
Lines: 206
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9f2229dc-4296-4e2a...@googlegroups.com>

Note the Subject: line, which I've called "falsely titled" above,
and with good reason.

As you can see from the number of lines, there is a lot more to
the post, some of it highly damaging to Ray. But what may be most
revealing is that he replied only to the part that came BEFORE
what you see above, and merely left the rest in after a sign-off
immediately preceded by "(will finish replying ASAP)"

ASAP can mean over half a year, as I found out in one instance.
So he may well delay his reply until long after I return in January.

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

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

[Ray Martinez]

I'm not the least bit offended when a person who actually believes that apes morphed into Africans portrays my views as deranged.

I think it most relevant to remind readership that both Bill Rogers and Peter Nyikos are Atheist-Evolutionists. Neither accept supernatural or Intelligent power to have caused any-thing to exist in the entire history of life on earth. Thus the attempt by Bill Rogers to group me with Peter Nyikps fails miserably. How could Bill Rogers forget that Peter Nyikos is an Evolutionist and I'm a Creationist? One could rightly say Bill Rogers is not thinking correctly, which is a widespread problem among almost all Evolutionists.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, it almost sounds like you think getting under my skin would be a good thing. But would it really be following Christ? I think you're a nut, but I don't think your a mean or unpleasant nut.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >
> > A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >
> > This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> > able to add to it.
> >
> > Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> > Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
> > Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> >
> >
> > Also, eridanus (Leopolodo Perdomo) is someone who once had some
> > very nasty clashes with me, but in the last year, maybe two, we've
> > interacted very amicably. I'm very willing to let bygones be
> > bygones if I see some sign that someone has become reasonable.
> >
> >
> > There are also many people of whom I have only had a nodding
> > acquaintance, and so the situation might be too little known to
> > make it wise to list them despite there never having been
> > nasty words exchanged between us.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Steve Carlip? Lotsa laughs!

Socrates had some choice words for someone who tried to substitute
laughter for a reasoned argument.

You've never read Plato's "Gorgias", have you? That is where Socrates
makes that comment. I read it while I was a Christian in EVERY sense
of the word, and it woke me up to the fact that even non-Christians
can be highly moral -- far more moral than you, and many other
Christians.

I put that "many other Christians" in there because of your
obvious hatred for Christians whom you call "traitors" just
because you arbitrarily decree [1] that they have embraced naturalism.

Hemidactylus saw where you made that obnoxious list, and said
that Martin Harran does not belong. I agree, but for utterly
different reasons that I think Hemidactylus had. I agree because
Martin has elevated "Mind your own business" practically to
the level of an 11th Commandment. Jesus never minded his own business
by the criteria in which that highly non-Christian "Commandment"
is steeped, the way Martin conceives it.

More about the morality in "Gorgias": back when I first read
it, my impressions of what atheists are like were still affected
by my parochial Catholic school education, according to which
atheists had no good reason to be moral but some lived moral lives
anyway. Plato taught me otherwise.


By the way: what, if anything, did you hear about this issue from
the person who converted you from Roman Catholicism to some other
denomination?


[1] Your decree is bolstered by a potentially infinite regresss
of similar decrees, as I found out from the way you regularly
use long sequences of them. You slap them on my refutations of
the previous decrees, like Ron O slapping a bunch of crud onto
refutations he can't cope with otherwise. I've reposted some of
those ancillary decrees in reply to Bill Rogers on this thread
earlier today.

> Until he says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.
>
> Ray

Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
"biological First Cause." I have made no statements about how that
HYPOTHESIZED [2] seeding-earth [3] technological species arose. It might
well have been in one of three ways:

A. abiogenesis and/or subsequent evolution without supernatural input;

B. abiogenesis and/or subsequent evolution WITH supernatural input
for one or both;

C. A seeding by a species that arose in one of three ways several billion
years earlier.

D. Undirected panspermia *sensu* Arrhenius, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.

We can't have an infinite regress of C and/or D since the universe
is less than 15 billion years old. Three successive iterations are
all that is reasonably possible, and even that is quite a stretch.

[2] Much as you love to pretend otherwise, I take all three
possibilities A, B, and C seriously where EARTH life is concerned.
I merely think the probability of C slightly higher than that
of A and B combined, but freely admit I might be wrong. As for
D, I am undecided, but I think it likely ONLY where other bodies
in our own solar system are concerned, especially Mars.


As for Steven Carlip, he may well have objections to C. for earth,
but I'm sure he would treat it with respect, since I am only updating
a hypothesis due to Crick and Orgel.


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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:

> > > > >Ray that was not a list of people who Peter claims agree with him. It was a list of people who have not been unpleasant to him. I don't agree with you, but as long as I discount your remarks about raving, hate-filled atheists as just part of your fear-filled mindset, I don't actually find that you've been unpleasant to me, either.
> > > >
> > > > In the same sense as "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was
> > > > the play?".
> > >
> > > There's just something about Ray that makes it impossible for him to get under my skin. I think he's nuts, but in his own way I think he's completely sincere and I find no personal sting in his attacks on my views.
> > >
> >
> > One surely cannot expect an Atheist-Evolutionist to admit that his Christian-Creationist opponent is under his skin. And I'm glad to be considered nuts by a person who actually thinks the wondrous complexity seen in nature came about via accident (random mutation) and fully material unintelligence (natural selection).

Ray loves to pretend that I believe this, but as you saw, Bill,
he hasn't got a leg to stand on where I am concerned.

> Ray, it almost sounds like you think getting under my skin would be a good thing. But would it really be following Christ? I think you're a nut, but I don't think your a mean or unpleasant nut.

With me, Ray proclaims that I've lost the debate if I let either him or
Harshman get under my skin.

Perhaps for you he may cut a little bit of slack in that direction,
especially if you are a real atheist [1].


In my experience, true atheism [2] covers a multitude of sins in
the peculiarly topsy-turvy "Christianity" [3] which Ray espouses.


[1] I've forgotten whether you are one, so I covered all bases when I
replied to your sympathetic post the other day.

[2] as opposed to an "Atheism," capitalized, which has a broader meaning
in Ray's peculiar vocabulary. Ray follows Jesus's exhortation
to "love your enemies" where mere "world view enemies" like
Harshman (and yourself?) are concerned, but regresses to a primitive
"Love your friends and hate your enemies" mode where non-atheistic
"Atheists" like myself are concerned.

It matters not a whit to Ray that Jesus exhorted his followers
not to apply that primitive saying.

[3] As I said in the long post that I excerpted in reply to you,
this is a concept that allows Ray to take off and put back on
Christianity like a shirt. This is part of that post which
I did not quote in reply to you -- that reply was long enough
the way it stood, as is this one.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones]

On 2017-12-20 23:46:30 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:

> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>>>>> Ray that was not a list of people who Peter claims agree with him. It
>>>>>> was a list of people who have not been unpleasant to him. I don't agree
>>>>>> with you, but as long as I discount your remarks about raving,
>>>>>> hate-filled atheists as just part of your fear-filled mindset, I don't
>>>>>> actually find that you've been unpleasant to me, either.

*
I am very happy to be on any list that has Steve Carlip on it.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:08:41 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I am very happy to be on any list that has Steve Carlip on it.
>
>earle
>*

And rightfully so.

[Peter Nyikos]

Oh, good, I'm glad you noticed. That saves me the trouble of letting
you know about the list on the thread, "Eric Simpson Shows His True Colors"
[with Erik's name absent-mindedly misspelled].

I was glad to see you in both this thread and that. I'll be replying
to your post over there today, in the friendly manner that your post
there deserves.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:21 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> >> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> >> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >>
> >> A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> >> found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> >> debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> >> would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >>
> >> This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> >> able to add to it.
> >>
> >> Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> >> Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones,
> >> Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major, Bill
> >> Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> >
> >You can take me off your list.
> >I dropped talk.oorigins six months ago,
> >
> >Jan
>
>
> How fortuitous. Unlike Beetlejuice, your name need be mentioned only
> once for you to reappear.

Thanks for the laugh, jillery. It was one of the best I had yesterday,
and that is saying a LOT: it was the first really big day of our
family reunion, with the arrival of the last participant.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:10:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> > > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> > > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> > >
> > > A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> > > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> > > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> > > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> > >
> > > This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> > > able to add to it.
> > >
> > > Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> > > Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
> > > Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, eridanus (Leopolodo Perdomo) is someone who once had some
> > > very nasty clashes with me, but in the last year, maybe two, we've
> > > interacted very amicably. I'm very willing to let bygones be
> > > bygones if I see some sign that someone has become reasonable.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are also many people of whom I have only had a nodding
> > > acquaintance, and so the situation might be too little known to
> > > make it wise to list them despite there never having been
> > > nasty words exchanged between us.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
> In other words Peter comforts himself over the fact that a certain slice of group members have yet to publicly condemn his views as deranged.

That "certain slice" includes everyone else but you AFAIK.
I've set you straight about how completely bogus your "evidence" for
my alleged derangement is here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/X4MYMEX-JuI/zPM_C7MYAAAJ
Subject: Re: A list unlike the ones at which Hemidactylus sneers
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8b13afdb-89d6-454d...@googlegroups.com>

> Peter can hardly contain himself and is thrilled that these members have not showered him with contempt.

If you and Harshman weren't such good buddies, he would condemn you
for pretending to be able to divine motivations. OTOH he has run
a nearly 7-year scam against me to that effect, essentially NEVER having
the backbone/chutzpah to tell what his real motivations were.


I on the other hand gave some of mine in the second post to this thread,
right after the OP. It is also hinted at in the very thread title.

To elaborate:

Hemidactylus's sneers had the effect of creating a virtual reality
where "everyone" is on my lists, which in turn are used to support
the canard that I attack "everyone" for disagreeing with me.

Casanova has aided, abetted and comforted the latest person I
saw using "every..." in that way, raven1, by saying that there
is nothing unusual in that kind of language, it is a standard
and expected effect of talk.origins being an "informal venue".

Like you, Casanova milks every occasion where explanations
are not in plain sight for all they are worth, and then some.
For a while I was careful to write "informal venue *sensu* Casanova,"
but when I carelessly left off the last two words, he shamelessly
lied that I want everyone to write on the level of Masters' theses
and doctoral dissertations, preying on people's natural understanding
of "informal venue".

> Thus Peter is actually asking this group of persons to maintain their indifference

A lie for which you have no excuse: what I described above is
anything but indifference:

[repeated from above]
> > > ... I certainly

> > > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> > > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> > > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.

[end of repeated text]

>and spare him the humiliation of outright rejection as many other group members have felt compelled to do.

Again you blatantly pretend to divine motivations, banking on
Harshman to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
if he is lurking. When I bring such things to his attention,
he invariably lives up to the nickname, DontWanna HearAboutIt
that I've used for him.

He's protested against it on alleged aesthetic grounds, but is
powerless to protest on ethical grounds: it's just too apt.


> Truly pathetic.
>
> Ray

You are just making a fool of yourself here, Martinez. I made that clear
in the next four hours after you posted this, with two hard-hitting
denunciations of you to Bill Rogers, amply backed up with documentation;
and with a thorough demolition of your flagrantly deceitful description
of the Crick-Orgel hypothesis of directed panspermia and my attitude
towards it. The url for that demolition again:

[repeated from above}
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/X4MYMEX-JuI/zPM_C7MYAAAJ


You are just as deluded in your own way about people as Jonathan is
in his. You are a bit more selective in the targets of your delusion,
but that is damning with faint praise.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I seriously doubt that Carlip viewed Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and
his fellow leading biochemist, Leslie Orgel, to have proposed something
"deranged" when they formulated their hypothesis of Directed Panspermia.
I am merely bringing theirs up to date.

> > Ray
>
> Ray, I try, successfully, I hope, not to be unpleasant to you or to Peter.
> I think that you both have deranged viewpoints,

If Directed Panspermia was NOT what you had in mind when you
wrote this, what was?


In the following post done yesterday, I painstakingly corrected
Martinez's highly deceitful description of Directed Panspermia:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/X4MYMEX-JuI/zPM_C7MYAAAJ
Subject: Re: A list unlike the ones at which Hemidactylus sneers
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8b13afdb-89d6-454d...@googlegroups.com>

Come February, I will start posting my latest draft on the
subject of Directed Panspermia. I hope you will be able to
comment on some of it.

> but that doesn't mean I want to call you names. In fact
>I wouldn't even use the word "deranged" to describe your viewpoints.

Ray's viewpoint about Steve Carlip is quite deranged, as I proceeded
to show in the post I linked above.

I suppose you had only viewpoints about issues, not people, in mind.
Your closing sentence certainly suggests that:

> I just disagree quite strongly with them.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:11:20 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>It's Peter taking advantage of the fact that certain contributors have yet to publicly oppose his viewpoints as deranged, that's all. I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.

It's not "deranged", but there's certainly no evidence for
it. Like Special Creation, and treated the same by science,
for the exact same reason - lack of supporting evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:31:04 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, and your post hadn't shown up here when I posted the
above.

I guess "all great minds" applies...

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:19:31 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

<cut to the chase>

> > > > > I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.
>
>I seriously doubt that Carlip viewed Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and
>his fellow leading biochemist, Leslie Orgel, to have proposed something
>"deranged" when they formulated their hypothesis of Directed Panspermia.
>I am merely bringing theirs up to date.

Steve Carlip has shown he's quite capable of speaking for himself.
Both of you should let him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:57:53 -0800 (PST), the following

FWIW I tend to agree. My biggest complaint about Ray is the
way he mangles both the meanings of common English words and
logic. Frustrating...especially when he pulls out his
"Atheist!" accusation and applies it to anyone who disagrees
with his personal beliefs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:08:41 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:

Ditto. But I really don't belong there, if the list is of
"people who *really* understand physics".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:33:15 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

....and that is a perfect example of what I meant, as if
one's religious beliefs (even if correct; by no means a
certainty) had any bearing on the validity of what one
posts.

> And I'm glad to be considered nuts by a person who actually thinks the wondrous complexity seen in nature came about via accident (random mutation) and fully material unintelligence (natural selection).

[Ray Martinez]

> I tend to agree. My biggest complaint about Ray is the
> way he mangles both the meanings of common English words and
> logic.

That's always been my main complaint about people like yourself, that is, people who believe in evolution. So one could very well expect people like yourself to believe the problem lies with those who reject your faulty understanding of rudimentary logic and epistemology.

> Frustrating...especially when he pulls out his
> "Atheist!" accusation and applies it to anyone who disagrees
> with his personal beliefs.

Bob thinks like an Atheist and holds to all of their positions including of course evolution yet he denies Atheism. Why? Why not just admit to Atheism? Answer: Because very many Atheists have long felt the need to deny Atheism so Christian-Evolutionists are not perceived as fools and traitors.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Bob's "not so" assertion has the reputation of a famed Atheist scientist in mind who advocated space aliens to have been responsible for biological First Cause on earth. If the reputation of a famed Atheist scientist wasn't at stake, Bob wouldn't hesitate to level much deserved insults for advocating space aliens to have started life on earth.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

One could never expect Atheists to acknowledge the evidence that supports special creation to occur.

"We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species....I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge" C. Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:310: London: John Murray).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip poorly written scatterbrain commentary....]

>
> > Until [Steve Carlip] says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.

> >
> > Ray
>
> Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
> left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
> "biological First Cause."

Since the vast majority know that no scientific evidence exists supporting life to exist outside of our atmosphere, it's not a misleading expression, not one bit. Normal people understand that the phrase can only be talking about earth. Was Darwin misleading his readers when he used the phrase "First Cause"? No, of course not. Knowledgeable people understand that his context is biology or life on earth because life is not known to exist anywhere else. So First Cause, in a traditional biological context, can only have one meaning.

> I have made no statements about how that
> HYPOTHESIZED [2] seeding-earth [3] technological species arose. It might
> well have been in one of three ways:
>
> A. abiogenesis and/or subsequent evolution without supernatural input;
>
> B. abiogenesis and/or subsequent evolution WITH supernatural input
> for one or both;

Confusion seen: the fusion of contradictory concepts, abiogenesis/evolution with the supernatural.

>
> C. A seeding by a species that arose in one of three ways several billion
> years earlier.
>
> D. Undirected panspermia *sensu* Arrhenius, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.
>
> We can't have an infinite regress of C and/or D since the universe
> is less than 15 billion years old. Three successive iterations are
> all that is reasonably possible, and even that is quite a stretch.
>
> [2] Much as you love to pretend otherwise, I take all three
> possibilities A, B, and C seriously where EARTH life is concerned.
> I merely think the probability of C slightly higher than that
> of A and B combined, but freely admit I might be wrong. As for
> D, I am undecided, but I think it likely ONLY where other bodies
> in our own solar system are concerned, especially Mars.
>
>
> As for Steven Carlip, he may well have objections to C. for earth,
> but I'm sure he would treat it with respect, since I am only updating
> a hypothesis due to Crick and Orgel.

Peter is actually speaking to Steve Carlip; he's saying: "Remember, if you disrespect Directed Panspermia then you're running afoul of two reputable mainstream scientists." Classic Emperor's New Clothes metaphor at play here.

Space aliens = L.Ron Hubbard science fiction, not legitimate science. Your only concern is to protect the reputation of Crick & Orgel.

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

The ONLY REASON space aliens advocated as causing life on earth isn't dismissed as crackpot pseudo science is because two famed Atheist scientists dressed the pig in a tuxedo.

"Directed Panspermia" is a classic euphemism.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [snip poorly written scatterbrain commentary....]
>
>>
>>> Until [Steve Carlip] says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
>> left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
>> "biological First Cause."
>
> Since the vast majority know that no scientific evidence exists supporting life to exist outside of our atmosphere, it's not a misleading expression, not one bit. Normal people understand that the phrase can only be talking about earth. Was Darwin misleading his readers when he used the phrase "First Cause"?

Where did he do this? As far as I can see, only once, in a letter to a
student - and there he makes it indeed perfectly clear that he is not
talking about the origin of the universe, as is the normal usage:

"It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure
that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that
the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe,
with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief
argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of
real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we
admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence
it came, and how it arose."

> No, of course not. Knowledgeable people understand that his context is biology or life on earth because life is not known to exist anywhere else. So First Cause, in a traditional biological context, can only have one meaning.

First cause has a fixed meaning in philosophy, independent of context,
and it means exactly what it says on the tin: the fist cause, that is
the event that was not itself caused and before which no other causal
event had happened.

[Jonathan]

On 12/20/2017 2:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-5, jonathan wrote:

>> On 12/19/2017 9:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
>>> have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
>>> have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
>>>
>>
>>

>> Ghosts of Christmas past?
>
> Is that supposed to be a veiled dig at me?



Nah, what makes you think that?
Your 'list' speaks volumes only about you.




> It certainly seems so,
> from the way you apparently tried to buy yourself back on the
> cheap after having given yourself away as a scumbag last month.
>
> I am referring to your post on the thread,
> "Eric Simpson Shows His True Colors" which you made
> 5 minutes after you made the post to which I am replying.
>
> I set matters straight in a long reply to you just a tad
> over an hour ago:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/PEPe2GZ7EiU/ImUqvA4LAAAJ
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:45:40 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <c83dcdb2-fd22-4559...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Trivia: PST means Pacific Standard Time. Over here at UTC-5 (Eastern
> Standard Time) it is now 2:28 PM.
>
> But, since you brought up Christmas, I thought I'd trot out the
> closing paragraphs of another post in which I also set you straight:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/_Fh1QpaVCwAJ
> Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:53:41 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <11ac8e85-1371-4672...@googlegroups.com>
>
> You've fled ignominiously from that post, so here are those
> closing paragraphs which you may be seeing for the first time:
>



Why does talking to you end up like some research
program? If you can't express yourself in a
concise and rational way that's your fault.





> ____________________________________
>
>
> For the same reason, I will not wish you Merry Christmas.
> You probably have no use for the "childish" concept of
> the Word made flesh, who (see the Epistle to the Philippians)
> did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
> but emptied himself, becoming first a fetus in the womb
> of Miriam, and then a babe in swaddling clothes in a manger.
>



You're not sane, the above is nonsensical to put
it generously.




> You probably think that Jesus was just another avatar, and
> that you are superior to Jesus because your "God" has had
> two thousand extra years to improve.
>


Christ was an early, and perhaps greatest ever, martyr.

His message that love is the answer is not only
correct, but spreading that message through his
self-sacrifice was an act of genius.

In mathematical terms, a math you know zero about, his
death would be termed a transient of nearly infinite
length, in short 'the perfect storm'.

If complexity science were to name a single idealized
example of how to start a self organized system
that has the greatest potential to change the
world for the better, it would be Christ.




Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions

3.3 What is the Edge of Chaos (EOC) ?

This is the name given to the critical point of the system,
where a small change can either push the system into chaotic
behaviour or lock the system into a fixed behaviour. It is
regarded as a phase change. It is at this point where all
the really interesting behaviour occurs in a 'complex' system,
and it is where systems tend to gravitate give the chance to
do so. Hence most ALife systems are assumed to operate
within this regime.

At this boundary a system has a correlation length (connection
between distant parts) that just spans the entire system,
with a power law distribution of shorter lengths.

Transient perturbations (disturbances) can last for very
long times (infinity in the limit) and/or cover the entire
system, yet more frequently effects will be local or
short lived - the system is dynamically unstable to
some perturbations, yet stable to others.

http://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html





>
> However, despite the fact that you think yourself beyond
> such merely human concepts as "atheism" and "theism",
> I do wish you a merry Winter Solstice.
>



I firmly believe in God, and I doubt you can
even define the word.




> Who knows, you might have picked up some ancient Druid lore that you
> can incorporate into your private obsession. You know, the obsession
> which is to complexity theory as the Wikipedia "definition" of the integral
> is to the real thing.
>
> _____________________________________
>
> NOTE TO READERS:
> For those curious about what that "same reason" was, a click on the
> url I gave for the 15 Dec. post above will take you right to a
> display of that post, on a webpage where Jonathan's post to which
> I am replying is close to the top.
>
> If it only displays the first line, you will see the grotesque falsehood,
> "Peter hasn't raised any objections,". In the post of today
> (also referenced above) I formally charged Jonathan with
> having knowingly told a lie with this, and opined that he might very
> well avoid entering any kind of plea at all, but might just
> run away from that post altogether.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
>




You're a nutjob, through and through.






--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

“But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 2:35:04 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > [snip poorly written scatterbrain commentary....]
> >
> >>
> >>> Until [Steve Carlip] says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>
> >> Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
> >> left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
> >> "biological First Cause."
> >
> > Since the vast majority know that no scientific evidence exists supporting life to exist outside of our atmosphere, it's not a misleading expression, not one bit. Normal people understand that the phrase can only be talking about earth. Was Darwin misleading his readers when he used the phrase "First Cause"?
>
> Where did he do this?

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=94

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 2:35:04 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip poorly written scatterbrain commentary....]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Until [Steve Carlip] says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
>>>> left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
>>>> "biological First Cause."
>>>
>>> Since the vast majority know that no scientific evidence exists supporting life to exist outside of our atmosphere, it's not a misleading expression, not one bit. Normal people understand that the phrase can only be talking about earth. Was Darwin misleading his readers when he used the phrase "First Cause"?
>>
>> Where did he do this?
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=94
>
> "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Seems to be more or less the same that I cited - did you spot the word
"universe" there? Nowhere anything like the self-contradictory "first
cause of life on earth" but the standard use of the term in theology.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:04:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:08:41 -0800, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
><earle...@comcast.net>:
>
>>On 2017-12-20 23:46:30 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Ray that was not a list of people who Peter claims agree with him. It
>>>>>>>> was a list of people who have not been unpleasant to him. I don't agree
>>>>>>>> with you, but as long as I discount your remarks about raving,
>>>>>>>> hate-filled atheists as just part of your fear-filled mindset, I don't
>>>>>>>> actually find that you've been unpleasant to me, either.
>>
>>*
>>I am very happy to be on any list that has Steve Carlip on it.
>
>Ditto. But I really don't belong there, if the list is of
>"people who *really* understand physics".

It's not. Per the OP, it's a list of T.O. posters he thinks have been
"tough but fair" with him. And rest assured, you are not on it.

Considering the list does have both Steve Carlip and Steady Eddie, any
attribution by association is a decidedly mixed bag.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:54:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

An hour and a half later? Perhaps Supernews is using dialup for text
froups 8-)

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:19:31 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <cut to the chase>
>
> > > > > > I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.
> >
> >I seriously doubt that Carlip viewed Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and
> >his fellow leading biochemist, Leslie Orgel, to have proposed something
> >"deranged" when they formulated their hypothesis of Directed Panspermia.
> >I am merely bringing theirs up to date.
>
>
> Steve Carlip has shown he's quite capable of speaking for himself.
> Both of you should let him.

I have had some spirited debates with Steve, and I have never encountered
the kind of hostility which Ray ignorantly assumes. But he is
perfectly free to make comments one way or the other on this
point of dispute, and I hereby invite him to do so.

[If that sounds too pretentious, let me amend it to say that
I would be glad if he did comment, and I would gladly respond.]


Ray and I have expressed strong opinions on this issue in opposite
directions. If you have nothing to contribute either way, I think
it would be good for you to leave comments like the one you've made
up to people who can contribute insights to this particular issue.


With his over-the-top behaviour [British Commonwealth spelling]
on this thread, Ray has inadvertently shown how seriously I have
gotten under his skin. Of course, he would NEVER apply the same
"lost the debate" standards to himself that he applies when
he self-servingly/John-servingly announces that HE and/or
John Harshman has gotten under MY skin.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:44:52 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:19:31 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> <cut to the chase>
>>
>> > > > > > I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.
>> >
>> >I seriously doubt that Carlip viewed Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and
>> >his fellow leading biochemist, Leslie Orgel, to have proposed something
>> >"deranged" when they formulated their hypothesis of Directed Panspermia.
>> >I am merely bringing theirs up to date.
>>
>>
>> Steve Carlip has shown he's quite capable of speaking for himself.
>> Both of you should let him.
>
>I have had some spirited debates with Steve, and I have never encountered
>the kind of hostility which Ray ignorantly assumes. But he is
>perfectly free to make comments one way or the other on this
>point of dispute, and I hereby invite him to do so.
>
>[If that sounds too pretentious, let me amend it to say that
>I would be glad if he did comment, and I would gladly respond.]

Since your "invitation" is unnecessary, there's no "if" here.

>Ray and I have expressed strong opinions on this issue in opposite
>directions. If you have nothing to contribute either way, I think
>it would be good for you to leave comments like the one you've made
>up to people who can contribute insights to this particular issue.

If I feel a need to contribute insights on any specific issue, you
know I will do so. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute
insights on other issues, like how you have no problem putting your
words into other people's mouths. Your delusional pretensions
notwithstanding, you don't get to say to which issues I may reply.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [snip poorly written scatterbrain commentary....]

That you have no respect for, much less understanding of,
Plato's philosophy, is no reason to
arbitrarily decree that your laughter was perfectly justified,
as you indirectly do with this snarky snip.

> >
> > > Until [Steve Carlip] says otherwise we can rightly assume that he considers space aliens responsible for biological First Cause to be completely and utterly crackpot.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Actually, it is you who are the crackpot, having self-servingly
> > left out the words "on earth" from your multiply misleading expression,
> > "biological First Cause."
>
> Since the vast majority know that no scientific evidence exists supporting life to exist outside of our atmosphere,

That's like saying [1] that "Since the vast majority of humans of 50,000 B.C.
knew that no scientific evidence exists supporting most of the earth's
surface being covered by water..."

IOW, in both cases we are talking of a flagrantly anthropocentric
criterion for the self-serving claim like the one Ray makes next:

> it's not a misleading expression, not one bit. Normal people understand that the phrase can only be talking about earth.

The cry of outrage everyone heard just now :-)
came from innumerable SETI enthusiasts, as well as all people
applying for grants for surveys that have as their aim the
discovery of earth-like exoplanets.

If Ray turned out to be a multimillionare, or posting at the behest
of "deep pockets," the editors of _New Scientist_ and _Scientific American_
might even launch a lawsuit. The charge might be one of discouraging sales
of reprints of 2015 -2016 articles on "super-earths" and of future issues
which give front cover billing to such articles, as the two issues in
question did.

These articles were about characteristics of planets/moons, and of the
planetary hich they occur, which make the planets/moons even more
conducive to the evolution of intelligent life than the earth has been.

[1] The people of 50,000 BC almost surely had no such reasoned argument
for the majority of the earth's surface being covered by water, so
actully your idiocy is even WORSE than this analogy makes it look.

> Was Darwin misleading his readers when he used the phrase "First Cause"?

No, but Burkhard has taken you to task for misleadingly ripping
Darwin's claim out of a context that might lend a tiny bit of
credence to your claim.

But you abandoned it, and instead emulated Ron Okimoto's own dishonest use
of quotations, [2] you "corrected" Burkhard [3] with a quote that actually
showed your next claim to be a self-serving lie:

> No, of course not. Knowledgeable people understand that his context is biology or life on earth because life is not known to exist anywhere else.

Liar. I predict that Burkhard's own demonstration [4] of your
dishonest use of your own quote will have been in a post that
you "don't see because you didn't want to see it."

That Burkhard is too nice to you, and doesn't accuse you of lying
or even of utter illogic in your "correction", doesn't make your
behavior any less dishonest.

> So First Cause, in a traditional biological context, can only have one meaning.

You probably want to repeat this lie on future OP's, and so I predict this
post of mine will be another that you "don't see because you don't want
to see it."

And so, I've decided to make a separate reply to the rest of your
post. It too may be a replly that you "don't see because you don't want
to see it," but I want that decision to be made by you on its OWN
merits.

[2] Ron O's perennial hoax about the Discovery Institute being guilty
of a bait and switch scam rests on quotes that do not support the
existence of any "bait." Earlier this reliance went back to ca. 2005,
but in the past week or so, I have shown that it extends back to an
Ohio incident of 2002.

[3] Approximately 1 hour after you did the post to which this is a
reply, to this same thread (even in Jillery's definition of "thread").

[4] Approximately 3 hours after you did the post to which this is a
reply, to this same thread [continue as above].


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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Oh the irony. Jonathan criticizes someone for lack of concision.

[snip rest]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 1:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:29:12 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> >have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> >have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >

> >A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> >found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> >debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> >would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >
> >This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> >able to add to it.
> >
> >Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> >Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
> >Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> >
> >
> >Also, eridanus (Leopolodo Perdomo) is someone who once had some
> >very nasty clashes with me, but in the last year, maybe two, we've
> >interacted very amicably. I'm very willing to let bygones be
> >bygones if I see some sign that someone has become reasonable.
> >
> >
> >There are also many people of whom I have only had a nodding
> >acquaintance, and so the situation might be too little known to
> >make it wise to list them despite there never having been
> >nasty words exchanged between us.
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
>
>

> Even assuming your definition of "attacked" is accurate, your list is
> interesting. I too have had "tough but fair" interactions with
> Arkalan, Steve Carlip, Joe Cummings, Mike Dworetsky, William Hyde,
> Inez, Andre Isaak, Earle Jones, Ernest Major, and walksalone. My
> impression is most posters could say the same about them.

I have since recalled three more people who have long deserved to be
on *my* list:

Robert Carnegie, a.k.a. Robert Carnegie fnord, George Kaplan,
and Dana Tweedy

I suspect Robert would go on your list as well, and I would
describe him in the same way.

On the other hand, since you left R.Dean off your list, and
George Kaplan was similar to him in many ways, I would guess
that George doesn't belong on your list. As for me, he seemed
to lack toughness, but he seemed to be fair in his
relatively short sojourn here.

The really interesting case is that of Dana. For many years
he performed an essential service to talk.origins, refuting
innumerable statements by Ray Martinez, including a great
many that others did not. [1]

He also called Ray a liar years before you apparently [2]
started doing so. And he also said that he is appalled by
the bad name Ray gives to Christianity by claiming to be
a Christian. I wholeheartedly agreed with him.

[1] This may have been for various reasons, of course, such
as lack of time and/or lack of knowledge, not just of the
topics on which Ray incessantly required correction, but
also of Ray's various ways of replying to corrections.

[2] I have strong circumstantial evidence that you only
started accusing Ray of lying after October 6, 2016, [3]
by which time Dana may have already left talk.origins
due to Ray's craven boycotting of him. Ray's boycott
was due to his NEVER-SUPPORTED allegation that Dana
had slandered his mentor Rev. Scott. Ray pointedly avoided
even TRYING to support his allegation that Dana Tweedy had even
said anything UNTRUE about Rev. Scott.

Moreover, Ray was so incensed by my originally asking him
to show it was UNTRUE, that he accused me of slander
on account of my making the request.


[3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/5x6bIkuMzBw/vEehOHSDAgAJ

This linked a relevant quote from a post made a week earlier:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/A2tcuLalAAAJ



As I've documented, even on this very thread, Ray's brand of
Christianity allows him to take it off and put it back on
like a shirt, as he repeatedly violates Jesus's command,
"Do not bear false witness". Part of the documentation
showed that he IMMEDIATELY put his Christianity back on,
with his sign-off.

I interpret this to mean that Ray is trying to minimize his
risk of losing his salvation, which he actually admitted it
is possible for someone to do, FAVORABLY citing St. Paul's
exhortation to work out one's salvation "with fear and
trembling."

Evidently the tremors often delay themselves through long
posts, but on that occasion the fear and trembling may
have hit Ray while composing an especially slanderous
paragraph and so he made sure of his salvation in
the sign-off that immediately followed.


Pardon the long digression. It was made with the realization
that this may be my last post before duty calls again and
ends this latest unexpected free time for posting. It may
be that the only post I do until I return from break in
January will be my special message for Christmas and the
new year, which I hope my family will also appreciate.


Anyway, I found Dana to be eminently tough and fair,
and so I was to him too. I only got tough with him once,
and he didn't reply to the post where I did that, and
so IIRC he never got tough with me.

How do you see him, jillery?

> suggests to me it has more to do with them than you.

You've got the right stick, and the wrong end. Explanation in January
if you are curious -- my time is too short now.


> And of course, I could add a few additional names on an equivalent
> list for me, names which are notably absent on your list, but I
> hesitate to do so, lest I unintentionally leave somebody out.

There is no reason you should have such fear, if you explain that
the list is incomplete and you hope to add to it -- as I have said,
and as I have done with three more names for my list.

For someone as <ahem> bold as yourself, such fears are unusual,
to say the least.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:44:52 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> >> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:19:31 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >> <cut to the chase>
> >>
> >> > > > > > I singled out Steve Carlip as a person who undoubtedly views Directed Panspermia to be exactly that----deranged.
> >> >
> >> >I seriously doubt that Carlip viewed Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and
> >> >his fellow leading biochemist, Leslie Orgel, to have proposed something
> >> >"deranged" when they formulated their hypothesis of Directed Panspermia.
> >> >I am merely bringing theirs up to date.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve Carlip has shown he's quite capable of speaking for himself.
> >> Both of you should let him.
> >

> >I have had some spirited debates with Steve, and I have never encountered
> >the kind of hostility which Ray ignorantly assumes. But he is
> >perfectly free to make comments one way or the other on this
> >point of dispute, and I hereby invite him to do so.
> >
> >[If that sounds too pretentious, let me amend it to say that
> >I would be glad if he did comment, and I would gladly respond.]
>
>
> Since your "invitation" is unnecessary, there's no "if" here.

Your attitude here reminds me of the following exchange Ihad with John Harshman on the "Prof. Christine" thread.
I had been after him to try and bring Prof. Christine Janis
back to it after she'd been absent for three days and not
commented on some issues that she may be the best in the world
to comment on:


[excerpt, with John going first:]

> Christine is free to post here if she feels
> the need, with no prodding from me.

This farcical reply is reminiscent of the attitude
of "nanny state" liberals, who by and large treat people as though
they were immovable objects, impervious to persuasion,
let alone friendly nonassertive suggestions.

[end of excerpt]

> >Ray and I have expressed strong opinions on this issue in opposite
> >directions. If you have nothing to contribute either way, I think
> >it would be good for you to leave comments like the one you've made
> >up to people who can contribute insights to this particular issue.
>
>
> If I feel a need to contribute insights on any specific issue, you
> know I will do so. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute
> insights on other issues, like how you have no problem putting your
> words into other people's mouths.

"I seriously doubt that..." is hardly putting words into other
people's mouths.

Of course you, like Ray, may have your own private definitions
for various formulas like "putting your words into other people's
mouths".


[That's your cue to post some snarky paraphrasal of "What makes you
think I was talking about anything you wrote on THIS thread, let
alone this post?"]

> Your delusional pretensions
> notwithstanding, you don't get to say to which issues I may reply.

This sounds like a farcical overreaction to what I wrote,
reminiscent of a liberal "nanny state" attitude of harping on rights
"in rebuttal to" mere recommendations.

Peter Nyikos

PS This post was piggybacked after the first attempt failed to post,
so it may come right on the heels of my previous one, devoted
largely to Dana Tweedy, whom I miss very much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:57:59 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

But unfortunately, your evaluation of your own understanding
is equivalent to the well-known, "Look! Everyone's out of
step except Johnny!". You use multiple personal definitions
of common terms (such as ":atheist") and you mangle logic
(mostly by using the logical validity of conclusions reached
from invalid premises as "proof" of whatever you want to
pontificate about).

>> Frustrating...especially when he pulls out his
>> "Atheist!" accusation and applies it to anyone who disagrees
>> with his personal beliefs.

>Bob thinks like an Atheist and holds to all of their positions including of course evolution yet he denies Atheism.

Don't be silly; Bob has never "denied atheism" (note the
lack of capitalization; atheism isn't a religion, or even a
formal designator for an organized group; it's simply a lack
of belief). Bob has also never "denied Christianity" or
"denied Wicca" or "denied Asatru" or "denied Hinduism" or
"denied" any other religious or quasi-religious belief. Bob
simply doesn't discuss Bob's personal beliefs, since they
are *irrelevant* to almost all of the discussions here.

> Why? Why not just admit to Atheism? Answer: Because very many Atheists have long felt the need to deny Atheism so Christian-Evolutionists are not perceived as fools and traitors.

Ray failed to understand the point, which is that one's
personal beliefs are irrelevant to the accuracy of one's
statements regarding *objective* reality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:09:38 -0800 (PST), the following

Wrong, Ray; "deranged" implies mental disease, and I don't
believe any of the proponents are afflicted; they simply
believe certain things without evidence in support. They are
no more "deranged" than any believer in the subjective, as
noted below.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:23:56 -0800 (PST), the following

There is no objective evidence.

>"We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species....I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge" C. Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:310: London: John Murray).

Is name-dropping what you call "evidence"? Sorry, but it's
not.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:39:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:04:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:08:41 -0800, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
>><earle...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>On 2017-12-20 23:46:30 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ray that was not a list of people who Peter claims agree with him. It
>>>>>>>>> was a list of people who have not been unpleasant to him. I don't agree
>>>>>>>>> with you, but as long as I discount your remarks about raving,
>>>>>>>>> hate-filled atheists as just part of your fear-filled mindset, I don't
>>>>>>>>> actually find that you've been unpleasant to me, either.
>>>
>>>*
>>>I am very happy to be on any list that has Steve Carlip on it.
>>
>>Ditto. But I really don't belong there, if the list is of
>>"people who *really* understand physics".

>It's not. Per the OP, it's a list of T.O. posters he thinks have been
>"tough but fair" with him. And rest assured, you are not on it.

OK; thanks. So I should have said "...if the list were
of...".

>Considering the list does have both Steve Carlip and Steady Eddie, any
>attribution by association is a decidedly mixed bag.

Oy...

Point *decidedly* taken.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:40:29 -0500, the following appeared

Well, I generally do only *one* download of posts on any
given day, so I wouldn't have seen yours until, as I did,
the following day.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:44:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

There's your problem. You ignored/evaded the very point I specified.
You posted a gratuitous invitation. John posted a truism, of which
you needed reminding. There's a difference.

>> >Ray and I have expressed strong opinions on this issue in opposite
>> >directions. If you have nothing to contribute either way, I think
>> >it would be good for you to leave comments like the one you've made
>> >up to people who can contribute insights to this particular issue.
>>
>>
>> If I feel a need to contribute insights on any specific issue, you
>> know I will do so. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute
>> insights on other issues, like how you have no problem putting your
>> words into other people's mouths.
>
>"I seriously doubt that..." is hardly putting words into other
>people's mouths.

Of course, those aren't the words you put in Carlip's mouth, but your
opinion of what you think might be Carlip's opinion of Crick and
Orgels' Directed Panspermia.

>Of course you, like Ray, may have your own private definitions
>for various formulas like "putting your words into other people's
>mouths".
>
>
>[That's your cue to post some snarky paraphrasal of "What makes you
>think I was talking about anything you wrote on THIS thread, let
>alone this post?"]

That's yet another one of your gratuitous invitations, and yet another
example of putting words in other people's mouths, and of you
practicing the Big Lie. To the best of my recollection, I have never
posted anything even remotely resembling your stupid words above. You
must enjoy proving my point for me, you do it so often.

>> Your delusional pretensions
>> notwithstanding, you don't get to say to which issues I may reply.
>
>This sounds like a farcical overreaction to what I wrote,
>reminiscent of a liberal "nanny state" attitude of harping on rights
>"in rebuttal to" mere recommendations.

That's yet another one of your asinine tu quoques, asshole.

>Peter Nyikos
>
>PS This post was piggybacked after the first attempt failed to post,
>so it may come right on the heels of my previous one, devoted
>largely to Dana Tweedy, whom I miss very much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:31:20 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Yeah, the "Mote, Entire Forest, Eye" syndrome. Of course,
his point *is* valid; he just doesn't see that it also
applies to most of his own posts, most especially those
involving interminable quotes from mediocre and opaque
poets; the irony you mentioned.

>[snip rest]

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:57:17 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
>> > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
>> > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
>> >

>> > A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
>> > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
>> > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
>> > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
>> >
>> > This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
>> > able to add to it.
>> >
>> > Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
>> > Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
>> > Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, eridanus (Leopolodo Perdomo) is someone who once had some
>> > very nasty clashes with me, but in the last year, maybe two, we've
>> > interacted very amicably. I'm very willing to let bygones be
>> > bygones if I see some sign that someone has become reasonable.
>> >
>> >
>> > There are also many people of whom I have only had a nodding
>> > acquaintance, and so the situation might be too little known to
>> > make it wise to list them despite there never having been
>> > nasty words exchanged between us.
>> >
>> > Peter Nyikos
>>
>> Steve Carlip? Lotsa laughs!
>

>Socrates had some choice words for someone who tried to substitute
>laughter for a reasoned argument.
>
>You've never read Plato's "Gorgias", have you? That is where Socrates
>makes that comment. I read it while I was a Christian in EVERY sense
>of the word, and it woke me up to the fact that even non-Christians
>can be highly moral -- far more moral than you, and many other
>Christians.
>
>I put that "many other Christians" in there because of your
>obvious hatred for Christians whom you call "traitors" just
>because you arbitrarily decree [1] that they have embraced naturalism.
>
>Hemidactylus saw where you made that obnoxious list, and said
>that Martin Harran does not belong. I agree, but for utterly
>different reasons that I think Hemidactylus had.


Gosh, Peter, there was me all disappointed because I thought I hadn't
made your Christmas hate list.


> I agree because
>Martin has elevated "Mind your own business" practically to
>the level of an 11th Commandment.

Once again, you remind me of Jillery with whom you spend so much time
in derogatory exchange. Back in the days when I posted using the
pseudonym "AlwaysAskingQuestions", she used to try to change that
pseudonym to "NeverAnsweringQuestions" because I consistently ignored
her; the fact that I answered everybody else's questions was discarded
as not relevant - not answering her qualified as "never".

In just the same way, you have turned my disinclination to seek
support from you into some sort of global "no trespass" signage. It
is little wonder that there is so much symbiosis between the two of
you.


[...]

[jillery]

Of course, any similarity you note between rockhead and myself is
purely illusory. And even if there were any substance to your claims
above, you haven't posted it. And even if you had, it would be
overwhelmed by the similarities between the two of you, specifically
your evasion of reasonable questions and issues, your gratuitous
personal attacks, your failure to acknowledge asserted errors, and
your outright lies, all of which I have documented, and will cite for
anybody who thinks otherwise.

[Peter Nyikos]

I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 9:30:05 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:57:17 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> >> > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> >> > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >> >
> >> > A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> >> > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> >> > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> >> > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >> >
> >> > This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> >> > able to add to it.
> >> >
> >> > Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> >> > Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
> >> > Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone

Since then I added three more in reply to jillery, most notably Dana Tweedy,
a Christian whose theological orientation reminds me of you, Martin.

I remembered one more person today, because he posted to the "bird
caught in amber" thread today: Walter Bushell


I've snipped some things here, including clueless comments by
Ray Martinez, to whom I wrote the following.

> >I put that "many other Christians" in there because of your
> >obvious hatred for Christians whom you call "traitors" just
> >because you arbitrarily decree [1] that they have embraced naturalism.
> >
> >Hemidactylus saw where you made that obnoxious list, and said
> >that Martin Harran does not belong. I agree, but for utterly

> >different reasons [than] I think Hemidactylus had.

>
>
> Gosh, Peter, there was me all disappointed because I thought I hadn't
> made your Christmas hate list.

WHAT Christmas hate list? Surely you don't call the people I listed
up there a "hate list". Are you crabbing because I left you off it?

If so, look at the description: you've made lots of personal
attacks on me since the day I refused to leave off exposing the
injustice Jillery did you, even though you (and others) ripped
into me for not leaving off.

It took me a while to say anything negative about you, but you've
zeroed in on the last example, a nasty one to be sure:

>
> > I agree because
> >Martin has elevated "Mind your own business" practically to
> >the level of an 11th Commandment.

As has Shawn Dillon. It's a tossup which of you ripped into me
harder for not leaving off my crusade against a dishonest
shifting around of text by Jillery. So far from being an innocent prank,
it made a laughingstock of you to anyone who did not know what
had been going on between the two of you, and was too naive to
smell a rat.

> Once again, you remind me of Jillery with whom you spend so much time
> in derogatory exchange.

As did you, until you threw in the towel over her relentless
attacks on you and her proclamations of her innocence of any wrongdoing.

"so much time" is a case of blame-the-victim: you think yourself
better than me because that was your only real exposure to how
dishonest jillery can get.

> Back in the days when I posted using the
> pseudonym "AlwaysAskingQuestions", she used to try to change that
> pseudonym to "NeverAnsweringQuestions" because I consistently ignored
> her; the fact that I answered everybody else's questions was discarded
> as not relevant - not answering her qualified as "never".

Jillery isn't alone in projecting a "le talk.origins, c'est moi" persona.
[I might add that you don't seem to be one of the others who behave
that way.]

> In just the same way, you have turned my disinclination to seek
> support from you into some sort of global "no trespass" signage.

You are dishonestly whitewashing your behavior. Ripping into me as
described above wasn't the only gratuitous attack you made on me since those
fairly recent days, either. But I can't think of a single occasion
prior to Jillery's "forgery" when you were the least bit nasty towards me.

> It
> is little wonder that there is so much symbiosis between the two of
> you.

To paraphrase a famous exchange in a 1988 Vice Presidential debate:

I knew AlwaysAskingQuestions.

AlwaysAskingQuestions valued Jesus's commandment "Do not bear false witness"
very highly.

AlwaysAskingQuestions never made mean-spirited, unjustifiable digs
against others.

AlwaysAskingQuestions never got piqued when I went after scoundrels
who treated him unfairly.

AlwaysAskingQuestions was at least as good a "walking advertisement" for
Christianity as Dana Tweedy was. So much so, that I told a Christian
woman who very rarely posts to talk.origins to pay close attention
to the posts of AlwaysAskingQuestions, "the best" of them all.


Martin Harran, you're no AlwaysAskingQuestions.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:45:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised.

>I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
>this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:

You were doing so well, and then you had to resurrect this dead
thread. Did you run out of bellybutton lint?

Of course, Jillery projects no such persona. OTOH that's what you do
regularly. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>[I might add that you don't seem to be one of the others who behave
>that way.]
>
>
>> In just the same way, you have turned my disinclination to seek
>> support from you into some sort of global "no trespass" signage.
>
>You are dishonestly whitewashing your behavior. Ripping into me as
>described above wasn't the only gratuitous attack you made on me since those
>fairly recent days, either. But I can't think of a single occasion
>prior to Jillery's "forgery" when you were the least bit nasty towards me.

Of course, Jillery posted no forgery. That just another one of your
Big Lies you spew when you have no idea what you're talking about.


<snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
attribution line of my post:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:45:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised.

Since I wrote something negative about you below, nobody
should be surprised that you decided to punish me for it as above.

> >I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
> >this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:
>
>
> You were doing so well,

Not according to *your* POV: you had already hit me several times
with your "puckered sphincter" guttersnipe attribution line since
my return.

> and then you had to resurrect this dead
> thread.

Not dead, only dormant like Mt. St.Helens was until it erupted.

> Did you run out of bellybutton lint?

What other idiotic question [a.k.a. "spew"] would you like to ask here?

> >On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 9:30:05 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:57:17 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >> > There are many regulars and other people who post to talk.origins whom I
> >> >> > have never attacked personally and who, to the best of my recollection,
> >> >> > have not been seen by me as ever attacking me personally.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A few of those I list are, unfortunately, long gone, but I certainly
> >> >> > found it rewarding and sometimes edifying to discuss and, yes,
> >> >> > debate various things with them. "Tough but fair" is the way I
> >> >> > would characterize most of them, from what I have experienced.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This list is still very incomplete and I hope to continue being
> >> >> > able to add to it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Arkalen, R. Dean, Steven Carlip, Joe Cummings, deadrat, Mike Dworetsky,
> >> >> > Steady Eddie, Glenn, William Hyde, Inez, Andre G. Isaak, Earle Jones, Kalkidas, Nick Keighley, J.J.Lodder,Joe LyonLayden, Ernest Major,
> >> >> > Bill Rogers, Oo Tiib, walksalone
> >
> >Since then I added three more in reply to jillery, most notably Dana Tweedy,
> >a Christian whose theological orientation reminds me of you, Martin.

FTR, the other two were Steady Eddie and Robert Carnegie, a.k.a.
Robert Carnegie fnord.

You made no reply to that post. Did you hope the thread would die
with that? It didn't, Martin came in four days later, after
I went on my break.

> >I remembered one more person today, because he posted to the "bird
> >caught in amber" thread today: Walter Bushell

<snip text making no mention of you>

...I should have added "from time to time." Like on the occasions Martin
described above.

> Of course, Jillery projects no such persona.

You did on those occasions, whose existence you made no attempt
to deny.

> OTOH that's what you do regularly.

Your last two comments constitute a hyper-PWH, paraphrased:

I know you are, but I am no such thing.

The original Pee Wee Hermanism (PWH) had "but what am I?" after the comma.
One of its essential features, which your hyper-PWH shares, is to give NO
description that would fit the first part,

"I know you are" =~= "OTOH that's what you do regularly"

On the other hand, behavior at odds with your "no such persona"
is still up there, courtesy of Martin Harran.

> Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

I wrote no tu quoque, and besides, a "tu quoque" in the strict sense is a
sub-PWH, lacking the coda "but what am I?".

Your hyper-PWH is two steps removed from that.

>
>
> >[I might add that you don't seem to be one of the others who behave
> >that way.]
> >
> >
> >> In just the same way, you have turned my disinclination to seek
> >> support from you into some sort of global "no trespass" signage.
> >
> >You are dishonestly whitewashing your behavior. Ripping into me as
> >described above wasn't the only gratuitous attack you made on me since those
> >fairly recent days, either. But I can't think of a single occasion
> >prior to Jillery's "forgery" when you were the least bit nasty towards me.
>
>
> Of course, Jillery posted no forgery.

Note the scare quotes. An accurate description, sans scare quotes,
of what you did is up there and repeated here:

a dishonest
shifting around of text by Jillery. So far from being an innocent prank,
it made a laughingstock of you to anyone who did not know what
had been going on between the two of you, and was too naive to
smell a rat.

I've documented that dishonest shifting around many times before,
and can do it again if you deny that I've made an accurate
description here.

> That just another one of your
> Big Lies you spew when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about, and I defy you to deny
the above description of what you did with what Martin wrote.

Go ahead, make my day.

>
> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> sphincter>

You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin: you are describing
things I wrote to him about him that put HIM in a bad light.

And none of it was a repetition of anything I had posted before.
your misleading "repetitive" notwithstanding.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised.

>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>attribution line of my post:

Your pack of lies disqualify you from complaining about my alleged
pack of lies. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:45:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> Is anybody surprised.
>
>Since I wrote something negative about you below, nobody
>should be surprised that you decided to punish me for it as above.

Don't like that I note the repetitive irrelevant spew you ejaculate
from your puckered sphincter? Then stop doing it. Not sure why you
*still* haven't figure that out yet.

>> >I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
>> >this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:

And how 'bout them Mets.

>> You were doing so well,
>
>Not according to *your* POV: you had already hit me several times
>with your "puckered sphincter" guttersnipe attribution line since
>my return.

Really? After your return and before my previous reply above, to
which you take such umbrage, I posted 12 replies directly to you, of
which exactly two included my alleged "guttersnipe attribution". That
doesn't even qualify as a "few" nevermind "several".

>> and then you had to resurrect this dead
>> thread.
>
>Not dead, only dormant like Mt. St.Helens was until it erupted.

And of course, the post previous to your contribution was on 12/27. So
you are the sole agent for the resurrection of this once-dead thread.

Which makes your lie above almost as stupid as Martin Harran's stupid
lies. But if you just applied yourself, I bet you could post much
stupider lies than he does.

>> Did you run out of bellybutton lint?
>
>What other idiotic question [a.k.a. "spew"] would you like to ask here?

Your idiotic questions disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged idiotic questions. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.


<snip remaining repetitive spew>

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>attribution line of my post:
>

[...]

>> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
>> sphincter>
>
>You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin:

She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
she just makes up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>>attribution line of my post:
>>
>[...]
>
>>> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
>>> sphincter>
>>
>>You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin:
>
>She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
>clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
>way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
>she just makes up.

Just curious...

Aside from personality issues which are matters of
perception rather than fact, what do you claim she's "made
up"?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
> >>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
> >>attribution line of my post:
> >>
> >[...]
> >
> >>> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
> >>> sphincter>
> >>
> >>You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin:
> >
> >She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
> >clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
> >way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
> >she just makes up.
>
> Just curious...
>
> Aside from personality issues which are matters of
> perception rather than fact, what do you claim she's "made
> up"?

I can't speak for Martin, but I will point out one thing that
certainly gives one example of what you are asking for.

Jillery invented ("made up") a grotesquely bogus script that made
it look like Martin had made a shocking admission about himself.
In the excerpt from a long jillery post that follows, Martin goes first,
then jillery, then Martin again, then jillery again:

*************************************************
>>>I always reserved the right to and make no apology for correcting lies
>>>you tell about me.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it works differently where you come from, but in this
>>universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies. Where
>>I come from, there's a difference between opinions and facts. So let
>>me know if you ever actually identify a lie about you from me.
>
>Well, at least we are getting somewhere you seem to be admitting that
>you live in a different universe.


I leave it as an exercise which description better fits *this*
universe.


>Your most recent one that I spammed the newsgroup will do for
>starters.
******************************************************

I am reproducing the above exactly the way it appeared in
an attempted cover-up by jillery, asterisks and all:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/892BgfNYH3Q/CWDKVNuBAwAJ
Subject: Re: The Creationist minority
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <mad0kc548m2kuq2u4...@4ax.com>

Martin got careless in saying how jillery had mangled the
"documentation" of Martin admitting to something he'd
never admitted. He got too specific, claiming that
jillery had snipped a certain piece of text and moved
it to a certain place, whereas jillery could have altered
the order of things in a different way.

Jillery alleged that this was a lie by Martin.

I suppose you are too fond of jillery to disagree with
that, but what do you say to what she had actually done?


Would "flagrant misrepresentation of what Martin had written"
be too strong for you?


After all, in reading the above script, a newcomer to t.o. might think he
had witnessed Martin callously admitting to be in a different
universe than the one where
"you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies" [see above]
and where
"there's a difference between opinions and facts." [ditto]


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
>clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
>way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
>she just makes up.

Apparently Martin Harran thinks he is the center of the universe. If
so, Martin Harran should think again.

Even as Martin Harran notes time and again his alleged lack of
interest, Jiliery notes time and again his alleged lack of interest
doesn't count for shit. Jillery's reasons for replying to Martin
Harran's posts have nothing to do with Martin Harran's interests.

Jillery also notes time and again Martin Harran repeatedly goes out of
his way to post gratuitous lies about Jillery to anybody in any post,
as he did above, which explicitly puts the lie to his claim of a lack
of interest.

Further, Jillery repeatedly and explictly documented Martin Harran's
failure to identify said alleged "lies and shit", which explicitly
puts the lie to his claim of highlighting them.

Futher, Jillery has repeately and explicitly documented Martin
Harran's lies, as contrasted to Martin Harran's mere repetitive bald
assertions.

Martin Harran aka AAQ aka NeverAnswersQuestions practices the Big Lie
similarly to Peter Nyikos aka rockhead. Apparently they enjoy sharing
their sociopathic behavior with their strange bedfellows.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:01:37 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised.

>On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>> >>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>> >>attribution line of my post:
>> >>
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
>> >>> sphincter>
>> >>
>> >>You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin:
>> >
>> >She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
>> >clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
>> >way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
>> >she just makes up.
>>
>> Just curious...
>>
>> Aside from personality issues which are matters of
>> perception rather than fact, what do you claim she's "made
>> up"?
>
>I can't speak for Martin, but I will point out one thing that
>certainly gives one example of what you are asking for.

As usual, you stick your nose into discussions where nobody asked you,
in which you have no involvement, about which you know nothing, and
all you do is throw shit around and add to the confusion. Apparently
you think that makes you look clever. If so, think again.

>Jillery invented ("made up") a grotesquely bogus script that made
>it look like Martin had made a shocking admission about himself.
>In the excerpt from a long jillery post that follows, Martin goes first,
>then jillery, then Martin again, then jillery again:

The above is just more of your repetitive irrelevant spew you
ejaculate from your puckered sphincter. It's your Big Lie, where you
repeatedly assert lies about me, and repeatedly assert you documented
said lies, when in fact all you ever did is baldly assert made up
crap.

You and Martin Harran are both practitioners of the Big Lie.
Apparently you two strange bedfellows enjoy such sociopathy, you do it
so often.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:25:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>>>her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>>>attribution line of my post:
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> <snip remaining repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
>>>> sphincter>
>>>
>>>You must have a soft spot in your heart for Martin:
>>
>>She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
>>clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
>>way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
>>she just makes up.
>
>Just curious...
>
>Aside from personality issues which are matters of
>perception rather than fact, what do you claim she's "made
>up"?

There's an example just a bit earlier in the thread "The Problem With
the Abiogenesis and the Genetic code" where I inadvertently replied to
you instead of her.

To remind you, the relevant part started with freon96 muttering about
scientists explaining stuff wrong.

I observed:
"Funny how when scientists explain stuff wrong, it is always other
scientists who find them out, never Creationists or IDers."

You remarked:
"Isn't it though? Funny, too, how when that fact is noted to some they
tend to run away."

Jillery jumped in with:
"And some, like freon96 and Martin Harran, pretend ignore it."

Of course she didn't give any example of me "pretend ignoring"
anything because I have never, ever "pretend ignored" anything, it's
just something she made up.

[jillery]

Of course, I did not just make it up. Instead, you misrepresent above
what I wrote. And if you scraped enough honesty together enough to
ask me directly, I would explain your misrepresentation. But you
didn't. And you haven't. Because you know I have documented examples
of exactly that in the past. You just continue to illustrate your
dishonesty and cowardice by posting more of your lies.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:36:01 +0000, Martin Harran

And since you mentioned it, specify which one of your posts above is
the one you allege to have "inadvertently sent" to Bob Casanova. Given
your repeated and gratuitous remarks that you make a point of not
replying to me, and given it was Bob Casanova who replied to Freon96,
it's no surprise that you don't identify who you now claim to have
*advertently* sent your post.

You just keep digging yourself into that hole you find yourself.
That's what you're good at.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 07:04:51 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And still not one example given ... QED.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:30:32 +0000, Martin Harran

Yes, one more example of your baldly asserted cowardly lies.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:49:35 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

It's would actually every easy for you to show me to be a liar, all
you have to do is post one single example of me "pretend ignoring" as
you accused me of. Except you can't give even one example.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:35:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> >> and then you had to resurrect this dead
> >> thread.
> >
> >Not dead, only dormant like Mt. St.Helens was until it erupted.
>
>
> And of course, the post previous to your contribution was on 12/27. So
> you are the sole agent for the resurrection of this once-dead thread.

So how about them Mets?

> Which makes your lie above

You call "dormant" a lie? You sure seem to live in a different universe

than you claimed to be in when you wrote:

in this
universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies.

And "makes" only makes you look like you are ignorant of what the
term "dormant volcano" means.

> almost as stupid as Martin Harran's stupid
> lies.

One of Martin's alleged lies was to get too specific about HOW you rearranged
the text in your reply to deceitfully made him look like he was admitting to
living in a DIFFERENT universe than the one where

"you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies" [see above]
and where
"there's a difference between opinions and facts."

With the following snip-n-snark, you snipped proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that you had been libeling me where your deceitful rearranging is concerned:

> <snip remaining repetitive spew>


____________ repost of proof beyond a reasonable doubt _________________

> > But I can't think of a single occasion
> >prior to Jillery's "forgery" when you were the least bit nasty towards me.
>
>
> Of course, Jillery posted no forgery.

Note the scare quotes. An accurate description, sans scare quotes,
of what you did is up there and repeated here:

a dishonest
shifting around of text by Jillery. So far from being an innocent prank,
it made a laughingstock of you to anyone who did not know what
had been going on between the two of you, and was too naive to
smell a rat.

I've documented that dishonest shifting around many times before,
and can do it again if you deny that I've made an accurate
description here.


> That just another one of your
> Big Lies you spew when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about, and I defy you to deny
the above description of what you did with what Martin wrote.

Go ahead, make my day.

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

Your libel was in the sentence to which I replied, "I know
exactly what I am talking about."

Since you were too cowardly to make my day, I made my day up
there by givinh ADDITIONAL details to the general description
of your "forgery" this time around.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:01:37 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

I say that I see two personalities unlikely to ever agree on
anything if there's the slightest reason to disagree; some
pairs are just like that. The "oil and water" problem. YMMV.

>Would "flagrant misrepresentation of what Martin had written"
>be too strong for you?
>
>
>After all, in reading the above script, a newcomer to t.o. might think he
>had witnessed Martin callously admitting to be in a different
>universe than the one where
>"you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies" [see above]
>and where
>"there's a difference between opinions and facts." [ditto]
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:16:59 +0000, Martin Harran

Since you finally scraped up enough honesty together to confront me
directly, every single one of your replies to Bob Casanova in this
thread where you inject your gratuitous lies about me are examples of
you pretending to ignore me.

And since you have problems counting with your clothes on, that makes
several examples.

You're welcome.

And you have done similarly many times in the past, which I noted at
the time you did them. Who do you think you're fooling?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:36:01 +0000, the following appeared

Yes.

>I observed:
>"Funny how when scientists explain stuff wrong, it is always other
>scientists who find them out, never Creationists or IDers."

Yes.

>You remarked:
>"Isn't it though? Funny, too, how when that fact is noted to some they
>tend to run away."

Yes (to be clear, "they" referred to the Creationists and
IDers, which apparently you "got").

>Jillery jumped in with:
>"And some, like freon96 and Martin Harran, pretend ignore it."

OK, *that* I didn't see; the only two responses from jillery
in that thread I saw after I posted were the one in which
she noted the status of Charles Choi and her response to me
after I accepted your apology. So either I simply missed it
or it was in another thread, probably the former.

>Of course she didn't give any example of me "pretend ignoring"
>anything because I have never, ever "pretend ignored" anything, it's
>just something she made up.

You'll have to discuss that with her, *especially* since the
post of hers you quoted apparently refers back to previous
exchanges between you two, exchanges in which I took no part
AFAICR.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:04:36 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised.

>On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:35:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>
>> >> and then you had to resurrect this dead
>> >> thread.
>> >
>> >Not dead, only dormant like Mt. St.Helens was until it erupted.
>>
>>
>> And of course, the post previous to your contribution was on 12/27. So
>> you are the sole agent for the resurrection of this once-dead thread.
>
>So how about them Mets?

Since you asked, that's my point. Since you think it irrelevant, not
sure why you're arguing about it.

>> Which makes your lie above
>
>You call "dormant" a lie?

Since you asked, no. You conveniently deleted the lie to which I
refer above. But of course, you knew that already.

>You sure seem to live in a different universe
>than you claimed to be in when you wrote:
>
> in this
> universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies.
>
>And "makes" only makes you look like you are ignorant of what the
>term "dormant volcano" means.

Nope. That makes you look like you're only interested in ejaculating
your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

<snip your remaining repetitive irrelevant spew>

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Since you explicitly recognize below there were earlier relevant
comments, your "yes" above is simply incorrect.

>>I observed:
>>"Funny how when scientists explain stuff wrong, it is always other
>>scientists who find them out, never Creationists or IDers."
>
>Yes.
>
>>You remarked:
>>"Isn't it though? Funny, too, how when that fact is noted to some they
>>tend to run away."
>
>Yes (to be clear, "they" referred to the Creationists and
>IDers, which apparently you "got").
>
>>Jillery jumped in with:
>>"And some, like freon96 and Martin Harran, pretend ignore it."
>
>OK, *that* I didn't see; the only two responses from jillery
>in that thread I saw after I posted were the one in which
>she noted the status of Charles Choi and her response to me
>after I accepted your apology. So either I simply missed it
>or it was in another thread, probably the former.
>
>>Of course she didn't give any example of me "pretend ignoring"
>>anything because I have never, ever "pretend ignored" anything, it's
>>just something she made up.
>
>You'll have to discuss that with her, *especially* since the
>post of hers you quoted apparently refers back to previous
>exchanges between you two, exchanges in which I took no part
>AFAICR.

You can present yourself as a disinterested third party, or you can
post one-sided opinions, but you can't reasonably do both at the same
time. Pick your poison.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:47:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:01:37 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>>I suppose you are too fond of jillery to disagree with
>>that, but what do you say to what she had actually done?
>
>I say that I see two personalities unlikely to ever agree on
>anything if there's the slightest reason to disagree; some
>pairs are just like that. The "oil and water" problem. YMMV.

I suppose you're right, if you regard dishonesty and cowardice as
personality characteristics.

[Peter Nyikos]

You actually surprised me by answering my post at all,
instead of simply saying that you were asking Martin a question,
not me.

However, your reply is about as far as possible from
acknowledging that I wrote something that directly answered
your question, so it really amounts to the same thing
as not answering at all.

IOW, you are doing your best to maintain the facade of
being a disinterested observer, far above the fray
between a person you have consistently belittled (me)
and a person whom you once backed to the hilt in her childish
addiction to Pee Wee Hermanisms [1] (jillery).

So jillery was quite correct in pointing to your "disinterested"
facade, but without going into specifics. Perhaps she meant
the facade of being far above the fray between Martin and
herself, which you are also maintaining here while
ignoring damning information that I am documenting here.

[1] In my post of today in reply to jillery, wherein I
demonstrated jillery's cowardice, [2] I refused to
pick up a number of "gold coins" [sarcasm alluding to
a centuries-old cunning tactic] she showered in my path,
including several Pee Wee Hermanisms,
because I was focused on her deceitfully making Martin
look like he was admitting to something horrible
(as described at the end of the post to which you are
replying).

[2] cowardice which she again displayed by again
snipping the damning evidence, essentially identical
to the evidence that you have left in (above and below).

> >Would "flagrant misrepresentation of what Martin had written"
> >be too strong for you?

<crickets>

> >
> >After all, in reading the above script, a newcomer to t.o. might think he
> >had witnessed Martin callously admitting to be in a different
> >universe than the one where
> >"you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies" [see above]
> >and where
> >"there's a difference between opinions and facts." [ditto]
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

It IS funny that you have kept the crickets chirping despite
"<crickets>" being one of your most potent and frequent
comebacks to others.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:19:49 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised?


As I noted before, all you're doing here is throwing your crap around
and adding to the confusion. You must enjoy proving me right, you do
it so often.

<snip rockhead's repetitive irrelevant spew>


Oopsie, nothing left.

[Borrowed Time]

Are you the same Peter Nyikos that identifies elsewhere as being on the faculty at the University of South Carolina? I find it hard to believe you are affiliated with any educational institution. I see there is a person on the faculty there with the same name. Is he aware of your activity in this group?

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:57:10 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Seeing that you accused me earlier of misrepresenting you, before we
go any further, perhaps you will clarify something.

Are you now saying that your "pretend ignore" interjection into the
discussion between Bob and me had nothing to do with what he and I
were actually discussing [1] and was to do with something entirely
different - my disinclination to engage in debate with you?

[1] Scientists' mistakes being found out by other scientists and
IDers/Creationists running away from that fact.

[Peter Nyikos]

> > there by [giving] ADDITIONAL details to the general description

> > of your "forgery" this time around.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Are you the same Peter Nyikos that identifies elsewhere as being on the faculty at the University of South Carolina? I find it hard to believe you are affiliated with any educational institution. I see there is a person on the faculty there with the same name. Is he aware of your activity in this group?

I am he, and you can readily verify that by e-mailing me at
my university address. Don't worry -- I won't reveal anything
about you that isn't available on Usenet.

So why do you find it hard to believe? Is it because you
have never encountered a faculty member who believes
so strongly in truth and justice that he would expose someone
who evidently has no use for these things unless it suits her?

Or is it because you are fooled by jillery's facade of
juvenile silliness into thinking she is a silly twit whom
nobody but me (and occasionally others, like Glenn) takes seriously?

Peter Nyikos
nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

PS I see that this is only the second post you have done to
talk.origins at your current e-mail address. How is it that
you zeroed in on both myself and Glenn (see above)?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:35:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
> >her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
> >attribution line of my post:
>
>
> Your pack of lies

Nonexistent, liar.

> disqualify you from complaining about my alleged pack of lies.

I did more than allege a lie in the part you cravenly snipped at the end:
I gave proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you libeled me.

No wonder you snipped it, asshole.

[Update: you snipped it again after I posted a reply to
the part of the post that follows this one, coward.]

> Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.
>
>
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:45:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> >> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
> >>
> >> Is anybody surprised.
> >
> >Since I wrote something negative about you below, nobody
> >should be surprised that you decided to punish me for it as above.
>
>
> Don't like that I note the repetitive irrelevant spew you ejaculate
> from your puckered sphincter? Then stop doing it.

You never explained in intelligible English what I'm allegedly doing
that needs stopping.

The guttersnipe "ejaculate from your puckered sphincter" makes
your formula something out of Never-Never Land. Or worse.

> Not sure why you
> *still* haven't figure that out yet.

Only an insane person would expect someone to figure out
what the hell those fictional concepts of yours mean.

>
> >> >I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
> >> >this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:
>
>
> And how 'bout them Mets.
>
>
> >> You were doing so well,
> >
> >Not according to *your* POV: you had already hit me several times
> >with your "puckered sphincter" guttersnipe attribution line since
> >my return.
>
>
> Really? After your return and before my previous reply above, to
> which you take such umbrage, I posted 12 replies directly to you, of
> which exactly two included my alleged "guttersnipe attribution".

Ah-HA! You can certainly be forthcoming with details when you
think you have the upper hand.

In stunning contrast, the last time I asked you to identify
a lie by Martin Harran, you claimed that I had participated
on a thread where it appeared last year. When I asked where,
you posted a message-ID, and immediately went into a long [1] tirade
about how I keep neglecting to obey your <ahem> advice to get
a news server that allows search by message-IDs.

[1] Longer than it would have taken for you to use your
message-ID to look up the Subject and date and times,
and post it.

> That
> doesn't even qualify as a "few" nevermind "several".
>

"several" can mean two the way I use it, and the Merriam-Webster
dictionary includes *inter alia* a meaning that is beautifully unambiguous:
"more than one."

But I'll try to remember to humor you from now on.

So what is "few" according to you? Three or more? And does "several" start
at seven in the Jillery Dictionary?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
> >clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
> >way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
> >she just makes up.
>
>
> Apparently Martin Harran thinks he is the center of the universe.

You're confusing him with Tony Pagano. :-)

But seriously, look at my post where I talk about Pagano
second-guessing Tycho Brahe:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MIh2gALIAng/bMzHsIoUAQAJ
Subject: Re: Ranting and Raving but not much else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77f613f6-3ba7-4e24...@googlegroups.com>

<snip>

> Futher, Jillery has repeately and explicitly documented Martin
> Harran's lies,

As you love to say, "Bald assertions are just as baldly refuted."

But let me guess: you posted message-id's of posts where you had
baldly labeled various claims by Martin as "lies". Right?

[background: see my earlier reply to you to this same Subject: line
today]

>as contrasted to Martin Harran's mere repetitive bald
> assertions.

At least he actually quoted from earlier posts on this thread.
When did you do that?

>
> Martin Harran aka AAQ aka NeverAnswersQuestions practices the Big Lie
> similarly to Peter Nyikos aka rockhead. Apparently they enjoy sharing
> their sociopathic behavior with their strange bedfellows.

Bald assertions are just as baldly refuted.

So how does it feel to be hoist with your own petard?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:12:59 +0000, Martin Harran

>>You're welcome.
>>
>>And you have done similarly many times in the past, which I noted at
>>the time you did them. Who do you think you're fooling?
>

>Seeing that you accused me earlier of misrepresenting you, before we
>go any further, perhaps you will clarify something.

Finally, a hint of reason from you. Isn't it amazing what even a
moment of honest reflection can do? I suppose better late than never,
but it doesn't paper over your made-up shit you already posted.

>Are you now saying that your "pretend ignore" interjection into the
>discussion between Bob and me had nothing to do with what he and I
>were actually discussing [1] and was to do with something entirely
>different - my disinclination to engage in debate with you?

First, your characterization of prior posts is self-serving at best. I
no more "jumped in" than you did. You "observed" to Freon96, not to
Bob Casanova. I "jumped" in reply to Bob Casanova, not to you. You
replied to Bob Casanova hours after I replied to him. So there was
no ongoing conversation between you and Bob Casanova for me to "jump
in with". That's more of your made-up shit.

Second, you continued to characterize my comments as made up shit, an
assertion of fact not in evidence to say the least. That's more of
your made-up shit.

Third, your replies show you have no idea what I meant or made any
effort until now to determine what I meant. You just assumed, and then
built your pile of made-up shit from your imaginary assumption. That's
what you do.

Finally, my comment to Bob Casanova, to which you take such great
umbrage, is a reference to a comment I made to him previously in that
same topic, of your failure to back up your gratuitous made-up shit
you posted about me, which you also posted in that same topic.

Not sure how many times I have to document your made-up shit before
you realize how stupid it is for you to pretend I haven't done so.

>[1] Scientists' mistakes being found out by other scientists and
>IDers/Creationists running away from that fact.
>
>>

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:00:34 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:35:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote
>> >her usual pack of lies, for over the hundredth time, into the
>> >attribution line of my post:
>>
>>

>> Your pack of lies disqualify you from complaining about my alleged pack of lies.
>
>Nonexistent, liar.


I agree my alleged pack of lies are non-existent, liar.

>I did more than allege a lie in the part you cravenly snipped at the end:
>I gave proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you libeled me.

If you really wanted me to address a specific point, then you wouldn't
have buried it amid a mass of your repetitive irrelevant spew. Not

sure why you *still* haven't figure that out yet.

>No wonder you snipped it, asshole.

Of course, that's not it. I deleted it for two reasons:

1) It had nothing to do with the point on which I focused, and

2) I will not enable you to have me repost your crap for the sake of
it.

>> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:45:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> >> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

I note you reposted only parts of this previous post, only leave other
parts out and add in new parts. Who do you think you're fooling?

>> >> Is anybody surprised.
>> >
>> >Since I wrote something negative about you below, nobody
>> >should be surprised that you decided to punish me for it as above.
>>
>>
>> Don't like that I note the repetitive irrelevant spew you ejaculate
>> from your puckered sphincter? Then stop doing it.
>
>You never explained in intelligible English what I'm allegedly doing
>that needs stopping.
>
>The guttersnipe "ejaculate from your puckered sphincter" makes
>your formula something out of Never-Never Land. Or worse.

Don't like that I note your repetitive irrelevant spew you ejaculate
from your puckered sphincter? Then stop doing it. Not sure why you
*still* haven't figured that out.

>> Not sure why you
>> *still* haven't figure that out yet.
>
>Only an insane person would expect someone to figure out
>what the hell those fictional concepts of yours mean.

Only an insane person would do the same thing over and over and expect
different results.

>> >> >I went on a month long posting break just before Christmas, and
>> >> >this is the first time I've seen this post-Christmas post:
>>
>>
>> And how 'bout them Mets.
>>
>>
>> >> You were doing so well,
>> >
>> >Not according to *your* POV: you had already hit me several times
>> >with your "puckered sphincter" guttersnipe attribution line since
>> >my return.
>>
>>
>> Really? After your return and before my previous reply above, to
>> which you take such umbrage, I posted 12 replies directly to you, of
>> which exactly two included my alleged "guttersnipe attribution".
>
>Ah-HA! You can certainly be forthcoming with details when you
>think you have the upper hand.

Ah-HA! back atcha, asshole. You're so desperate to strain every nit,
that you don't even realize you just mooted your original complaint
*and* tacitly agreed with my point above. For your own sake, don't
defend yourself in a court of law.

>In stunning contrast, the last time I asked you to identify
>a lie by Martin Harran, you claimed that I had participated
>on a thread where it appeared last year. When I asked where,
>you posted a message-ID, and immediately went into a long [1] tirade
>about how I keep neglecting to obey your <ahem> advice to get
>a news server that allows search by message-IDs.

Of course, you assert a false equivalence. The "detail" to which you
refer above, about which you can't make up your mind to accept or
reject, is information specifically refuting your latest Big Lie, the
one you deleted from the quoted text above [1]

In contrast, your request for info about Martin Harran was at that
time just the latest in a series of references to same, all but the
first being irrelevant to anything anybody posted to the topic or to
the topic itself, just as it is here.[2]

>[1] Longer than it would have taken for you to use your
>message-ID to look up the Subject and date and times,
>and post it.

And once again, I note that I don't give you advice, as you're too
infantile to accept it. And once again, you blame me for your
problems, which shows how proud you are of your infantile behavior.

>> That
>> doesn't even qualify as a "few" nevermind "several".
>>
>
>"several" can mean two the way I use it, and the Merriam-Webster
>dictionary includes *inter alia* a meaning that is beautifully unambiguous:
>"more than one."
>
>But I'll try to remember to humor you from now on.
>
>So what is "few" according to you? Three or more? And does "several" start
>at seven in the Jillery Dictionary?

Since you want to play dueling dictionaries, from:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

*************************************
several: pronoun: More than two but not many.
*************************************

Of course, it should go without saying that the actual point, the one
you *still* don't address, is that your original complaint, the one
you dishonestly deleted from the rest of your repetitive irrelevant
spew, a part of your Big Lies against me, is that I improperly noted
your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter
post-January.

[1] By your own express standards, said deletion makes you an asshole.
Tu quoque back atcha.

[2] This is a fundamental feature of your repetitive irrelevant spew,
your Big Lies against me. It doesn't take an insane person to figure
it out, but it does take a conscience not to do it in the first place.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:20:25 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:47:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:01:37 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>
>>>I suppose you are too fond of jillery to disagree with
>>>that, but what do you say to what she had actually done?
>>
>>I say that I see two personalities unlikely to ever agree on
>>anything if there's the slightest reason to disagree; some
>>pairs are just like that. The "oil and water" problem. YMMV.
>
>
>I suppose you're right, if you regard dishonesty and cowardice as
>personality characteristics.

Of course, and subjective to boot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:21:29 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Sorry, but no. The *relevant* part *for me* started exactly
as Martin noted, with Bill's comment. Nothing I might have
noted below regarding prior exchanges between you two was
relevant *to Martin's misidentification, my calling him on
it, his apology, or my acceptance of that apology.* I don't
know any clearer way to express that; the word "apparently"
in the comment to which I assume you refer should indicate
that I'm assuming such exchanges existed based on your and
Martin's comments, not that I was involved in them or even
know what they consisted of in any detail.

I'm a disinterested party regarding your feud with Martin,
but that doesn't mean I can't post a response to some idiot
like Bill who participates in a particular thread in which
you two are arguing. Nor does it mean that by posting in
such a thread I'm obliged to "take sides". And nothing I
posted, beyond noting, as an aside, what *I've* observed in
my exchanges with Martin (which was not by any stretch of
the imagination partisan), could be so construed, at least
IMHO. I've even noted when *Glenn* made valid comments, as
have you. Does that make either of us his partisan, or
indicate we're "taking his side"? I don't think so...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:19:49 -0800 (PST), the following

What a shame; try to not let it make you despondent.

Just FYI, I've learned to ignore most of your posts, due
primarily to your penchant for pasting multiple snippets
from multiple exchanges, some dating back *years*, most of
which are only relevant in your imagination, and most of
which don't include important context.

HAND.

<snip>

--

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On some occasions, yes. On another occasion, you insulted
him without cause, even though he made some valid objections
to your amateurish answers to "What did the ancestral ape
look like?"

After Harshman butted in by falsely claiming that I had
made some errors in systematics [1] you suddenly became a lot more
civilized towards Glenn, even though nothing had passed
between you to change the contempt you had shown for Glenn
a short time before.

[1] John never did, nor could, identify any errors. And
so the obvious good feeling between the two of you after
he butted in, and the way you shamelessly whitewashed
what had passed earlier between you and me, and his praise
of your scientific knowledge which I've never seen evidence of,
spoke volumes.

> Does that make either of us his partisan, or
> indicate we're "taking his side"? I don't think so...

There, of course, you are on safe ground, since on another
occasion, you and jillery played tag-team against Glenn for a while,
but you prudently exited after I got in some good solid
points, but jillery went on, accusing me and Glenn
of being "strange bedfellows" while being unable to refute
what I was saying.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:04:36 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

> >On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:35:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:46:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >
> >> >> and then you had to resurrect this dead
> >> >> thread.
> >> >
> >> >Not dead, only dormant like Mt. St.Helens was until it erupted.
> >>
> >>
> >> And of course, the post previous to your contribution was on 12/27. So
> >> you are the sole agent for the resurrection of this once-dead thread.
> >
> >So how about them Mets?
>
>
> Since you asked, that's my point.
> Since you think it irrelevant, not
> sure why you're arguing about it.

Stop pretending I was arguing about THAT. I was arguing
about your NEXT statement:

>
> >> Which makes your lie above
> >
> >You call "dormant" a lie?
>
>
> Since you asked, no. You conveniently deleted the lie to which I
> refer above.

There was nothing "above" that you labeled a lie,
nor anything elsewhere in your post, so I assumed it referred to my
disagreement about "dead" v. "dormant."

Anyone reading this, and using a news reader that meets
your stamp of approval, can verify the lack of any such
identification in a jiffy from the following documentation:

Message-ID: <6di78dhca817c6vje...@4ax.com>

If anyone having difficulties with such documentation
would like easy verification, I can post an url that will
take them there directly.

> But of course, you knew that already.

Stop pretending I am able to read your nefarious mind.
You are ultimately as inscrutable as "Charlene" in M. Scott Peck's
book, _People_of_the_Lie_, and probably at least as "evil"
[Peck's word for the likes of you] as "Charlene" was.


If perchance your "lie" referred to my use of "several" to mean two,
[see the exchange we've had about the "above" part of your post today]
then I'm standing by what I wrote here:

> >You sure seem to live in a different universe
> >than you claimed to be in when you wrote:
> >
> > in this
> > universe, you don't get to baldly escalate corrections to lies.

> >And "makes" only makes you look like you are ignorant of what the
> >term "dormant volcano" means.
>
>
> Nope. That makes you look like you're only interested in ejaculating
> your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

If not being able to read your nefarious mind is tantamount
to being guilty of your surreal "description" ("ejaculating... sphincter")
then I will henceforth take it as a compliment when you use those same
surreal words in your torrent of manglings of the attribution line to me.

>
> <snip your remaining repetitive irrelevant spew>

This has an even more complimentary interpretation : you are
showing that you apply part of your surreal description
to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty
of libel [not legally actionable, but still libel].

Glad to have that much cleared up.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:49:33 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

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

Is anybody surprised.

>On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:14:41 +0000, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >She certainly seems somewhat obsessed with me even though I have made
>> >clear time and time again that I have no interest in engaging in any
>> >way with her other than to highlight the lies she tells and the shit
>> >she just makes up.
>>
>>
>> Apparently Martin Harran thinks he is the center of the universe.
>
>You're confusing him with Tony Pagano. :-)

Nope. I deliberately associated their expressed stupidities.

>> Futher, Jillery has repeately and explicitly documented Martin
>> Harran's lies,
>
>As you love to say, "Bald assertions are just as baldly refuted."

False equivalence. To deny that I have documented Martin Harran's lies
is willful ignorance at least.

>But let me guess: you posted message-id's of posts where you had
>baldly labeled various claims by Martin as "lies". Right?

Keep on guessing, you might get it right... stopped clocks are right
twice a day.

>>as contrasted to Martin Harran's mere repetitive bald
>> assertions.
>
>
>At least he actually quoted from earlier posts on this thread.
>When did you do that?

It's no surprise that you claim quoting is sufficient, because that's
often all you do as well. In the case you refer to above, what Martin
Harran actually did was quotemined earlier posts, which I also
documented.

>> Martin Harran aka AAQ aka NeverAnswersQuestions practices the Big Lie
>> similarly to Peter Nyikos aka rockhead. Apparently they enjoy sharing
>> their sociopathic behavior with their strange bedfellows.
>
>Bald assertions are just as baldly refuted.

Still the same false equivalence.

>So how does it feel to be hoist with your own petard?

I wouldn't know, but you should ask yourself, you do it so often.