Part 2: Harran's Complaint Lies Outside the Scope of ID Theory

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

snipped since already covered


>
>>3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of intelligent
>>agents.
>
> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
> God?



The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
supernatural agents. If design is concluded by ID theory after an
examination of some object, then identifying which subclass of designer
is involved or the identity of a specific designer is completely outside
the scope of ID Theory.

By analogy: If the Forensic Fire Examiner concludes arson then
determining the ethnic subclass or the individual identity of the
arsonist is outside the scope of his methodology.



snipped to be covered later.

[*Hemidactylus*]

T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
>
> By analogy: If the Forensic Fire Examiner concludes arson then
> determining the ethnic subclass or the individual identity of the
> arsonist is outside the scope of his methodology.
>

If the arsonist used water as accelerant or left their wallet at scene
could we infer they were as inept as a deity who puts a naive couple, a
forbidden tree and crafty talking serpent into an enclosed space together?
Or in crafting human privates puts the septic tank right in the
recreational area?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>
>snipped since already covered
>
>
>>
>>>3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of intelligent
>>>agents.
>>
>> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
>> God?
>
>
>
>The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>supernatural agents.

How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?

[Burkhard]

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> snipped since already covered
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> 3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of intelligent
>>>> agents.
>>>
>>> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
>>> God?
>>
>>
>>
>> The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>> supernatural agents.
>
> How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?

demons, ghosts, magic dragons that go puff...

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:37:02 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>snipped since already covered
>>
>>
>>
>>>>3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of
>>>>intelligent agents.
>>>
>>> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
>>> God?
>>
>>
>>
>>The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>>supernatural agents.
>
> How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?

1. Of course they count as God. But that's not the point. Where you go
wrong is stating that it is ID Theory and its methods that are linking an
object under examination to God. Such a link occurs outside of ID
Theory.

2. In order to attack ID Theory you have to show that William Dembski's
application of probability theory is mistaken. You haven't done that.

3. When ID theory implicates design this only points to the whole class
of intelligent agents not any subclass and not the individual agent.
The second point of attack for you is the argument leading from the class
of all intelligent agents to the identity of the individual agent. You
haven't done that either.

4. Instead you've used the useless rhetorical nonsense that ID Theory is
disguised religion and its conclusions should be ignored. As you've
discovered that nonsense doesn't hold up to any close scrutiny.

5. Your anger and hatred of God is blinding you to simple logic. It will
also be your undoing.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:59:41 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:37:02 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>snipped since already covered
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of
>>>>>intelligent agents.
>>>>
>>>> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
>>>> God?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>>>supernatural agents.
>>
>> How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?
>
>
>
>1. Of course they count as God. But that's not the point.

It is precisely the point. Both you and Dean have argued that ID is
not religious because it doesn't claim a God, you are now admitting
that the these "intelligent agents" are indeed God.

>Where you go
>wrong is stating that it is ID Theory and its methods that are linking an
>object under examination to God. Such a link occurs outside of ID
>Theory.

I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make there.

>
>2. In order to attack ID Theory you have to show that William Dembski's
>application of probability theory is mistaken. You haven't done that.

I don't need to show anything, you are the one claiming him as support
and it is you who has to show him to be correct. I have to say that
it's a rather peculiar form of religious belief that depends on
probability calculations as its foundation and once you go down that
road , you are simply playing Dawkins's game.

>
>3. When ID theory implicates design this only points to the whole class
>of intelligent agents not any subclass and not the individual agent.
>The second point of attack for you is the argument leading from the class
>of all intelligent agents to the identity of the individual agent. You
>haven't done that either.
>
>4. Instead you've used the useless rhetorical nonsense that ID Theory is
>disguised religion

Well, despite all the previous denials, you've just admitted that your
intelligent agents are in fact God.

>and its conclusions should be ignored.

No, I've never said they should be *ignored* - I've simply pointed
out, as others have, that there is no substance whatsoever to them.

> As you've
>discovered that nonsense doesn't hold up to any close scrutiny.
>
>5. Your anger and hatred of God is blinding you to simple logic. It will
>also be your undoing.

Well let's see, I was at Mass four times last weekend because I was
giving a talk at each of the Masses in our parish about Pope Francis's
visit to Ireland in August; I spent two hours last night giving a talk
to a group of parishioners about the Pope's Amoris Laetitia
exhortation of two years ago; I will be at a parish assembly this
Thursday night as a member of our Parish Pastoral Council working on a
Parish Development Plan; rather odd behaviour for someone who hates
God!

I will admit to a certain amount of anger, but that anger is not God,
it is with those people who claim to be his followers but present him
as either some sort of maniac or at least grossly incompetent.




>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/20/18 11:59 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:37:02 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>>> supernatural agents.
>>
>> How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?
>
> 1. Of course they count as God. But that's not the point. Where you go
> wrong is stating that it is ID Theory and its methods that are linking an
> object under examination to God. Such a link occurs outside of ID
> Theory.

With rare exceptions (Nyikos and the Raelians, who link to
extraterrestrials), the link, which occurs inside the theory, is to God.

> 2. In order to attack ID Theory you have to show that William Dembski's
> application of probability theory is mistaken. You haven't done that.

I have. Published by a university press, no less.

> 3. When ID theory implicates design this only points to the whole class
> of intelligent agents not any subclass and not the individual agent.
> The second point of attack for you is the argument leading from the class
> of all intelligent agents to the identity of the individual agent. You
> haven't done that either.

ID is like a compass in a magnetic storm. It points every which way
(because pointing at nothing is not an available option), whereupon the
ID author says, "See? It points to God!"

> 4. Instead you've used the useless rhetorical nonsense that ID Theory is
> disguised religion and its conclusions should be ignored. As you've
> discovered that nonsense doesn't hold up to any close scrutiny.

ID theory is not disguised religion; it is overt religion. Go look.

> 5. Your anger and hatred of God is blinding you to simple logic. It will
> also be your undoing.

Yes, I have contempt for the God you have created for yourself.
Probably not as much contempt as Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or Krishna
would have had.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:59:41 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:37:02 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:32 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>snipped since already covered
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>3. ID theory only presupposes the existence of the class of
>>>>>intelligent agents.
>>>>
>>>> Again, what is the difference between those "intelligent agents" and
>>>> God?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The class of intelligent agents would include subclasses of human and
>>>supernatural agents.
>>
>> How do those *supernatural* agents not count as God?
>
>
>
>1. Of course they count as God. But that's not the point. Where you go
>wrong is stating that it is ID Theory and its methods that are linking an
>object under examination to God. Such a link occurs outside of ID
>Theory.
>
>2. In order to attack ID Theory you have to show that William Dembski's
>application of probability theory is mistaken. You haven't done that.

Incorrect. Your statement above assumes Dembski's application of
probability theory is even relevant to identifying ID. Neither you,
Dembski, nor anyone else has shown that to be the case.

>3. When ID theory implicates design this only points to the whole class
>of intelligent agents not any subclass and not the individual agent.
>The second point of attack for you is the argument leading from the class
>of all intelligent agents to the identity of the individual agent. You
>haven't done that either.
>
>4. Instead you've used the useless rhetorical nonsense that ID Theory is
>disguised religion and its conclusions should be ignored. As you've
>discovered that nonsense doesn't hold up to any close scrutiny.
>
>5. Your anger and hatred of God is blinding you to simple logic. It will
>also be your undoing.

Your comment above is a baseless ad hominem attack.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:29:15 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Especially when directed at someone who is a confirmed
religious believer.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

To be accurate, Harran self-identifies his religious beliefs, unless
you know something about him you haven't mentioned.

The relevant point here remains: Pagano's comment is an ad homimen
attack regardless, as any alleged anger and bias isn't relevant to the
veracity of the comments Pagano criticizes.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I think that just like Alpha Beta before him, he realised the utter
idiocy of that soon after he posted it; just over an hour later, he
tried to make a rather feeble retreat under the guise of a "Mercy
Rule" and hasn't responded to me since.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:36:25 -0500, the following appeared

Correct; "self-confirmed" would have been a better choice.
But I have no reason to suspect he's lying about it.

>The relevant point here remains: Pagano's comment is an ad homimen
>attack regardless, as any alleged anger and bias isn't relevant to the
>veracity of the comments Pagano criticizes.

Agreed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:18:46 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, I provided a "Tony-English" translation of that "Mercy
Rule" comment of his, of which he's so enamored. Basically,
"Running away now."

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:35:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Not sure why you brought up yet another irrelevant point, but since
you did:

Suppose you met someone who "self-confirmed" to be richer than Bill
Gates. Yet he regularly begged money from others, and evaded them
when they tried to get their money back. And even if you thought that
person might be sincere but delusional, wouldn't you still admit that
negates their self-confirmation?

>>The relevant point here remains: Pagano's comment is an ad homimen
>>attack regardless, as any alleged anger and bias isn't relevant to the
>>veracity of the comments Pagano criticizes.
>
>Agreed.

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:51:02 -0500, the following appeared

Because I read your "self-identifies" correction as
skepticism regarding his claim. If my response to that is
irrelevant, or if I was wrong, sorry.

> but since
>you did:
>
>Suppose you met someone who "self-confirmed" to be richer than Bill
>Gates. Yet he regularly begged money from others, and evaded them
>when they tried to get their money back. And even if you thought that
>person might be sincere but delusional, wouldn't you still admit that
>negates their self-confirmation?

Sure. But like your comment to me, I'm not sure why you
brought up an irrelevant point; I've seen no evidence that
he's not a sincere religious believer, regardless of
whatever personality issues some might have with him. Cf Ray
Martinez or Tony Pagano, for two examples of those with whom
I've issues similar to those you apparently have with
Martin.

>>>The relevant point here remains: Pagano's comment is an ad homimen
>>>attack regardless, as any alleged anger and bias isn't relevant to the
>>>veracity of the comments Pagano criticizes.
>>
>>Agreed.
--

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:10:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Since the quoted text above explicitly identifies my expressed point,
which neither states nor implies anything related to skepticism about
Martin Harran's claims, and since you admit to making that inference
on your own, there is no "if" here.

>> but since
>>you did:
>>
>>Suppose you met someone who "self-confirmed" to be richer than Bill
>>Gates. Yet he regularly begged money from others, and evaded them
>>when they tried to get their money back. And even if you thought that
>>person might be sincere but delusional, wouldn't you still admit that
>>negates their self-confirmation?
>
>Sure. But like your comment to me, I'm not sure why you
>brought up an irrelevant point; I've seen no evidence that
>he's not a sincere religious believer, regardless of
>whatever personality issues some might have with him. Cf Ray
>Martinez or Tony Pagano, for two examples of those with whom
>I've issues similar to those you apparently have with
>Martin.

Excuse me, but it was you who brought up those irrelevant points. I
replied to the points you raised, which makes my comments about them
relevant to them, and so very much *not* like your comment to me.

And once again, you brought up yet another irrelevant point. And since
you brought it up, my reply to it is also relevant to it:

This is the second time in as many weeks you claim "my issues" with
Martin Harran are "personality issues". As I noted the first time,
not only is your claim factually incorrect and unsupported, it's a
one-sided misrepresentation of the facts. Worse, it makes a mockery
of your "self-confirmed" impartiality.

I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.

So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
at least.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:47:58 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Pssst ... your obsession with me is showing again, dear.

It's only a few days since I paid you some attention and I'm actually
getting a bit worried now. I have always assumed a certain level of
safety from the fact that at least 3000 miles of ocean separate us but
I don't know that for a fact and I'm seriously worrying about whether
I should take security measures around my pet rabbit.


http://www.welovedates.com/blog/14658/15-signs-girlfriend-bunny-boiler/

[jillery]

Your obsession with me disqualifies you from complaining about my
alleged obsession with you. Tu quoque back atcha, liar.

>It's only a few days since I paid you some attention and I'm actually
>getting a bit worried now. I have always assumed a certain level of
>safety from the fact that at least 3000 miles of ocean separate us but
>I don't know that for a fact and I'm seriously worrying about whether
>I should take security measures around my pet rabbit.
>
>
>http://www.welovedates.com/blog/14658/15-signs-girlfriend-bunny-boiler/

I assume you stored your navel lint for safekeeping.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:47:58 -0500, the following appeared

If you had no intent other than the pedantic one of the
difference between "confirmed" and "self identifies", then
this issue is moot.

>>> but since
>>>you did:
>>>
>>>Suppose you met someone who "self-confirmed" to be richer than Bill
>>>Gates. Yet he regularly begged money from others, and evaded them
>>>when they tried to get their money back. And even if you thought that
>>>person might be sincere but delusional, wouldn't you still admit that
>>>negates their self-confirmation?
>>
>>Sure. But like your comment to me, I'm not sure why you
>>brought up an irrelevant point; I've seen no evidence that
>>he's not a sincere religious believer, regardless of
>>whatever personality issues some might have with him. Cf Ray
>>Martinez or Tony Pagano, for two examples of those with whom
>>I've issues similar to those you apparently have with
>>Martin.
>
>
>Excuse me, but it was you who brought up those irrelevant points. I
>replied to the points you raised, which makes my comments about them
>relevant to them, and so very much *not* like your comment to me.
>
>And once again, you brought up yet another irrelevant point. And since
>you brought it up, my reply to it is also relevant to it:
>
>This is the second time in as many weeks you claim "my issues" with
>Martin Harran are "personality issues". As I noted the first time,
>not only is your claim factually incorrect and unsupported, it's a
>one-sided misrepresentation of the facts. Worse, it makes a mockery
>of your "self-confirmed" impartiality.

Believe whatever you wish.

>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
>and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
>retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
>"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.

I have no doubt of any of that, which, since I haven't
followed your disputes with him in any detail, makes *that*
point irrelevant.

>So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
>practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
>consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
>doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
>have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
>at least.

In my (few) discussions with Martin he exhibited none of
those traits, and I simply don't follow most of the "he said
she said" disputes here unless they involve me personally,
so rather than "willful ignorance" the proper term would be
"willful disinterest".

And we're done with this.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:47:58 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>

[...]

elieve whatever you wish.

>
>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
>>and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
>>retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
>>"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.
>
>I have no doubt of any of that,

I don't think that came out quite the way you meant it. On the basis
of what you say at the end of your post, I suspect that you are
acknowledging that Jleery has *made* those claims about me but I doubt
that you intended to give any endorsememnt to the actualy *veracity*
of the claims she made.

> which, since I haven't
>followed your disputes with him in any detail, makes *that*
>point irrelevant.
>
>>So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
>>practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
>>consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
>>doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
>>have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
>>at least.
>
>In my (few) discussions with Martin he exhibited none of
>those traits, and I simply don't follow most of the "he said
>she said" disputes here unless they involve me personally,
>so rather than "willful ignorance" the proper term would be
>"willful disinterest".

FWIW, I have had many disagreements with various people here, some of
them quite vociferous, but I cannot recall any person other than
Jillery who has accused me of dishonesty, cowardice or lies.

Possible exceptions to that are Pagano and Martinez who have accused
me of being some sort of pretend Christian who is really a God hating
atheist but good luck to her if she wants to use people like that to
support her claim.

>
>And we're done with this.

With respect, you should have finished with it long ago rather than
letting her divert an innocuous comment by you into yet another mud
slinging exercise.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 22:11:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:47:58 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>elieve whatever you wish.
>
>>
>>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
>>>and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
>>>retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
>>>"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
>>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.
>>
>>I have no doubt of any of that,
>
>I don't think that came out quite the way you meant it. On the basis
>of what you say at the end of your post, I suspect that you are
>acknowledging that Jleery has *made* those claims about me but I doubt
>that you intended to give any endorsememnt to the actualy *veracity*
>of the claims she made.

Since Bob Casanova has repeatedly claimed to be ignorant of your lies
about me, that means by rights he shouldn't be saying anything at all
about it, which is what he originally said he intended to do.
Unfortunately, it didn't take him long to break that pledge.

>> which, since I haven't
>>followed your disputes with him in any detail, makes *that*
>>point irrelevant.
>>
>>>So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
>>>practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
>>>consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
>>>doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
>>>have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
>>>at least.
>>
>>In my (few) discussions with Martin he exhibited none of
>>those traits, and I simply don't follow most of the "he said
>>she said" disputes here unless they involve me personally,
>>so rather than "willful ignorance" the proper term would be
>>"willful disinterest".
>
>FWIW, I have had many disagreements with various people here, some of
>them quite vociferous, but I cannot recall any person other than
>Jillery who has accused me of dishonesty, cowardice or lies.

Since you mention it, you can be sure it has something to do with the
fact you don't go out of your way to say to anybody anywhere that you
have no interest in replying to them, and post gratuitous lies about
them, and fail to either back up or retract your gratuitous lies about
them. I suppose you think it's just me.

>Possible exceptions to that are Pagano and Martinez who have accused
>me of being some sort of pretend Christian who is really a God hating
>atheist but good luck to her if she wants to use people like that to
>support her claim.

They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

>>And we're done with this.
>
>With respect, you should have finished with it long ago rather than
>letting her divert an innocuous comment by you into yet another mud
>slinging exercise.

Of course, an irony here is you *still* pretend it's my fault that Bob
Casanova raised this issue three separate times, and despite my
repeated comments that his doing so wasn't relevant to issue under
discussion.

And it should go without saying that your mud-slinging exercises
disqualify you from complaining about my alleged mud-slinging
exercises. Tu quoque back atcha, liar.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Nope. The issue was moot before you raised it the first time. But
you just had to raise it again.... and again...

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own
facts. You raised the issue multiple times, and all three times the
issue had nothing to do with the topic, or anything I said in it.

>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
>>and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
>>retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
>>"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.
>
>I have no doubt of any of that, which, since I haven't
>followed your disputes with him in any detail, makes *that*
>point irrelevant.

Since you proclaim yourself ignorant of "my" dispute, then you have
utterly no basis for your one-sided characterizations of it. Yet you
continue to post misrepresentations of the facts. The more you do
this, the more you sound like those wilfully ignorant trolls which
infest T.O.

>>So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
>>practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
>>consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
>>doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
>>have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
>>at least.
>
>In my (few) discussions with Martin he exhibited none of
>those traits, and I simply don't follow most of the "he said
>she said" disputes here unless they involve me personally,
>so rather than "willful ignorance" the proper term would be
>"willful disinterest".
>
>And we're done with this.

I accept the above as your tacit admission that you consider
dishonesty, cowardice, and lies to be consistent with sincere
religious beliefs. You might get some pushback about this from the
choir.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

[...]

Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
Jillery making up shit?

She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and

lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "

You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
have become her target this time around.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 02:22:34 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

WOW, you realise at last that the best (only?) support you have for
your accusations are Pagano and Martinez!

You really should take time out and think about that.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>Possible exceptions to that are Pagano and Martinez who have accused
>>>me of being some sort of pretend Christian who is really a God hating
>>>atheist but good luck to her if she wants to use people like that to
>>>support her claim.
>>
>>
>>They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
>
>WOW, you realise at last that the best (only?) support you have for
>your accusations are Pagano and Martinez!
>
>You really should take time out and think about that.

Pagano and Martinez are your examples, not mine. I rest the veracity
of what I post about you on your own posts, which I explcitily cited
on several occasions, about which you *still* haven't even
acknowledged, nevermind shown my conclusions to be incorrect.

Lack of thinking is your problem here. Tu quque back atcha, liar.

[jillery]

And once again you show that your alleged lack of interest in talking
about me is mere dishonest pretensions, much like Casanova's alleged
impartiality.

That you failed to identify the context only shows your continuing
dishonesty and cowardice. You're a shit-stirrer comparable to your
strange bedfellow rockhead.

You don't get to speak for Bob Casanova, or anybody but yourself. If
Bob Casanova has anything to say about this, it's up to him to say so.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 22:11:51 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:47:58 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>elieve whatever you wish.
>
>>
>>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented Martin Harran's dishonesty
>>>and cowardice and lies, and his failure to either back them up or
>>>retract them, most recently about his comments about me in the
>>>"problems with abiogenesis" topic, This is the same kind of behavior
>>>I have explicitly and repeatedly documented rockhead to do.
>>
>>I have no doubt of any of that,
>
>I don't think that came out quite the way you meant it. On the basis
>of what you say at the end of your post, I suspect that you are
>acknowledging that Jleery has *made* those claims about me but I doubt
>that you intended to give any endorsememnt to the actualy *veracity*
>of the claims she made.

I gave no such endorsement, since I stated quite clearly
that I don't follow most of the personal disputes here. "I
have no doubt" merely says that I don't dispute her claims,
since I have no basis for doing so, as noted above ("don't
follow"); neither do I support them.

>> which, since I haven't
>>followed your disputes with him in any detail, makes *that*
>>point irrelevant.
>>
>>>So even beyond the lack of veracity of "self-confirmations" in
>>>practice, and unless you think dishonesty, cowardice and lies are
>>>consistent with sincere religious beliefs, you do have good reasons to
>>>doubt Martin Harran's claims. For you to say you haven't seen what I
>>>have explicitly and repeatedly documented smacks of willful ignorance
>>>at least.
>>
>>In my (few) discussions with Martin he exhibited none of
>>those traits, and I simply don't follow most of the "he said
>>she said" disputes here unless they involve me personally,
>>so rather than "willful ignorance" the proper term would be
>>"willful disinterest".
>
>FWIW, I have had many disagreements with various people here, some of
>them quite vociferous, but I cannot recall any person other than
>Jillery who has accused me of dishonesty, cowardice or lies.
>
>Possible exceptions to that are Pagano and Martinez who have accused
>me of being some sort of pretend Christian who is really a God hating
>atheist but good luck to her if she wants to use people like that to
>support her claim.

Tony and Ray (assuming he's still among the living) tend to
divide everything into black/white, and classify everyone
who disagrees with them as the worst sort of monster they
can imagine - "atheists". They're idiots.

>And we're done with this.
>
>With respect, you should have finished with it long ago rather than
>letting her divert an innocuous comment by you into yet another mud
>slinging exercise.

Probably. But I usually get along quite well with jillery;
others seem not to, which is why I classified such disputes
as "personality issues" and usually ignore them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>Jillery making up shit?
>
>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "

I'd say that, at least in this instance, it's a matter of
"perception of intent", if you will. I've tried to tell her,
multiple times in multiple ways, that I'm not interested in
taking sides, but apparently that's not an acceptable point
if I respond to anything in any thread, even if only to
point out to one of the participants a misidentification.

And that's *all* I'm going to say on the subject; it's
wasted enough of my time as it is.

>You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
>have become her target this time around.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:57:09 -0500, the following appeared

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

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>Jillery making up shit?
>>
>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>>
>>You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
>>have become her target this time around.
>
>
>
>And once again you show that your alleged lack of interest in talking
>about me is mere dishonest pretensions, much like Casanova's alleged
>impartiality.

"Alleged", huh? Is that akin to "confirmed" vs.
"self-identified"? As you've noted several times in several
threads, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to
your own facts. I am, *in fact*, impartial WRT the dispute
between you and Martin, mainly because I have almost always
been on cordial terms with both of you, and have had no
indication from either of you *in your discussions with me*
of the flaws you see in each other. That, BTW, is the main
reason I characterized your dispute as a "personality
issue", although "interpersonal perception issue" might be
more precise. Some people just don't get along with each
other, and *anything* said by *either* which is at all
ambiguous is interpreted in the worst possible light.

>That you failed to identify the context only shows your continuing
>dishonesty and cowardice. You're a shit-stirrer comparable to your
>strange bedfellow rockhead.
>
>You don't get to speak for Bob Casanova, or anybody but yourself. If
>Bob Casanova has anything to say about this, it's up to him to say so.

I've done so. Do me the courtesy of accepting my statements
as honest.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:53:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting you were, it was just that your
comments could have been misrepresented in that way and I think we
have all had enough of people misrepresenting things that people have
said.

[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:23:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting you were, it was just that your
>comments could have been misrepresented in that way and I think we
>have all had enough of people misrepresenting things that people have
>said.

For the pedants among us, I probably should have said "most of us"
rather than "all of us".


>[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:57:09 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>Jillery making up shit?
>>
>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>>
>>You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
>>have become her target this time around.
>
>
>
>And once again you show that your alleged lack of interest in talking
>about me is mere dishonest pretensions,

I have to admit that I am totally bewildered by your use of "alleged"
and frequent use of "pretend" in regard to me.

I have told you multiple times that I generally have no interest in or
appetite for in engaging with you so I don't know where the "alleged"
part comes from. I have told you multiple times that I would pick and
choose which of your posts I would respond to - and gave the reasons
why - so I have never been able to understand where the accusations of
*pretending* to ignore you come from. I did, of course, ask you quite
civilly to explain it but sadly, all I got was a torrent of personal
abuse :(

> much like Casanova's alleged
>impartiality.
>
>That you failed to identify the context only shows your continuing
>dishonesty and cowardice. You're a shit-stirrer comparable to your
>strange bedfellow rockhead.
>
>You don't get to speak for Bob Casanova, or anybody but yourself. If
>Bob Casanova has anything to say about this, it's up to him to say so.

Of course I have never tried to speak on Bob's behalf - he is more
than capable of speaking for himself - I posted an observation *to*
him which only you could interpret as something said on his behalf.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:00:10 +0000, Martin Harran

Of course, what you got from me was not a torrent of personal abuse,
but instead a direct reply documenting your personal attacks against
me, the ones you *still* pretend you don't do, and showing that your
alleged examples of personal abuse against you were your
misrepresentations of the facts at best, and outright lies at worst.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia:

<sutk8d563f3lgdvtf...@4ax.com>
**************************************
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:20:07 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
******************************************

It's been almost exactly a week since I posted it, so I suppose at
least one allegedly impartial observer will believe your lies above.

And of course, every time you post the above, I remind you that I have
no interest in what does or doesn't interest you. Not sure how you
*still* don't understand that.

[jillery]

I agree, you should have stopped misrepresenting me before you even
started years ago.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:49:50 +0000, Martin Harran

As if that pedantic distinction alters the hypocrisy of your comment.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:02:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>Jillery making up shit?
>>
>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>
>I'd say that, at least in this instance, it's a matter of
>"perception of intent", if you will. I've tried to tell her,
>multiple times in multiple ways, that I'm not interested in
>taking sides, but apparently that's not an acceptable point
>if I respond to anything in any thread, even if only to
>point out to one of the participants a misidentification.

Since you mention it, I don't dispute that you assert your
impartiality. I dispute that you show it. There's a difference. Not
sure how you don't understand that.

And your comment about "anything in any thread" is nothing but silly
straw pulled out of thin air, or worse. So much for your alleged
facts.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:11:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:57:09 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, Martin Harran
>><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>>Jillery making up shit?
>>>
>>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>>>
>>>You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
>>>have become her target this time around.
>>
>>
>>
>>And once again you show that your alleged lack of interest in talking
>>about me is mere dishonest pretensions, much like Casanova's alleged
>>impartiality.
>
>"Alleged", huh? Is that akin to "confirmed" vs.
>"self-identified"?

Since you asked, I would prefer to answer a coherent question.
"alleged" vs. ??? Are you now denying you so alleged? Are you now
denying that both "self-identified" and "self-confirmed" are similar,
as implying a lack of substantiation from impartial sources? (and for
the liar who accuses me of making up shit about him, lack of
substantiation does not mean lack of veracity, it means that only you
claim it as fact without visible evidence in support).

>As you've noted several times in several
>threads, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to
>your own facts.

I am very confident that I have stated the facts of this situation
reasonably accurately, and my opinions are based on those facts.

>I am, *in fact*, impartial

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

>WRT the dispute between you and Martin, mainly because I have almost always
>been on cordial terms with both of you, and have had no
>indication from either of you *in your discussions with me*
>of the flaws you see in each other. That, BTW, is the main
>reason I characterized your dispute as a "personality
>issue", although "interpersonal perception issue" might be
>more precise. Some people just don't get along with each
>other, and *anything* said by *either* which is at all
>ambiguous is interpreted in the worst possible light.
>
>>That you failed to identify the context only shows your continuing
>>dishonesty and cowardice. You're a shit-stirrer comparable to your
>>strange bedfellow rockhead.
>>
>>You don't get to speak for Bob Casanova, or anybody but yourself. If
>>Bob Casanova has anything to say about this, it's up to him to say so.
>
>I've done so. Do me the courtesy of accepting my statements
>as honest.

So in the spirit of honesty, please clarify a point that continues to
confound me. In this topic, you explicitly raised the issue of Martin
Harran's "self-confirmed" piety, on three separate occasions, in reply
to comments from me which said nothing of his piety, nevermind
challenged it. Do you deny these facts? If not, please explain what
was your purpose in raising this irrelevant issue three times with me
in this topic? And how do you believe these facts show your
"impartiality"?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 02:04:43 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Thank you for highlighting that post as people can see in it precisely
the type of abuse I was talking about where I calmly and patiently
tried to get you to explain what you meant by "pretend ignore" as you
had accused me of misrepresenting what you said. Unfortunately, what
I got back from you was that I was posting "baldly asserted cowardly
lies", having "problems counting with [my] clothes on", that I "have
trouble reading written English" and that my failure to understand
what you are trying to say is "meaningless hubris " and "willful
stupidity", that I am guilty of "dishonesty and cowardice.

You chose not to reply when I pointed that out but the relevant my
original post is preserved at the end of your reply.

Having said that, I really would have preferred you to reply to my
request in the post above to which you are responding where I asked
you to explain in what sense *alleged* applies to my lack of general
interest in engaging with you and where does the *pretence* come into
me being selective about which of your posts I respond to.

Sadly, although you are quite willing to accuse me of misrepresenting
what you mean, you seem singularly unwilling to explain what you
actually do mean when asked to do so.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:14:27 +0000, Martin Harran

>>It's been almost exactly a week since I posted it, so I suppose at
>>least one allegedly impartial observer will believe your lies above.
>>
>>And of course, every time you post the above, I remind you that I have
>>no interest in what does or doesn't interest you. Not sure how you
>>*still* don't understand that.
>
>

>Thank you for highlighting that post as people can see in it precisely
>the type of abuse I was talking about where I calmly and patiently
>tried to get you to explain what you meant by "pretend ignore" as you
>had accused me of misrepresenting what you said. Unfortunately, what
>I got back from you was that I was posting "baldly asserted cowardly
>lies", having "problems counting with [my] clothes on", that I "have
>trouble reading written English" and that my failure to understand
>what you are trying to say is "meaningless hubris " and "willful
>stupidity", that I am guilty of "dishonesty and cowardice.

How odd those aren't the examples you cited in that post. But even if
they were, none of them qualify as abuse, any more than the example
you cited, unless your personal definition includes noting the nature
of your replies.

>You chose not to reply when I pointed that out but the relevant my
>original post is preserved at the end of your reply.
>
>Having said that, I really would have preferred you to reply to my
>request in the post above to which you are responding where I asked
>you to explain in what sense *alleged* applies to my lack of general
>interest in engaging with you and where does the *pretence* come into
>me being selective about which of your posts I respond to.
>
>Sadly, although you are quite willing to accuse me of misrepresenting
>what you mean, you seem singularly unwilling to explain what you
>actually do mean when asked to do so.

One more time, for the poster who has trouble reading written English,
I cited in my post your posts where you gratuitously talked about me,
posts which you *still* don't acknowledge. Not sure how you think
repeating your stupid lies above makes you look clever.

You're welcome.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 02:00:35 -0500, the following appeared

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

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:11:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:57:09 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, Martin Harran
>>><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>>>Jillery making up shit?
>>>>
>>>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>>>>
>>>>You are seeing some of this made up shit first hand now albeit you
>>>>have become her target this time around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And once again you show that your alleged lack of interest in talking
>>>about me is mere dishonest pretensions, much like Casanova's alleged
>>>impartiality.
>>
>>"Alleged", huh? Is that akin to "confirmed" vs.
>>"self-identified"?
>
>
>Since you asked, I would prefer to answer a coherent question.
>"alleged" vs. ???

How about "alleged lack of interest" vs. "lack of interest"?

To me, "alleged" implies doubt of veracity, exactly as
"self-identified" does; I explained that in the relevant
exchange. If you disagree, fine; that doesn't change how I
see it.

> Are you now denying you so alleged? Are you now
>denying that both "self-identified" and "self-confirmed" are similar,
>as implying a lack of substantiation from impartial sources? (and for
>the liar who accuses me of making up shit about him, lack of
>substantiation does not mean lack of veracity, it means that only you
>claim it as fact without visible evidence in support).

That's how you view it? Fine; I can accept that. In future,
when you use terms which to me imply doubt regarding the
content, I'll simply read the comment as lacking those
terms.

>>As you've noted several times in several
>>threads, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to
>>your own facts.
>
>
>I am very confident that I have stated the facts of this situation
>reasonably accurately, and my opinions are based on those facts.

Correction: You have stated your *interpretation* of what
you read; the fact that my interpretation differs should be
a fairly strong clue that other interpretations are
possible, and are just as valid.

>>I am, *in fact*, impartial

>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
>means.

Believe what you wish. I know *exactly* what I mean by it,
and even stated so elsethread.

>>WRT the dispute between you and Martin, mainly because I have almost always
>>been on cordial terms with both of you, and have had no
>>indication from either of you *in your discussions with me*
>>of the flaws you see in each other. That, BTW, is the main
>>reason I characterized your dispute as a "personality
>>issue", although "interpersonal perception issue" might be
>>more precise. Some people just don't get along with each
>>other, and *anything* said by *either* which is at all
>>ambiguous is interpreted in the worst possible light.
>>
>>>That you failed to identify the context only shows your continuing
>>>dishonesty and cowardice. You're a shit-stirrer comparable to your
>>>strange bedfellow rockhead.
>>>
>>>You don't get to speak for Bob Casanova, or anybody but yourself. If
>>>Bob Casanova has anything to say about this, it's up to him to say so.
>>
>>I've done so. Do me the courtesy of accepting my statements
>>as honest.
>
>
>So in the spirit of honesty, please clarify a point that continues to
>confound me. In this topic, you explicitly raised the issue of Martin
>Harran's "self-confirmed" piety, on three separate occasions, in reply
>to comments from me which said nothing of his piety, nevermind
>challenged it. Do you deny these facts?

Not at all.

> If not, please explain what
>was your purpose in raising this irrelevant issue three times with me
>in this topic? And how do you believe these facts show your
>"impartiality"?

Quite frankly, I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I
*do* recall that the exchange started when I accepted
Martin's apology for misidentifying me as the author of a
particular post, and commented to him as an aside that such
apology was in keeping with what I'd seen of his posts in
our discussions. At that point you castigated me for
"supporting" him in the dispute between the two of you. I
had not done so, and replied as much, and it was "off to the
races". As for my comments about his "alleged" religious
beliefs, they were simply part of the exchange, and I don't
recall, as I noted, the specific context.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 02:01:13 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:02:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:55:25 +0000, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>><martin...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:03:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>Do you remember just a week or so ago you asked me what I meant by
>>>Jillery making up shit?
>>>
>>>She has just claimed that YOU "consider dishonesty, cowardice, and
>>>lies to be consistent with sincere religious beliefs. "
>>
>>I'd say that, at least in this instance, it's a matter of
>>"perception of intent", if you will. I've tried to tell her,
>>multiple times in multiple ways, that I'm not interested in
>>taking sides, but apparently that's not an acceptable point
>>if I respond to anything in any thread, even if only to
>>point out to one of the participants a misidentification.
>
>
>Since you mention it, I don't dispute that you assert your
>impartiality. I dispute that you show it. There's a difference. Not
>sure how you don't understand that.

Oh, I do understand that that is your perception. I just
happen to disagree.

>And your comment about "anything in any thread" is nothing but silly
>straw pulled out of thin air, or worse. So much for your alleged
>facts.

Since I was denounced for "supporting him" in your dispute,
when I had done no such thing, it seemed a reasonable
conclusion, if overgeneralized. How about "in a thread
involving a dispute irrelevant to my comment"? Better?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:42:13 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

They are *exactly* the examples I gave. Here is the exact snippet
containing them from your own reply that you referenced above:

===========================

[...]

>In this particular subthread, I have bit my tongue about those remarks
>and tried to calmly and patiently identify what exactly you meant by
>"pretend ignore" which you accused me of misrepresenting.
>
>Sadly, it has been to no avail, you have responded with little more
>than accusations that I was posting "baldly asserted cowardly lies",

>having "problems counting with [my] clothes on", that I "have trouble
>reading written English" and that my failure to understand what you
>are trying to say is "meaningless hubris " and "willful stupidity",

>that I am guilty of "dishonesty and cowardice" so rational discussion
>is clearly not possible .

[...

==============================


>But even if

No 'ifs' about it see above.

>they were, none of them qualify as abuse, any more than the example
>you cited, unless your personal definition includes noting the nature
>of your replies.

This is actually one of the underlying problems with abusive people -
they generally do not recognise the abusive nature of what they say
and do - so there is no point in trying to enlighten you about it. I'm
happy to let readers decide whether or not it is abusive.

>
>
>>You chose not to reply when I pointed that out but the relevant my
>>original post is preserved at the end of your reply.
>>
>>Having said that, I really would have preferred you to reply to my
>>request in the post above to which you are responding where I asked
>>you to explain in what sense *alleged* applies to my lack of general
>>interest in engaging with you and where does the *pretence* come into
>>me being selective about which of your posts I respond to.
>>
>>Sadly, although you are quite willing to accuse me of misrepresenting
>>what you mean, you seem singularly unwilling to explain what you
>>actually do mean when asked to do so.
>
>
>One more time, for the poster who has trouble reading written English,
>I cited in my post your posts where you gratuitously talked about me,
>posts which you *still* don't acknowledge. Not sure how you think
>repeating your stupid lies above makes you look clever.

You seem to be saying that even though I have repeatedly told you
I'm not generally interested in engaging with you, when I don't
respond to some of your posts, it becomes only an *alleged* lack of
interest and I'm only *pretending* to ignore those posts.

I guess that makes sense to you even though it makes none to me.

>
>You're welcome.

Sorry but what you have provided does nothing to reduce my sense of
bewilderment.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:40:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Similar to above, I understand that it's your perception you didn't
support Harran. I just happen to disagree.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:37:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

When you hear on the news that person X allegedly shot and killed a
clerk in a convenience-store holdup, do you understand that to mean
the newscaster/station/network doubts that person X did it? Or do you
understand the actual point of using the word, that the veracity of
the allegation isn't demonstrated? AIUI this is exactly the
difference between our different meanings.

>> Are you now denying you so alleged? Are you now
>>denying that both "self-identified" and "self-confirmed" are similar,
>>as implying a lack of substantiation from impartial sources? (and for
>>the liar who accuses me of making up shit about him, lack of
>>substantiation does not mean lack of veracity, it means that only you
>>claim it as fact without visible evidence in support).
>
>That's how you view it? Fine; I can accept that. In future,
>when you use terms which to me imply doubt regarding the
>content, I'll simply read the comment as lacking those
>terms.
>
>>>As you've noted several times in several
>>>threads, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to
>>>your own facts.
>>
>>
>>I am very confident that I have stated the facts of this situation
>>reasonably accurately, and my opinions are based on those facts.
>
>Correction: You have stated your *interpretation* of what
>you read; the fact that my interpretation differs should be
>a fairly strong clue that other interpretations are
>possible, and are just as valid.

Your comments above are not a correction, as my *interpretation*
necessarily incorporates my *opinion*. I have repeatedly
distinguished between the facts and my opinions of those facts, and I
have repeatedly asked you to confirm my characterization of the facts,
and as I recall, you have either confirmed them, or did not deny them.

>>>I am, *in fact*, impartial
>
>>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
>>means.
>
>Believe what you wish. I know *exactly* what I mean by it,
>and even stated so elsethread.

Then the issue devolves to differing definitions, and we are again
talking past each other, a frustrating and useless enterprise.

Your "start" of the exchange above is a separate issue which remains
unresolved. Your comments above do nothing to resolve that issue, and
do nothing to answer the question I asked you. This suggests to me
you have no intention of actually responding, another source of
frustration.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:55:43 +0000, Martin Harran

Nope The examples you gave in the post I cited were five references
to specific posts of mine, which I numbered, cited, and explained your
errors of fact and of interpretation. That you say you "bit your
tongue" explicitly means you did not include those examples you
mention above.

> ===========================
>
>[...]
>
>>In this particular subthread, I have bit my tongue about those remarks
>>and tried to calmly and patiently identify what exactly you meant by
>>"pretend ignore" which you accused me of misrepresenting.
>>
>>Sadly, it has been to no avail, you have responded with little more
>>than accusations that I was posting "baldly asserted cowardly lies",
>>having "problems counting with [my] clothes on", that I "have trouble
>>reading written English" and that my failure to understand what you
>>are trying to say is "meaningless hubris " and "willful stupidity",
>>that I am guilty of "dishonesty and cowardice" so rational discussion
>>is clearly not possible .
>
>[...
>
>==============================
>
>
>>But even if
>
>No 'ifs' about it see above.

Perhaps you use a different version of English, one where biting one's
tongue means to give it free reign.

I freely acknowledge that you feel my words are personally abusive. I
deny that's my intent. There's a difference. The words and phrases I
use specifically address the issue involved, and IMO best describe
those issue. As much as I might like to accommodate your feelings,
your feelings are not the deciding factor for me.

More to the point, the words and phrases to which you repeatedly
register such high umbrage, are similar to words and phrases you use
against me, a point which I explicitly documented in the cited post
above, and in other posts. So at the very least, this is another
case of you asserting special privilege, where you have no problem
being abusive to me, but you scream bloody murder when I reciprocate.
IMO that shows your dishonesty and cowardice. Apparently your mileage
varies.

>>they were, none of them qualify as abuse, any more than the example
>>you cited, unless your personal definition includes noting the nature
>>of your replies.
>
>This is actually one of the underlying problems with abusive people -
>they generally do not recognise the abusive nature of what they say
>and do - so there is no point in trying to enlighten you about it. I'm
>happy to let readers decide whether or not it is abusive.

Since you find my noting your lies and dishonesty and cowardice so
distasteful, I make now the same suggestion I made before: Stop
posting your lies about me, and flaunting your dishonesty and
cowardice. Not sure how you *still* can't figure that out.

>>>You chose not to reply when I pointed that out but the relevant my
>>>original post is preserved at the end of your reply.
>>>
>>>Having said that, I really would have preferred you to reply to my
>>>request in the post above to which you are responding where I asked
>>>you to explain in what sense *alleged* applies to my lack of general
>>>interest in engaging with you and where does the *pretence* come into
>>>me being selective about which of your posts I respond to.
>>>
>>>Sadly, although you are quite willing to accuse me of misrepresenting
>>>what you mean, you seem singularly unwilling to explain what you
>>>actually do mean when asked to do so.
>>
>>
>>One more time, for the poster who has trouble reading written English,
>>I cited in my post your posts where you gratuitously talked about me,
>>posts which you *still* don't acknowledge. Not sure how you think
>>repeating your stupid lies above makes you look clever.
>
>You seem to be saying that even though I have repeatedly told you
>I'm not generally interested in engaging with you, when I don't
>respond to some of your posts, it becomes only an *alleged* lack of
>interest and I'm only *pretending* to ignore those posts.
>
>I guess that makes sense to you even though it makes none to me.
>
>>
>>You're welcome.
>
>Sorry but what you have provided does nothing to reduce my sense of
>bewilderment.

Based on your replies, my impression is your sense of bewilderment is
self-inflicted, so there's nothing I can do to reduce it.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:26:17 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

They are the exact examples that I gave of your abusive response *in
that thread*, just like your fellow traveller Pagano, when you are
caught out in something, instead of admitting your error, you try to
divert the discussion to something else.

Anyway, I have no interest in arguing this any further with you, my
sole purpose was to provide full context for anyone who reads this
thread - and I doubt they are many - so that they can judge for
themselves who is telling lies and bullshitting; I am quite happy to
leave them to make that judgment for themselves.

So basically you accuse me of misrepresenting you but you decline to
explain what you actually meant.

Ah well ... I did try.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:04:23 +0000, Martin Harran

...to which I documented the basis for my use, a point you
conveniently ignore...

>just like your fellow traveller Pagano, when you are
>caught out in something, instead of admitting your error, you try to
>divert the discussion to something else.

Nope, that's what you do. You still pretend you didn't post similar
"personal abuse" about me, and did so gratuitously in multiple threads
and topics having nothing to do with me. Tu quoque back atcha, liar.

>Anyway, I have no interest in arguing this any further with you, my
>sole purpose was to provide full context for anyone who reads this
>thread - and I doubt they are many - so that they can judge for
>themselves who is telling lies and bullshitting; I am quite happy to
>leave them to make that judgment for themselves.

Works for me, too.
<snip your repetitive noise>

>>>Sorry but what you have provided does nothing to reduce my sense of
>>>bewilderment.
>>
>>
>>Based on your replies, my impression is your sense of bewilderment is
>>self-inflicted, so there's nothing I can do to reduce it.
>
>So basically you accuse me of misrepresenting you but you decline to
>explain what you actually meant.
>
>Ah well ... I did try.

The above is just another one of your lies. You didn't try. And I
explained multiple times what I meant. You just didn't like my
answers. So I can add "infantile whiner" to the characteristics you
illustrated about yourself. No doubt you will label that as "personal
abuse" as well. Suks to be you.

Finally, it's almost certain it won't take very long for you to find
another excuse to rationalize posting more gratuitous lies about me. I
could start a pool based on the number of days.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:16:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

plus ça change ...

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:41:56 +0000, Martin Harran

Wow, that didn't take long at all. I should have designed a betting
pool using minutes instead of days.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:09:18 -0500, the following appeared

Fair enough; opinions are personal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:22:18 -0500, the following appeared

OK.

Agreed. So this particular discussion is fruitless, and
over.

If what I wrote doesn't address your complaint that I
"supported" Martin, I have no idea what you want. Again, a
fruitless discussion.