Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a debate?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
<peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.

Will Donald Trump be one of them?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:14:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>
>
> Will Donald Trump be one of them?

Trump would be interesting. Yes. We could go with that. Or a topic more connected with this UseNet group, such as evolution and religion. Or Behe.. Or Snowden... Or other stuff like BitCoin. Or... Pick a topic and a time and we can get together.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Based on my readings so far I see that the following might be interesting to be involved:

Burkhard
Cummings
Gans
Glenn
Harshman
Hines
jillery
Kalkidas
Major
Martinez
Okimoto
RSNorman
thompson
Tweedy
Vreeland

I am sure there are others, and feel free to suggest yourself or others... but this could be a very interesting meetup. And unlike text message postings, you get a better feel of expression in a hangout session...

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

I am not so sure I would like such an event. I have experience with
attempts at online group sessions and they are pretty miserable events
unless it is a well organized meeting where a chair runs the process.
The real problem is how to avoid turning things into either a yelling
match or utter chaos. When people meet physically there is a lot of
non-verbal interaction to help coordinate things. Still some tend to
monopolize the action while others sit sullenly quiet unable to break
in. Just consider what happens at public meetings where really
contentious subjects are to be discussed but where the moderator is
unable to control the crowd. It is not an opportunity to learn from
each other but rather to vent. Or consider the recent Republican
"debate" which was not a debate at all but a carefully staged
interview show. Again not a place of exchange.

Additionally, on this forum I believe my really useful contributions
are the result of my cogitating on the subject for some time -- hours
or even days with online reseach or digging into my own personal
library. Casual exchanges here tend to be quips or gut feelings or,
more commonly, insults and accusations.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I do not think that a discussion needs to be "well organized". Spontaneity has its own charm. But I agree that a chairperson/interviewer must manage the discussion if need be. Monopolization is boring, and would be curtailed. And Jerry Spring is also not the approach I am interested in. As moderator I have "control the crowd" and I am willing to mute participants if that is necessary. However, that would be a last resort. I find that a decorum of fairness is achievable. I take a neutral a position (if there is such a thing... No True Scotsman notwithstanding) as possible and ask questions that guide the discussion in an as interesting and constructive direction as possible. I see many people here with wonderful knowledge, and I know that the general public might find that very interesting. So, RSNorman, if you would like to see what I am doing, below are a couple of examples:

Dr. Jack and Peter Thor have a chat about abortion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w_C5k7-Q9s

Dr. Jack and Peter Thor chat about greed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVvC5mZMlbo

I am just starting to do this, so I hope to improve. I have not tried to have more than one guest yet. If you would like a tete-a-tete, we could start off that way. If for any reason you do not like how it goes or how the final result turns out, I assure you that it would be deleted and remain unpublished. If you feel that you could carry the major load on your own that would be great. I tend to prefer to take a minor role and ask probing and/or challenging questions. If you know of someone else on talk.origins that you would feel comfortable including, let me know. I think that it works equally well if that other person is like minded or oppositional to you. I would try to provide any tension needed to avoid a total agreement feast.

Would you be willing to try?

-Peter T.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
<peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.

For some reason, the above reminds me of a silly knock-knock joke. You
go first.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>
>
> For some reason, the above reminds me of a silly knock-knock joke. You
> go first.

Go first with a topic suggestion? OK. I suggest discussing Behe's irreducible complexity argument. But I am just the moderator. Best for those interested to come with suggestion in hand. So jillery... do you have a burning desire to share?

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

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

>On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>>
>>
>> For some reason, the above reminds me of a silly knock-knock joke. You
>> go first.
>
>Go first with a topic suggestion? OK. I suggest discussing Behe's irreducible complexity argument. But I am just the moderator. Best for those interested to come with suggestion in hand. So jillery... do you have a burning desire to share?

There has been much discussion in this ng about Behe's IrC, in which I
have "shared" my POV. How would your venue be any different from
that?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

OK. I found another jemstone here. I see that jonathan has some very interesting ideas. So jonathan... if you are listening... please join me in a discussion :)

[erik simpson]

jonathan is a 'jemstone'? Who knew?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Thank you for providing your suggestion jillery. Let me rephrase that topic suggestion as follows: "How would the venue make a difference?" Fairly interesting question. Well, yes, we could discuss that online if like. As a preparation for that, I would suggest that you at least review the Wikipedia article on Marshall McLuhan. It will probably be a short discussion, since the answer should become obvious to most viewers rather quickly if they did not already have a good handle on it. But, do you have any more robust suggestions?

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0086082-fb60-4545...@googlegroups.com...

You don't get to be the moderator.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

OK Glenn... who should moderate?

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c186e509-1091-40b1...@googlegroups.com...

Is your self-election as moderator robust?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Fairly robust, yes, considering it is a consequence of who starts the google hangout session. It is sort of a design feature of the google web services that implement it. The person who starts it has some control over the other participants. If you would like someone else to moderate, then suggest to them that they start the hangout session. להבין ???

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Yes, the question mark should be on the left end of a Hebrew question, but I did not want to further confuse one who is already somewhat confused.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

I don't think a one-on-one would be that useful from my perspective.
An exchange here in writing would be a better way to establish some
sense of personhood and initialize some interaction.

However if you were to set up a chat with a group about some
well-defined topic I might well want to participate. Of course a
serious issue is that we all live through very scattered time zones
around the world and that at least some of us have actual lives and
activities and even work schedules outside of talk.origins.

[RSNorman]

If he organizes it, he IS the moderator.

If you don't like it, don't join. If you want to be moderator then
you set it all up.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

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

>On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:24:31 AM UTC-7, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:14:31 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> > "Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c186e509-1091-40b1...@googlegroups.com...
>> > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> > >> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > >> >> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> > >> >> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> For some reason, the above reminds me of a silly knock-knock joke. You
>> > >> >> go first.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Go first with a topic suggestion? OK. I suggest discussing Behe's irreducible complexity argument. But I am just the moderator. Best for those interested to come with suggestion in hand. So jillery... do you have a burning desire to share?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> There has been much discussion in this ng about Behe's IrC, in which I
>> > >> have "shared" my POV. How would your venue be any different from
>> > >> that?
>> > >
>> > > Thank you for providing your suggestion jillery. Let me rephrase that topic suggestion as follows: "How would the venue make a difference?" Fairly interesting question. Well, yes, we could discuss that online if like. As a preparation for that, I would suggest that you at least review the Wikipedia article on Marshall McLuhan. It will probably be a short discussion, since the answer should become obvious to most viewers rather quickly if they did not already have a good handle on it. But, do you have any more robust suggestions?
>> > >
>> > Is your self-election as moderator robust?
>>

>> Fairly robust, yes, considering it is a consequence of who starts the google hangout session. It is sort of a design feature of the google web services that implement it. The person who starts it has some control over the other participants. If you would like someone else to moderate, then suggest to them that they start the hangout session. ????? ???

>
>Yes, the question mark should be on the left end of a Hebrew question, but I did not want to further confuse one who is already somewhat confused.

In Spanish it would also have to be inverted.

[Joe Cummings]

It's kind of you to suggest me but I find it more congenial to browse
the group looking for any topic that sparks a bit of interest.
It seems that it may narrow what is a general purpose group.

But go ahead; as I've just completed my seventeenth lustrum it's much
moe pleasant for me to pick and choose.

Have fun

Joe Cummings

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Very good. As for well-defined topic, there are so many. What areas are most important to you? What other people would be best for you if they were to join. I am on west coast North America (Bellevue WA).

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:27156d6a-ac49-4127...@googlegroups.com...

Why should I decide?

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c4c229e9-26cf-4973...@googlegroups.com...

>\
What action might you take as moderator in cases where you decide a participanbt is somewhat confused?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

And in Australia?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I would take a neutral stance. In these threads here that would not always be the case. But in an online meeting, you would have to manage your own confusion. I would only step on participants that were abusive or vulgar. Confusion is fine.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:fft9sa1dajrsum7vt...@4ax.com...

And how do you know that?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Hi Glenn. Thanks for you thoughtful comments. Nothing more to add now really... So for those who would like to try this out sometime, let me know via email at:

peterteach U+0040 gmail U+002E com

I will not be checking back here for follow-ups, so please use the email address above to contact me.

Have a nice day everyone :)

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:431f102b-e23a-4bb6...@googlegroups.com...

Would you regard a participant claiming that you are confused as being abusive?

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

That you will not be checking here for followups indicates you are not
the appropriate person to manage this. I choose not to email you
about this topic.

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

I realize that many people react to questions put before them as if
those questions were rhetorical assertions and/or challenges. But
when I ask a question, it's almost always a serious request for
additional information. When people evade answering serious questions
in a similar spirit, it raises a possibility they and their posts
aren't serious.

Perhaps a rephrase will elicit from you a reply more useful to me: How
will your proposed "hangout group" produce outcomes different, if not
better, than what has been, and is being, produced in T.O.? In asking
my question, I am not being snarky or rhetorical or argumentative. I
am making a serious request for additional information. I would very
much prefer that you reply in kind.

[MrHowd...@invalid.invalid]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
<peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.

I will pick a topic. Attacking white people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH99oknf_78

Atheism-is-Unstoppable-4 is open for debate. Invite him. Just my
two cents, I would prefer watch a group of 5 over a group of 10.

[Robert Camp]

It would be inverted already.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I was going to avoid further follow-ups, to save my own time, but I see that might not work well in this case... The YouTube link you provided is interesting. I watched just the first few minutes. But if you have interesting points to make I would be interested in tackling that topic with you. But of course, it would only work if you have a fair amount of argument to make, or if there was interest among others here. Participants would need to view the whole video, if that is the basis of your points. I am guessing it is related to reverse racism ... And I wonder... would NAACP Spokane's Rachel Dolezal play into it? My take is that she is black if that is how she self-identifies. Complex and interesting issues there. Your other idea of "Atheism-is-Unstoppable-4" is something that I have never heard of, but sounds like it could have potential. Especially the mysterious "4" part of that title. If either of these are interesting to others, I could set it up and provide links to participants for tomorrow. Do these ideas appeal to anyone else? If so, please let me know.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I was going to avoid further follow-ups, to save my own time, but I see that might not work well in this case... The differences include things like seeing facial cues, body language, voice intonation, conveyance of emotions, and so on. Nothing beyond the obvious really. BTW, webcam is optional for those that do not like it. Even a mic is optional if you only want to participate via chat window although I would not recommend that. And another big thing is that different types of people would be exposed to your ideas that are very different segments of the population, I.e. very different from the users you get here in talk.origins. But is any of this really not obvious from the outset? BTW, that last sentence is made in a friendly manner, which would be obvious in a video chat, but possibly could be construed as insulting in Email or UseNet. Case in point :)

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I was going to avoid further follow-ups, to save my own time, but I see that might not work well in this case... I am not sure why follow ups would be important to you. But to the extent that they are, this is my follow-up to your last comment. I do not have much more too say, except that if you are interested then you are interested, and if you are not then you are not. I feel that, based on several posts that you have made, it is unfortunate if you do not want to participate, because I think you have a lot of interesting ideas that you could share, and you could do so in a different medium that would reach more and different people whom could very much benefit from your thoughts. But it is not something that warrants much debate. There are more interesting things to debate than that, surely. Give it a try... I won't bite.

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1fb71cf8-8be8-448a...@googlegroups.com...

10 people including him would be reaching more people than talk.origins? How does that work. Speaking of figuring out ways of making money...

[Peter Thorsteinson]

No Glenn. That would not be abusive. This would not be an agreement orgy. One could fairly accuse another of being confused, especially if they were indeed confused, and I would not censor them for that in most cases. If they called someone stupid, then I would possibly take them aside. But I don't think this problem is really all that likely and we should not dwell on that issue unless and until it actually becomes a manifest problem. Right?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Glenn... look into ho it works. It is not just the few people directly involved. I just checked my stats for the last 28 days, and I have had 23,543 minutes viewed on my channel and there were 5,861 people that viewed my channel. I have only put up 4 or 5 videos over that time period. At my highest rate, about a year and a half ago, I had 2500 viewings per day (that was when I put out a very popular video series on Android Software Development). Since then a new Dev tool called Android Studio came out and the popularity of that old series dies down. In total, I have had 846,804 viewers, and that added up to 3,461,926 minutes watched over the last five years. There are lots of people who are interested in the ideas on talk.origins. As for money, that is usually rather slim but not zero. I make much more money from teaching actual students actual courses. YouTube is very much a hobby of mine. But if you think that the money might be good, then you want too try doing the same. But that is all irrelevant. Are you interested or not? I think you could add some flavor.

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:30691696-09d5-438a...@googlegroups.com...

So there will be roses and much joviality.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:49:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.

39 posts by 8 authors. Yet nothing very interesting so far. In an earlier post I said that I would not be adding more to this thread because I thought I presented my thoughts sufficiently, but then I felt I had to respond a few more times for clarifications. I am still interested if anyone here would like to contact me via email. But the problem I have is that I am using Google Groups, which is just horrid. It gives me a headache. And I do not want to install a decent UseNet client, since I will probably never use it in the future (I avoid installing software whenever I can and UseNet is something I used mostly in the late 1980s and early 1990s). That, and the discussion so far has been, well, you know, Glenn and all. So take care folks.

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e23fb72e-ed3f-4af2...@googlegroups.com...

So "money is slim". You regard $10 as "much more money"?
http://www.stepuptransform.com/

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:32b3e53d-a00b-44a5...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:49:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>> Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>
> 39 posts by 8 authors. Yet nothing very interesting so far. In an earlier post I said that I would not be adding more to this thread because I thought I presented my thoughts sufficiently, but then I felt I had to respond a few more times for clarifications. I am still interested if anyone here would like to contact me via email. But the problem I have is that I am using Google Groups, which is just horrid. It gives me a headache. And I do not want to install a decent UseNet client, since I will probably never use it in the future (I avoid installing software whenever I can and UseNet is something I used mostly in the late 1980s and early 1990s). That, and the discussion so far has been, well, you know, Glenn and all. So take care folks.
>

I'd have to "take you aside" for that quip.

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

Ok, so you're familiar with Goggle Hangout, while I never heard of it
before now. But you didn't describe it, which is one reason why I
asked. To me, "live" simply means "responding in real time", which
can be anything from text chat to teleconference to videoconference.
If you had used any of those words in your posts, my mind might have
made those "obvious" connections. Or I could have looked it up,
except it didn't even occur to me that "Google Hangout" was an actual
look-uppable something, as contrasted to some ad hoc label you made up
for your own purposes.

Since you asked. isn't it obvious that, since I asked, it wasn't
obvious to me? What is obvious to me is that you don't recognize an
obvious implication of asserting that something is obvious; that you
believe your respondents lack knowledge and/or insights they should
have, ie. they're not just ignorant but stupid. I can think of very
few cases where someone would accept such an implication as "friendly"
from any source, nevermind from an Internet persona.

ISTM this is a case in point which illustrates that it's a bad habit
to assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others, at least for
someone who aspires to moderate discussion groups of people with
diverse backgrounds and experiences. Just sayin'.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

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

>On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:49:31 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> "Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:431f102b-e23a-4bb6...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 11:34:30 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> >> "Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c4c229e9-26cf-4973...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:24:31 AM UTC-7, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>> >> >> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:14:31 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> >> >> > "Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c186e509-1091-40b1...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> > >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> >> >> > >> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> >On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> >> >> > >> >> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> For some reason, the above reminds me of a silly knock-knock joke. You
>> >> >> > >> >> go first.
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> >Go first with a topic suggestion? OK. I suggest discussing Behe's irreducible complexity argument. But I am just the moderator. Best for those interested to come with suggestion in hand. So jillery... do you have a burning desire to share?
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> There has been much discussion in this ng about Behe's IrC, in which I
>> >> >> > >> have "shared" my POV. How would your venue be any different from
>> >> >> > >> that?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Thank you for providing your suggestion jillery. Let me rephrase that topic suggestion as follows: "How would the venue make a difference?" Fairly interesting question. Well, yes, we could discuss that online if like. As a preparation for that, I would suggest that you at least review the Wikipedia article on Marshall McLuhan. It will probably be a short discussion, since the answer should become obvious to most viewers rather quickly if they did not already have a good handle on it. But, do you have any more robust suggestions?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > Is your self-election as moderator robust?
>> >> >>

>> >> >> Fairly robust, yes, considering it is a consequence of who starts the google hangout session. It is sort of a design feature of the google web services that implement it. The person who starts it has some control over the other participants. If you would like someone else to moderate, then suggest to them that they start the hangout session. ????? ???

>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, the question mark should be on the left end of a Hebrew question, but I did not want to further confuse one who is already somewhat confused.
>> >> >\
>> >> What action might you take as moderator in cases where you decide a participanbt is somewhat confused?
>> >
>> > I would take a neutral stance. In these threads here that would not always be the case. But in an online meeting, you would have to manage your own confusion. I would only step on participants that were abusive or vulgar. Confusion is fine.
>> >
>> Would you regard a participant claiming that you are confused as being abusive?
>
>No Glenn. That would not be abusive. This would not be an agreement orgy. One could fairly accuse another of being confused, especially if they were indeed confused, and I would not censor them for that in most cases. If they called someone stupid, then I would possibly take them aside. But I don't think this problem is really all that likely and we should not dwell on that issue unless and until it actually becomes a manifest problem. Right?

You are obviously not a regular participant here on talk.origins,
otherwise you would understand Glenn's little meaningless quips.

[RSNorman]

Actually it has to curl around the other way.

Sadly John Wilkins has been absent for far too long, now. He used to
thoroughly enjoy all those counter-clockwise Australian jokes. Did
you know that the man in the moon is upside down in the antipodes?

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:22:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

There do exist fora on which I would gladly participate. My fear,
from long experience here that you seem to be lacking, is that any
discussion with the diversity of participants you suggest is not
likely to remain friendly or productive for any significant time.

There do exist topics ripe for an intelligent discussion by people who
are invested in the subject and have some knowledge to support their
arguments. The problem is the unintelligent discussion by people who
lack the background to participate intelligently, yet still
participate vigorously and vociferously.

Yes, my stance is highly selective, elitist, and prejudiced. I still
stand by it.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:r0gasa9hh251hkpho...@4ax.com...

Let me guess...you're a pig farmer.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jufasatoprofbvr5p...@4ax.com...

I wonder if he would "take you aside" for saying that. Or if he would take himself aside for responding to what you consider meaningless quips.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

That is another hobby to help poor students learn skills for very low cost. Not my day job. Did you have a point to make?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

OK. Fair points. Now. Are you interested?

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:87f7fdb6-dce3-4679...@googlegroups.com...

You made them.

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
<peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>OK. Fair points.


Thank you for taking the time to explain what you have in mind.


>Now. Are you interested?


Sorry, but no, I'm not interested. I'm sure you will find others who
are. Good luck to you and them.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >OK. Fair points.
>
>
> Thank you for taking the time to explain what you have in mind.
>
>
> >Now. Are you interested?
>
>
> Sorry, but no, I'm not interested. I'm sure you will find others who
> are. Good luck to you and them.

:)

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

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

>On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
>> <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OK. Fair points.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to explain what you have in mind.
>>
>>
>> >Now. Are you interested?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but no, I'm not interested. I'm sure you will find others who
>> are. Good luck to you and them.
>
>:)

On second thought, I am interested. I suspect you will need help
keeping some people from hi-jacking topics.

Speaking of which, I have several topics in mind. Are you thinking of
factual issues? Or opinions?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Facts are mostly just hard opinions. And all topics are potentially interesting. Scientific Method. Theory of Evolution. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Moore's Law. Punctuated Equilibrium. Missing Links. Behe's ideas. Existence of God. Reversibility of time. Interpretations of QM. Chaos. Abiogenesis. Epi-genetics. Hitler. The main thing is that it has to be something you think is important and has a significant effect on other people. I will be a minor player, so you and your cohorts (if any) would need to be the main sources of thought. Unless I get sucked into it that is.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 11:04:32 AM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:34:34 AM UTC-7, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:14:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
> > > <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Let me know the topic and I will set it up for up to ten people to join.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will Donald Trump be one of them?
> >
> > Trump would be interesting. Yes. We could go with that. Or a topic
> > more connected with this UseNet group, such as evolution and religion.
> > Or Behe..

I'm not sure, but if you choose Behe or IC without me, and with the
lineup you have below, this would probably be one big "Era of Good Feeling"
of Behe-bashing, peppered with misrepresentations by some participants,
of what IC is all about and what Behe says about it.

Sort of like a lineup of ten Republican candidates taking pot shots
at Hillary Clinton.

>Or Snowden... Or other stuff like BitCoin. Or... Pick a topic and a time and we can get together.
>
> Based on my readings so far I see that the following might be interesting to be involved:
>
> Burkhard
> Cummings
> Gans
> Glenn
> Harshman
> Hines
> jillery
> Kalkidas
> Major
> Martinez
> Okimoto
> RSNorman
> thompson
> Tweedy
> Vreeland
>
> I am sure there are others, and feel free to suggest yourself or others... but this could be a very interesting meetup. And unlike text message postings, you get a better feel of expression in a hangout session...

I'll be very busy anyway for the next two weeks, so I suggest you
pick some topic that is of less interest to me than the setting
straight of what Behe's position is all about.

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

[Robert Camp]

And contributed a few himself as I recall.

> Did you know that the man in the moon is upside down in the antipodes?

The better to view the Southern Cross?

[Steady Eddie]

I bet Jill is a psychiatrist - Freudian.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So you are afraid there might be some gratuitous Behe bashing in your
absence? If you were there to engage the issue with Peter and things
went south you might get cross with him, Peter. Thus we have a potential
case of crossed Peters. I for one am averse to seeing such spectacle on
webcam as it reminds me too much of a South Park send-up of
Chatroulette. Then again I'm no fan of gladiator movies either.

I prefer plain ole textual interaction on usenet the way the good lord
intended. Perhaps one could make a case for more visually stimulating
interaction, where one unveils props to make their point. There could
very well be hard facts presented. But watching gladiators playing with
their unsheathed swords is not my idea of spending quality time on a
weekend evening. YMMV.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

> So you are afraid there might be some gratuitous Behe bashing in your
> absence? If you were there to engage the issue with Peter and things
> went south you might get cross with him, Peter. Thus we have a potential
> case of crossed Peters. I for one am averse to seeing such spectacle on
> webcam as it reminds me too much of a South Park send-up of
> Chatroulette. Then again I'm no fan of gladiator movies either.

You mention the possibility of a "potential case of crossed Peters". That sounds like an Australian cross of some sort:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter

Of course, Chatroulette connects online chats between random pairs of people. Google Hangouts involves self-selected participants, so it is definitely not random, and of course it has a much wider audience reach.

But I would love to chat with a Behe proponent. I would be totally fair and willing to listen. If others here would be willing to have a fair discussion with this other Peter, please let me know. And Peter N., this would not take much time just 30 to 40 minutes would be a great session. What is your background and what is you basic point of view? Can I entice you?

[erik simpson]

Be careful what you wish for.

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson

Yes, a moderator can be an umpire or a player, but doing both tends to
create conflicts of interest.

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I bet Jill is a psychiatrist - Freudian.

It doesn't take a Freudian to tell you to stop playing with yourself
in public.

[jillery]

Only "pnyikos" knows what Behe's actual position is. Anything anybody
else says, including Behe himself, is a lie, by definition.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:59:28 AM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:

> Of course, Chatroulette connects online chats between random pairs of people. Google Hangouts involves self-selected participants, so it is definitely not random, and of course it has a much wider audience reach.
>
> But I would love to chat with a Behe proponent.

Sorry, I am not a Behe proponent, only a proponent of justice for
anyone to whom justice is flagrantly denied, and there are few
public figures in science to whom it is more flagrantly denied
than Behe.

This denial of justice is rampant not only in talk.origins but also
in Panda's Thumb, on Sandwalk, on Amazon "comments" sections, and
many other places on the Internet. Worse, it is denied to him on
various science-related commentaries in places as respected as the
National Academy of Science. Public statements all too often
conflate him with the general ID movement and the latter with creationism.
Some, like Sandwalk, routinely use the misrepresentation "Intelligent
Design Creationism" to include non-creationists like Behe.

Here, the most outspoken misrepresenter of Behe currently is
someone hiding behind the pseutonym "jillery". I have caught
her in dishonest behavior time and again, and so, to seek revenge,
she is as avid a misrepresenter of myself and what I say about Behe
as she is of Behe himself.

Besides her, at least half of the 15 people you've listed are
instigators or uncritical acceptors of canards against Behe and/or
distortions of Behe's positions. And I can't recall seeing anyone
besides myself lift a finger to correct any of them.

If you've read Jack Vance's sf short story "The Moon Moth," you
will understand what I mean when I say this newsgroup is permeated
with Sirenese-style individualism, which almost dictates the latter
behavior if not, in some, the former. I on the other hand have
a traditional system of values, which looks upon libel
as being the worst thing in which someone can indulge here and
in similar forums, and deliberate distortions as being also
far more reprehensible than e.g., breaches of etiquette.

> I would be totally fair and willing to listen. If others here would be willing to have a fair discussion with this other Peter, please let me know. And Peter N., this would not take much time just 30 to 40 minutes would be a great session. What is your background and what is you basic point of view? Can I entice you?

My background in regard to Behe and IC is reading _Darwin's Black Box_ and
parts of other writings by him; his Dover testimony; a talk he gave here
in the 1990's; and personal interaction with him to clarify some issues
such as the necessary inclusion of a specified function into the concept
of a system being IC.

My basic point of view is that Behe is not an especially great thinker or
writer, and he is not very articulate in public. He oft gets careless,
for instance, in that "necessary inclusion." But he deserves to have his
POV and arguments critiqued for what they are.

And that simply is not happening anywhere to my knowledge. The people
most heard from on both sides of the fence (creationists, and those
I've talked about above) regularly conflate IC (Irreducible Complexity)
with ID (Intelligent Design), the former to falsely claim that IC
implies ID, the latter to give themselves an easier target (IC being
by far the harder of the two to refute in each phenomenon under study).

Some time this year, I would like to discuss all this one-on-one with you.
Once that is done, we can open up the floor to others.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Thorsteinson]

You bring up some very interesting points Peter. And I would be delighted to talk with you. The sooner the better. If you are worried about how this might play out, I would like to suggest a non-recorded dry run. That way you could get comfortable with the mechanics of how this works, and I would be able to get a better handle on your views. I sense that you are passionate about this issue, and that is a generally a good thing, at least to an extent. If we talked one-on-one in a private google hangout or a skype call, we could get that passion baked to perfection. And then we serve it, not too hot and not too cold. And if you want to invite jillery, I would like that as well. But only if you are both comfortable enough to do something constructive. No Jerry Springer nonsense allowed.

[jillery]

Since you explicitly mentioned me, I should point out that "pnyikos"
has proved time after time to be incapable of discussing anything
without injecting insults, ad hominems, evasions, innuendo, blatant
assertions, outright lies, and other irrelevant noises, at least in
discussions with me. He can't help himself.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I see. Well, I could purchase the Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets from Marshall Rosenberg's NVC website, and do an NVC counselling session with the two of you.
You will both be fixed up real good. This is what that would look like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bydhuxilg_A

Here is more info on that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg

Works like a charm. And we could record the whole thing. That would go viral!

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6edb3cb2-f427-4e53...@googlegroups.com...

Why is going viral desirable?

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I suppose you would have to ask someone who thought that going viral was desirable. But are you saying that knowing why going viral is desirable is desirable?

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:461b0392-d6fa-4941...@googlegroups.com...

You exclaimed that would go viral, not me. Do you not desire that to go viral? Be careful of hypocrisy.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Predicting virulence with an exclamation mark is not an indication of desirability. Rather the opposite I would think, in most cases. Sans hypocrisy.

[Glenn]

"Peter Thorsteinson" <peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7336c516-49bb-4283...@googlegroups.com...

So you meant going viral would be undesirable, if it worked like a charm and the whole thing could be recorded.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:24:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Thorsteinson
> > <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 8:04:22 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > >> If you've read Jack Vance's sf short story "The Moon Moth," you
> > >> will understand what I mean when I say this newsgroup is permeated
> > >> with Sirenese-style individualism, which almost dictates the latter
> > >> behavior if not, in some, the former. I on the other hand have
> > >> a traditional system of values, which looks upon libel
> > >> as being the worst thing in which someone can indulge here and
> > >> in similar forums, and deliberate distortions as being also
> > >> far more reprehensible than e.g., breaches of etiquette.

By the way, this Vance classic of "anthropology fiction" is available
free of charge on line:

http://www.unexploredworlds.com/RealPulp/htm/rpulp145.htm

<snip for focus>

> > >> Some time this year, I would like to discuss all this one-on-one with you.
> > >> Once that is done, we can open up the floor to others.
> > >>
> > >> Peter Nyikos
> > >
> > >You bring up some very interesting points Peter. And I would be delighted to talk with you. The sooner the better. If you are worried about how this might play out, I would like to suggest a non-recorded dry run.

Excellent idea.

> That way you could get comfortable with the mechanics of how this works, and I would be able to get a better handle on your views. I sense that you are passionate about this issue, and that is a generally a good thing, at least to an extent. If we talked one-on-one in a private google hangout or a skype call, we could get that passion baked to perfection. And then we serve it, not too hot and not too cold. And if you want to invite jillery, I would like that as well. But only if you are both comfortable enough to do something constructive. No Jerry Springer nonsense allowed.

If jillery were to show up in a video recorded session, that would
be an amazing break from the extreme secretiveness she has displayed
about her identity.

I'm not even 100% sure jillery is a "she", but I've adopted
feminine pronouns for convenience. The pseudonym tips
the scales in that direction as does the peculiar brand of spiteful
behavior in which jillery indulges when confronted with evidence
of misbehavior by her.

Note, for example, the juvenile way she puts "pnyikos" in quotes
despite the fact that I am at least as open about my identity
and place of work as anyone on this newsgroup:

> > Since you explicitly mentioned me, I should point out that "pnyikos"
> > has proved time after time to be incapable of discussing anything
> > without injecting insults, ad hominems, evasions, innuendo, blatant
> > assertions, outright lies, and other irrelevant noises, at least in
> > discussions with me. He can't help himself.
>
> I see.

Not unless you too lean towards Sirenese-style individualism,
and are indifferent to whether things I have said to you about jillery,
or she has said to you about me, are true or false. [If you haven't
read "The Moon Moth" I can quote to you some passages that will give
you a feel for what I mean by "Sirenese-style individualism."]

Anyone can make the assertions "jillery" made about me; the trick
is to back them up, and she cannot do that. I on the other hand can
back up the charge that "incapable of" is absolutely false, even where
interaction with jillery herself is concerned. More importantly, I have
been unfailingly respectful of the majority of people I've interacted with
in talk.origins.

Anyway, if you put the two of us together with you, I can keep my cool,
like I did for two long posts that showed how wrong Doolittle was
about some genetically altered mice that he tried to use to refute Behe's
statement about the IC nature of part of the clotting system.
Jillery simply stopped responding after the second one, when she
was unable to support Doolittle any longer.

> Well, I could purchase the Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets from Marshall Rosenberg's NVC website, and do an NVC counselling session with the two of you.
> You will both be fixed up real good. This is what that would look like:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bydhuxilg_A
>
> Here is more info on that:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg
>
> Works like a charm. And we could record the whole thing. That would go viral!

Don't count on it.

You said "The sooner the better" but I'd have to know how hard it is to
get such a session set up before I commit to a date. You said it would
only last about half an hour or so once it is set up, but how much time
would it take to get that far?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I count on nothing :)

As for how hard it is to set up, well it really is just a few mouse clicks on my part and then I send you an email with a link that you click on and were off to the races. We could do that today if you wanted, just let me know your email address. The only thing I suggest is that you have a headset (a headset combines a headphone with a microphone). A speaker causes annoying feedback, so a headset is required to isolate the audio output from the audio input. Ideally you should also have a webcam, but that is not strictly required. But people like to see the face that is speaking to them. When we are both connected, but before I start the session, we talk over any questions or ideas you might have. Once we both feel ready, we start. At any point you can leave and you can tell me if you do not want to publish it. If you want to email back and forth about points you would like me to be aware of, you can do that before we do our first attempt. I expect that you will be just fine though.

[jillery]

This is another one of your stupid lies. You are the only person in
T.O. who compulsively brags about posting his identity and obsesses
about other posters' identities.

>I'm not even 100% sure jillery is a "she", but I've adopted
>feminine pronouns for convenience.

If you were going for convenience, you would follow English
convention, or not bring it up at all.

>The pseudonym tips
>the scales in that direction as does the peculiar brand of spiteful
>behavior in which jillery indulges when confronted with evidence
>of misbehavior by her.

Your paragraph above betrays your misogyny. You are one of the few
posters who regularly makes a point of other posters' gender. And you
have never explained why my gender matters to you.

Anytime you feel like backing up your asinine assertions, you just let
me know. I'm still waiting for any backup from your last set of bald
assertions from over a month ago.

>Note, for example, the juvenile way she puts "pnyikos" in quotes
>despite the fact that I am at least as open about my identity
>and place of work as anyone on this newsgroup:

So it's juvenile when I do it, but not you. Yet another classic bit
of nyikosian noise.

>> > Since you explicitly mentioned me, I should point out that "pnyikos"
>> > has proved time after time to be incapable of discussing anything
>> > without injecting insults, ad hominems, evasions, innuendo, blatant
>> > assertions, outright lies, and other irrelevant noises, at least in
>> > discussions with me. He can't help himself.
>>
>> I see.
>
>Not unless you too lean towards Sirenese-style individualism,
>and are indifferent to whether things I have said to you about jillery,
>or she has said to you about me, are true or false. [If you haven't
>read "The Moon Moth" I can quote to you some passages that will give
>you a feel for what I mean by "Sirenese-style individualism."]
>
>Anyone can make the assertions "jillery" made about me; the trick
>is to back them up, and she cannot do that.

Of course, the assertions I make apply to your posts I reply to, which
make them self-documenting. The assertions you make about me are the
ones you pluck from your mirror.

>I on the other hand can
>back up the charge that "incapable of" is absolutely false, even where
>interaction with jillery herself is concerned. More importantly, I have
>been unfailingly respectful of the majority of people I've interacted with
>in talk.origins.

What a howler. But it's almost certain that Thorsteinson is well
aware of what you call your "respectful" posts, so don't rely on it
getting through his BS detector.

>Anyway, if you put the two of us together with you, I can keep my cool,
>like I did for two long posts that showed how wrong Doolittle was
>about some genetically altered mice that he tried to use to refute Behe's
>statement about the IC nature of part of the clotting system.
>Jillery simply stopped responding after the second one, when she
>was unable to support Doolittle any longer.

Your self-serving revisionist histories don't fool anybody, either.

>> Well, I could purchase the Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets from Marshall Rosenberg's NVC website, and do an NVC counselling session with the two of you.
>> You will both be fixed up real good. This is what that would look like:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bydhuxilg_A
>>
>> Here is more info on that:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg
>>
>> Works like a charm. And we could record the whole thing. That would go viral!
>
>Don't count on it.
>
>You said "The sooner the better" but I'd have to know how hard it is to
>get such a session set up before I commit to a date. You said it would
>only last about half an hour or so once it is set up, but how much time
>would it take to get that far?

It will be interesting to see how quickly you setup a connection for a
video conference when it allegedly took you four months to find a way
to watch a Youtube video that you had asked for.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

I see that I will need to purchase the Heavy-Duty Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets with the Kung-Fu-Grippe(tm) from Marshall Rosenberg. And when shall we start our first NVC counseling session? If that works out, I might be ready to solve that little issue over there in Palestine/Israel.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:

> I see that I will need to purchase the Heavy-Duty Giraffe and Jackal
> sock puppets with the Kung-Fu-Grippe(tm) from Marshall Rosenberg.

Are you saying that because you imagine that the exchange you
originally planned will be something like the personal arguments
you've witnessed here between me and jillery?

> And when shall we start our first NVC counseling session? If that works
> out, I might be ready to solve that little issue over there in
> Palestine/Israel.

Or are you just trying to get us back to the issues of IC and of
Behe's strengths and weaknesses?

I suspect that what would transpire would be close to what
transpired when jillery and I argued about a bone of contention between
Behe and the clotting researcher Doolittle. It would certainly
be much closer to that than to what you've witnessed on this thread.

The bone of contention had to do with Behe's claim that a major
portion of the clotting cascade was IC (Irreducibly Complex,
meaning each and every part was essential to the relevant function).

Doolittle claimed that a certain study showed that knocking out
TWO factors -- plasminogen and fibrinogen -- made the mice
"normal to all intents and purposes" whereas mice with just
one factor knocked out were in a bad way.

In his 2005 Dover testimony Behe pointed out, correctly, that Doolittle
had misread the article he was citing, and that these mice could not
form clots because the essential ingredient of fibrinogen was missing.
He also noted that the article explicitly said that the mice with
just fibrinogen missing (called "pop[ulation] 3" mice in the talk.origins post
referenced first below) were "phenotypically indistinguishable" from
those with both plasminogen and fibrinogen missing (called "pop 4" there).

That is hardly a surprise, since the role of plasminogen is in
breaking up clots, not forming them, and so it was useless in the
absence of clots.

In the exchanges between us, jillery kept quoting passages
comparing "pop 2" mice (those with just plasminogen missing) to
"pop 4" mice that were not relevant to the above bone of contention,
and got miffed at me because I deleted that information in order to
focus on the ONLY claim Doolittle made against the IC nature of clotting in
humans and mice. Even as it was, the following post came to 268 lines
because of the complicated nature of the claims that were directly or
indirectly relevant to the "pop 3" and "pop 4" mice.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/svcAcf5Jnp4J

Jillery never replied to that post.

If you have any doubt as to the truth of what I am saying here or in
that post, here are urls for the preceding three posts in that
exchange, in *reverse* chronological order.

the jillery post to which the above was the reply:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/QLIp8KeOcK4J

the post of mine to which this jillery post was a reply:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/rSjbTwq-Z8wJ

and the post of jillery's to which this was a reply:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/lZF0nyCBY44J

Reading through all this carefully might best be done in chronological
order, but I maintain that the first post I referenced (the last in the
chronological order) already gives a good picture of the bone of contention
between Behe and Doolittle and of jillery's attempts to rescue Doolittle.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>
>> I see that I will need to purchase the Heavy-Duty Giraffe and Jackal
>> sock puppets with the Kung-Fu-Grippe(tm) from Marshall Rosenberg.
>
>Are you saying that because you imagine that the exchange you
>originally planned will be something like the personal arguments
>you've witnessed here between me and jillery?
>
>> And when shall we start our first NVC counseling session? If that works
>> out, I might be ready to solve that little issue over there in
>> Palestine/Israel.
>
>Or are you just trying to get us back to the issues of IC and of
>Behe's strengths and weaknesses?
>
>I suspect that what would transpire would be close to what
>transpired when jillery and I argued about a bone of contention between
>Behe and the clotting researcher Doolittle. It would certainly
>be much closer to that than to what you've witnessed on this thread.

<snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>

I will not let you goad me into rehashing old news. That you have to
go back so far to rationalize your TbBAs about me pretty much proves
what I said about you. You really can't help yourself.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:24:18 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:19:20 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:24:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:

> > Anyway, if you put the two of us together with you, I can keep my cool,
> > like I did for two long posts that showed how wrong Doolittle was
> > about some genetically altered mice that he tried to use to refute Behe's
> > statement about the IC nature of part of the clotting system.
> > Jillery simply stopped responding after the second one, when she
> > was unable to support Doolittle any longer.
> >
> > > Well, I could purchase the Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets from Marshall Rosenberg's NVC website, and do an NVC counselling session with the two of you.
> > > You will both be fixed up real good. This is what that would look like:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bydhuxilg_A

If you really believe it would look like what takes place in that video,
you should read the last post I did in reply to you here, to which you
still haven't replied. In particular, the posts I linked in it show how I
am able to keep my cool even when putting up with provocative behavior
by jillery, as I hinted earlier, see above.

> > > Here is more info on that:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg
> > >
> > > Works like a charm. And we could record the whole thing. That would go viral!
> >
> > Don't count on it.
> >
> > You said "The sooner the better" but I'd have to know how hard it is to
> > get such a session set up before I commit to a date. You said it would
> > only last about half an hour or so once it is set up, but how much time
> > would it take to get that far?
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> I count on nothing :)

So maybe you were kidding all along about sock puppets.

[Trivia: "sock puppet" has a completely different, figurative meaning
that is frequently used here. Do you know what I am talking about?]

> As for how hard it is to set up, well it really is just a few mouse clicks
> on my part and then I send you an email with a link that you click on
> and were off to the races. We could do that today if you wanted,

Not just yet, but this weekend might be a good time since I usually
take breaks from posting here on weekends, and I don't expect this
next one to be an exception.

> just let me know your email address.

You can either use nyikos2 "at" bellsouth.net or the departmental
address that I frequently post in my extended "sig"s, nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

At the moment I have a slight preference for the first; if that changes,
I'll let you know.

> The only thing I suggest is that you have a headset (a headset combines
> a headphone with a microphone). A speaker causes annoying feedback,

I never have feedback trouble on Skype. Is this substantially different?

> so a headset is required to isolate the audio output from the audio input.
> Ideally you should also have a webcam, but that is not strictly required.
> But people like to see the face that is speaking to them.

I'm just as good at talking over the phone, or turning off the video
on Skype when the audio signal threatens to break up.

> When we are both connected, but before I start the session, we talk over
> any questions or ideas you might have. Once we both feel ready, we start.
> At any point you can leave and you can tell me if you do not want to
> publish it. If you want to email back and forth about points you would
> like me to be aware of, you can do that before we do our first attempt.

I would like that, yes.

> I expect that you will be just fine though.

Thanks.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:24:18 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:19:20 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:24:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, if you put the two of us together with you, I can keep my cool,
>> > like I did for two long posts that showed how wrong Doolittle was
>> > about some genetically altered mice that he tried to use to refute Behe's
>> > statement about the IC nature of part of the clotting system.
>> > Jillery simply stopped responding after the second one, when she
>> > was unable to support Doolittle any longer.
>> >
>> > > Well, I could purchase the Giraffe and Jackal sock puppets from Marshall Rosenberg's NVC website, and do an NVC counselling session with the two of you.
>> > > You will both be fixed up real good. This is what that would look like:
>> > >
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bydhuxilg_A
>
>If you really believe it would look like what takes place in that video,
>you should read the last post I did in reply to you here, to which you
>still haven't replied. In particular, the posts I linked in it show how I
>am able to keep my cool even when putting up with provocative behavior
>by jillery, as I hinted earlier, see above.

Your a fool to think anybody would be fooled by your obsession with a
few posts from so long ago.

[Peter Thorsteinson]

Thanks Peter. The weekend would be good for me. This might be fun. I will email you.

[jillery]

It's amazing how quickly rockhead can respond when it suits his
purpose, and how long he can stonewall when it doesn't, and still
blame others for the difference.

[Peter Nyikos]

Well, the weekend has come and gone, and no e-mail from you in either mailbox.

Have you had second thoughts about this whole idea?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:34:14 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
> >
> >> I see that I will need to purchase the Heavy-Duty Giraffe and Jackal
> >> sock puppets with the Kung-Fu-Grippe(tm) from Marshall Rosenberg.
> >
> >Are you saying that because you imagine that the exchange you
> >originally planned will be something like the personal arguments
> >you've witnessed here between me and jillery?
> >
> >> And when shall we start our first NVC counseling session? If that works
> >> out, I might be ready to solve that little issue over there in
> >> Palestine/Israel.
> >
> >Or are you just trying to get us back to the issues of IC and of
> >Behe's strengths and weaknesses?
> >
> >I suspect that what would transpire would be close to what
> >transpired when jillery and I argued about a bone of contention between
> >Behe and the clotting researcher Doolittle. It would certainly
> >be much closer to that than to what you've witnessed on this thread.
>
> <snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>

Well over half of what you snipped fit none of those descriptions.
Here is that "bigger half" again.

[repost]

The bone of contention had to do with Behe's claim that a major
portion of the clotting cascade was IC (Irreducibly Complex,
meaning each and every part was essential to the relevant function).

Doolittle claimed that a certain study showed that knocking out
TWO factors -- plasminogen and fibrinogen -- made the mice
"normal to all intents and purposes" whereas mice with just
one factor knocked out were in a bad way.

In his 2005 Dover testimony Behe pointed out, correctly, that Doolittle
had misread the article he was citing, and that these mice could not
form clots because the essential ingredient of fibrinogen was missing.
He also noted that the article explicitly said that the mice with
just fibrinogen missing (called "pop[ulation] 3" mice in the talk.origins post
referenced first below) were "phenotypically indistinguishable" from
those with both plasminogen and fibrinogen missing (called "pop 4" there).

That is hardly a surprise, since the role of plasminogen is in
breaking up clots, not forming them, and so it was useless in the
absence of clots.

[...]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/svcAcf5Jnp4J
[end of repost]

> I will not let you goad me into rehashing old news.

NOBODY in his right mind would want you to rehash your obfuscatory
tactics. What is called for is your either trying to rationally
argue against what I have reposted, or else trying to grasp what
Doolittle was really trying to say by way of trying to refute Behe.

> That you have to
> go back so far to rationalize your TbBAs about me pretty much proves
> what I said about you.

My purposes were utterly different, and I think you know that. In the linked post, I kept my cool despite your relentless confusing of the issue,
and that was one of the main points I was making to Peter T. The other is
what I told him earlier, that I seek to set the record straight on Behe
in the teeth of foolish arguments against him.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:34:14 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Thorsteinson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see that I will need to purchase the Heavy-Duty Giraffe and Jackal
>> >> sock puppets with the Kung-Fu-Grippe(tm) from Marshall Rosenberg.
>> >
>> >Are you saying that because you imagine that the exchange you
>> >originally planned will be something like the personal arguments
>> >you've witnessed here between me and jillery?
>> >
>> >> And when shall we start our first NVC counseling session? If that works
>> >> out, I might be ready to solve that little issue over there in
>> >> Palestine/Israel.
>> >
>> >Or are you just trying to get us back to the issues of IC and of
>> >Behe's strengths and weaknesses?
>> >
>> >I suspect that what would transpire would be close to what
>> >transpired when jillery and I argued about a bone of contention between
>> >Behe and the clotting researcher Doolittle. It would certainly
>> >be much closer to that than to what you've witnessed on this thread.
>>
>> <snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>
>
>Well over half of what you snipped fit none of those descriptions.
>Here is that "bigger half" again.

What you think doesn't matter. Besides, you already posted it, so
there's no need to repost it.


>[repost]

<re-snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>

>> I will not let you goad me into rehashing old news.
>
>NOBODY in his right mind would want you to rehash your obfuscatory
>tactics. What is called for is your either trying to rationally
>argue against what I have reposted, or else trying to grasp what
>Doolittle was really trying to say by way of trying to refute Behe.

What is called for is to control your compulsive noise. Apparently
you're too busy making noise to listen.

>> That you have to
>> go back so far to rationalize your TbBAs about me pretty much proves
>> what I said about you.
>
>My purposes were utterly different, and I think you know that. In the linked post, I kept my cool despite your relentless confusing of the issue,
>and that was one of the main points I was making to Peter T. The other is
>what I told him earlier, that I seek to set the record straight on Behe
>in the teeth of foolish arguments against him.

Once again, that you had to go back so far to find anything you think
shows your "purpose", actually defeats your purpose.

You really should stop digging that hole you're in.

[Peter Nyikos]

What you really mean is: facts about Behe and Doolittle don't matter.

> Besides, you already posted it, so
> there's no need to repost it.

And you didn't contest it, and it is all documentable, so it's
pretty much case closed.

>
> >[repost]
>
> <re-snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>

NONE of it fitted your hate-driven, lying description.

This is such good documentation for those who know what a shameless liar
you are when things don't go your way, I will again show what it is
you are lying about. This time, the repost will be on another thread,
to show people what your BIGGEST interests are -- and they are off-topic
as far as the talk.origins charter goes.

All anyone reading this thread need do is scroll two posts up
to see what it is you are lying about.

> >> I will not let you goad me into rehashing old news.
> >
> >NOBODY in his right mind would want you to rehash your obfuscatory
> >tactics. What is called for is your either trying to rationally
> >argue against what I have reposted, or else trying to grasp what
> >Doolittle was really trying to say by way of trying to refute Behe.

> What is called for is to control your compulsive noise. Apparently
> you're too busy making noise to listen.

Facts about IC and about arguments pertaining thereto
are "compulsive noise" according to you. Got it.

> >> That you have to
> >> go back so far to rationalize your TbBAs about me pretty much proves
> >> what I said about you.
> >
> >My purposes were utterly different, and I think you know that.
> >In the linked post, I kept my cool despite your relentless confusing of the issue,
> >and that was one of the main points I was making to Peter T. The other is
> >what I told him earlier, that I seek to set the record straight on Behe
> >in the teeth of foolish arguments against him.
>
>
> Once again, that you had to go back so far to find anything you think
> shows your "purpose", actually defeats your purpose.

IIRC you have avoided on-topic debate with me for that long, except
for one on-going thread which is still in the formative stage.

You even aided, abetted, and comforted Ron O when he refused
to discuss with me the turtle systematics that his OP had to do with,
and never discussed them with anyone else either. Instead he went
into an orgy of hatred against me with you as his willing accomplice.

Documentation on request.

> You really should stop digging that hole you're in.

It's a hole only in the eyes of the half dozen or so people who love you all
the more for the lies and distortions and unsupportable "opinions"
you post about me.

Of course, that includes yourself.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

I said what I meant. What you posted had almost nothing to do with
Behe or Doolittle. You just use them as an excuse to post your
self-serving noise.

>> Besides, you already posted it, so
>> there's no need to repost it.
>
>And you didn't contest it, and it is all documentable, so it's
>pretty much case closed.

'Twas successfully contested years ago, so there's no need for you to
open it again. Of course, that's never stopped you before. It almost
certainly won't stop you in the future.

>> >[repost]
>>
>> <re-snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>
>
>NONE of it fitted your hate-driven, lying description.

My accurate description fit all of what I snipped.

>This is such good documentation for those who know what a shameless liar
>you are when things don't go your way,

I had no idea things aren't going my way. Please elaborate.

>I will again show what it is
>you are lying about.

Promises, promises. I'm still waiting for you to back up your bald
assertions against me from over a month ago.

>This time, the repost will be on another thread,
>to show people what your BIGGEST interests are -- and they are off-topic
>as far as the talk.origins charter goes.

Whatever that means...

>All anyone reading this thread need do is scroll two posts up
>to see what it is you are lying about.

So you tacity admit there's no need for you to re-post your repetitive
noise. Your welcome.

>> >> I will not let you goad me into rehashing old news.
>> >
>> >NOBODY in his right mind would want you to rehash your obfuscatory
>> >tactics. What is called for is your either trying to rationally
>> >argue against what I have reposted, or else trying to grasp what
>> >Doolittle was really trying to say by way of trying to refute Behe.
>
>> What is called for is to control your compulsive noise. Apparently
>> you're too busy making noise to listen.
>
>Facts about IC and about arguments pertaining thereto
>are "compulsive noise" according to you. Got it.

Whether reading text or mind, you fail to comprehend either.

>> >> That you have to
>> >> go back so far to rationalize your TbBAs about me pretty much proves
>> >> what I said about you.
>> >
>> >My purposes were utterly different, and I think you know that.
>> >In the linked post, I kept my cool despite your relentless confusing of the issue,
>> >and that was one of the main points I was making to Peter T. The other is
>> >what I told him earlier, that I seek to set the record straight on Behe
>> >in the teeth of foolish arguments against him.
>>
>>
>> Once again, that you had to go back so far to find anything you think
>> shows your "purpose", actually defeats your purpose.
>
>IIRC you have avoided on-topic debate with me for that long,

As I have stated explicitly many times, I have zero interest in wading
through your bales of straw over some remote chance of finding a
coherent needle. Unlike you, I don't have to go back years to find
examples of that. Your most recent replies to me document that
problem very well.

>except
>for one on-going thread which is still in the formative stage.

If so, I must not have recognized it. Thanks for the warning. Time
to abort it before it's too late.

>You even aided, abetted, and comforted Ron O when he refused
>to discuss with me the turtle systematics that his OP had to do with,
>and never discussed them with anyone else either. Instead he went
>into an orgy of hatred against me with you as his willing accomplice.
>
>Documentation on request.

You still haven't figured out that dragging in yet another long-dead
and irrelevant topic only proves my point. But that's what you do.
You can't help yourself.

>> You really should stop digging that hole you're in.
>
>It's a hole only in the eyes of the half dozen or so people who love you all
>the more for the lies and distortions and unsupportable "opinions"
>you post about me.

And so you come full circle. Any time you want to back up your bald
assertions, just let me know.

>Of course, that includes yourself.

I almost forgot. Windex called. Your monthly drum of mirror cleaner
is ready for you to pick up.

[Peter Nyikos]

It had everything to do with the only important thing Doolittle ever had to
say about Behe, something that has gone so viral that Behe wishes he
had five dollars for every time someone in the audience claims what
Doolittle claimed. Each time he trots out the article that Doolittle
misread, and explains the truth about it.

I saw it happen right here in the U of S Carolina, and it was far from
the first time that had happened, and far from the last.

> You just use them as an excuse to post your
> self-serving noise.

Here is what you dishonestly call self-serving noise:

[repost]
The bone of contention had to do with Behe's claim that a major

portion of the clotting cascade is IC (Irreducibly Complex,

meaning each and every part was essential to the relevant function).

Doolittle claimed that a certain study showed that knocking out
TWO factors -- plasminogen and fibrinogen -- made the mice
"normal to all intents and purposes" whereas mice with just
one factor knocked out were in a bad way.

In his 2005 Dover testimony Behe pointed out, correctly, that Doolittle
had misread the article he was citing, and that these mice could not
form clots because the essential ingredient of fibrinogen was missing.

He also noted that the article explicitly said that the mice with
just fibrinogen missing (called "pop[ulation] 3" mice in the talk.origins post
referenced first below) were "phenotypically indistinguishable" from
those with both plasminogen and fibrinogen missing (called "pop 4" there).

That is hardly a surprise, since the role of plasminogen is in
breaking up clots, not forming them, and so it was useless in the
absence of clots.

[...]


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DyT9mKRekQY/svcAcf5Jnp4J

>

> >> Besides, you already posted it, so
> >> there's no need to repost it.
> >
> >And you didn't contest it, and it is all documentable, so it's
> >pretty much case closed.
>
>

> 'Twas successfully contested years ago,f

You are lying. Here is what actually happened, as I described earlier:

"In the exchanges between us, jillery kept quoting passages
comparing "pop 2" mice (those with just plasminogen missing) to
"pop 4" mice that were not relevant to the above bone of contention,
and got miffed at me because I deleted that information in order to
focus on the ONLY claim Doolittle made against the IC nature of clotting in
humans and mice."

And you were totally powerless against the information that I kept
providing on that bone of contention. You bailed out of the argument
by claiming you had no interest in arguing with someone who
"arbitrarily" snipped things, even admitting that you had done it
too [with your usual smart-alecky "right back atcha", but you
didn't mention that because you wanted to sound mature and above it all].

In my reply, whose url appears above, I wrote in reply to this
hypocritical comment:

"I don't think I deleted anything relevant to the argument. You
restored a huge amount of stuff on pop 2 mice and comparisons with the
other populations that was irrelevant to the points I was making all
along. And so I deleted it again, as before."

And the point I was making all along was EXACTLY what Behe made
in demolishing Doolittle's benighted comments, both in the article
Doolittle wrote and in repetitions by umpteen people who took
Doolittle's word for what that research article contained.

> I explained

> so there's no need for you to
> open it again.

You explained a bunch of irrelevant stuff about which there
was no dispute between Doolittle and Behe, nor between you and me.

> >> >[repost]
> >>
> >> <re-snip rockhead's self-serving and off-topic spam>

Note the irony of how you did not tolerate a second snip
of irrelevant information, but now you keep snipping
on-topic, factual information, and brazenly lying about
what you've snipped.

> >NONE of it fitted your hate-driven, lying description.

> My accurate description fit all of what I snipped.

Keep lying your head off if you must, but do keep the following
quote from Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_ in mind.

One hundred repetitions three nights a week
for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was
an expert on hypnopaedia. Sixty-two thousand
repetitions make one truth. Idiots!

> >This is such good documentation for those who know what a shameless liar
> >you are when things don't go your way,
>
> I had no idea things aren't going my way. Please elaborate.

Done, above. You keep lying about what you snipped, because you
were powerless against the truth then, and are powerless against it now.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Nope I honestly call it self-serving noise, *and* irrelevant to this
topic. Liar.

Every time you post, you prove my point for me.

<re-snip repetitive and irrelevant self-serving rockhead noise>

[Peter Nyikos]

Since you never named what "this topic" is, while I have, you are
doing the very thing you are accusing Bill of in the tedious
200+ line long post whose text is preserved here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/jhpBaGJkZIE/0n78GDFjfSMJ
Message-ID: <5e160e0a-7212-4ada...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Intelligent Designer & Evolution
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:50:11 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Every time you post, you prove my point for me.

Pee Wee Hermanist illogic, illustrative of what I described in the new part
of the post referenced above.

> <re-snip repetitive and irrelevant self-serving rockhead noise>

I suppose you justify all this to yourself with "right back atchas"
of the following sort:

1. By demonstrating lies by you, I allegedly give a precedent for
you to "follow" by falsely accusing me of lying.

2. [this you have already availed yourself of] By snipping text of yours,
and offering to restore it on request, I allegedly give you a
a precedent for you to "follow" by snipping text of mine and
falsely claiming that you are doing it to preserve sanity.

These are prime examples of the dirty debating tactic I call
the One Shade of Gray Meltdown, which usually consists of
seizing upon one or a few common features in order to portray
disparate things as though they were the same.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Since you never named what "this topic" is,

"This topic" is "Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a
debate?" Most people wouldn't have to ask.

HTH but I doubt it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:23:46 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Since you never named what "this topic" is,
>
> "This topic" is "Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a
> debate?" Most people wouldn't have to ask.
>

That's just the title of the thread. As you damn well know,
the thread title meant NOTHING to you or Ron O when it
was "Turtle genome analysis and sequence" even though it
meant a lot to Norman, Harshman, Burkhard, Shrubber, and myself.
The five of us kept discussing the thing which Ron O adamantly
refused to talk about, while you even tried to argue that since
Ron O had done the OP, he should tyrannically get to decide
what the thread topic was.

But then, you have no problem reinventing yourself, and morality,
and truth, and standards whenever it suits you: that is natural
when you post under the pseudonymous "jillery" byline, and are free of the
constraints that responsible adults post under.

> HTH but I doubt it.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Peter T. has evidently
lost interest in what you insincerely pretend everyone should
know is the "topic". He broke his promise to e-mail
me about it last weekend, and hasn't been heard from here in a week.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:23:46 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Since you never named what "this topic" is,
>>
>> "This topic" is "Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a
>> debate?" Most people wouldn't have to ask.
>>
>
>That's just the title of the thread.

Wrong again. That's what Thorsteinson was talking about, before you
hijacked the topic with your rant about how you single-handedly
preserved Truth, Justice and the American Way by protecting the world
from my lies and dishonesty.

>As you damn well know,
>the thread title meant NOTHING to you or Ron O when it
>was "Turtle genome analysis and sequence" even though it
>meant a lot to Norman, Harshman, Burkhard, Shrubber, and myself.
>The five of us kept discussing the thing which Ron O adamantly
>refused to talk about, while you even tried to argue that since
>Ron O had done the OP, he should tyrannically get to decide
>what the thread topic was.

If only you would follow now Ron O's example then.

>But then, you have no problem reinventing yourself, and morality,
>and truth, and standards whenever it suits you: that is natural
>when you post under the pseudonymous "jillery" byline, and are free of the
>constraints that responsible adults post under.

So you're outraged by the use of pseudonyms. But to the best of my
knowledge, you never expressed that attitude about "El Cid". In the
meantime, your use of your RL name doesn't stop you from the most
egregious behaviors.

>> HTH but I doubt it.
>
>By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Peter T. has evidently
>lost interest in what you insincerely pretend everyone should
>know is the "topic". He broke his promise to e-mail
>me about it last weekend, and hasn't been heard from here in a week.

My guess is you scared him away.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, "jillery" is Very Young...

...And clearly Foolish.

Her/His writing shows zero originality.

She/He just trots out stock phrases, bromides and jejune Tu Quoques.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Heinlein's Razor

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

Robert Anson Heinlein [1907-1988] U.S.N.A. '29

"jillery" wrote in message
news:lq0gtati5mhe28asp...@4ax.com...

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:55:43 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:

>Yes, "jillery" is Very Young...
>
>...And clearly Foolish.
>
>Her/His writing shows zero originality.
>
>She/He just trots out stock phrases, bromides and jejune Tu Quoques.

That's all that sock puppets and idiots require. So Tu Quoque back
atcha.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:55:43 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, "jillery" is Very Young...

Jillery claims otherwise in the repost below, but the way she does
it is via a highly suspicious explanation of her e-mail address,
so she can easily claim she was trying to pull our legs.

But in that, she was unsuccessful, as deadrat indicated.

> >...And clearly Foolish.
> >
> >Her/His writing shows zero originality.
> >
> >She/He just trots out stock phrases, bromides and jejune Tu Quoques.
>
>
> That's all that sock puppets and idiots require.

More jillery illogic.

They either require nothing, or they require a real talking to.

> So Tu Quoque backatcha.

You love to put yourself on the same level as what you claim
your opponents to be. That sort of thing plays well with about
half a dozen people in this ng, especially Paul Gans and Ron O.

But then, those are the only people whose good opinion means
something to you, aren't they?

Here, for instance, are three people whose good opinion means
less than nothing to you, with appropriate commentary on
your childish behavior and hypocritical comments:

_____________________repost__________________________
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:25:41 PM UTC-5, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/18/15 8:28 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:26:52 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:03:39 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/17/15 8:00 AM, jillery wrote:

> >>>> I had no idea minions enjoyed circle jerks.
> >>>
> >>> And look what comes to your mind unbidden. How long have you had this
> >>> problem of inappropriately sexualizing what you read?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Apparently for quite some time. Look at her listed email address.
> >
> >
> > I'll show you mine if you show me yours. But in fact, my listed email
> > address refers to the year of my graduation. Any sexualizing
> > inferences come from dirty-minded minions.

If jillery is telling the truth about her graduation year,
hers is truly a case of arrested development, full of smart-alecky,
irrational comebacks typical of the repartee of prepubescent "wise guys",
and others typical of kids who have just entered puberty, including
her oft-used retort "in your wet dreams" in response to something that
a more mature person would simply label "wishful thinking."

And so, it's a little late for her to pretend that she is just
an innocent clean-cut person and that it is others who are the
dirty-minded ones.


> C'mon, everybody knows that the University of the Sanjak of Drama didn't
> have a graduating class that year. And The Drama Department of the
> University of the Sanjak of Drama didn't institute its Oh-So-Dramatic
> Arts degree until 1972.

Neat comeback, far beyond what jillery's impoverished imagination
is capable of coming up with. Her retort, which came in a matter
of minutes, was typical of a middle school rotten sport:

"Give yourself an enema while you lie on your fainting sofa and get rid
of some of that shit you're full of."

Back in middle school this might have elicited cries of "score! score!"
and perhaps jillery is still basking in the memory of such long-ago
"triumphs."

Peter Nyikos
===================end of repost===========================

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 1:13:47 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:23:46 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since you never named what "this topic" is,
> >>
> >> "This topic" is "Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a
> >> debate?" Most people wouldn't have to ask.
> >>
> >
> >That's just the title of the thread.
>
>
> Wrong again. That's what Thorsteinson was talking about, before you
> hijacked the topic with your rant about how you single-handedly
> preserved Truth, Justice and the American Way by protecting the world
> from my lies and dishonesty.

Typical pouty whining, making up a tall tale about the way
I was the only person in this ng who responded favorably
to Peter T.'s invitations. What you call a "rant" was me
talking to him about how I could be expected to behave in
such a "hangout" even if I received provocations from others.
Since you were the only person really keeping up, it was
on-topic to talk about you in the way I did.

>
> >As you damn well know,
> >the thread title meant NOTHING to you or Ron O when it
> >was "Turtle genome analysis and sequence" even though it
> >meant a lot to Norman, Harshman, Burkhard, Shrubber, and myself.
> >The five of us kept discussing the thing which Ron O adamantly
> >refused to talk about, while you even tried to argue that since
> >Ron O had done the OP, he should tyrannically get to decide
> >what the thread topic was.
>
>
> If only you would follow now Ron O's example then.

If I were to follow Ron O's example, there would be a long
back and forth between me and DSH about what a blackguard
you are, but I think the reply I did to him just now will
end my share of this topic.

If you were to follow my example, you would try to
engage Peter T. in what you call on-topic discussion,
and ignore what I or DSH say about you.

>
> >But then, you have no problem reinventing yourself, and morality,
> >and truth, and standards whenever it suits you: that is natural
> >when you post under the pseudonymous "jillery" byline, and are free of the
> >constraints that responsible adults post under.
>
>
> So you're outraged by the use of pseudonyms.

False. You are deliberately missing the point, as usual.

> But to the best of my
> knowledge, you never expressed that attitude about "El Cid".

That's because he behaved like a responsible adult despite
the use of a pseudonym. Unlike you, he did not succumb to
the temptation to behave the way you do; had he done so,
the benefits of a pseudonym to people determined to behave
irresponsibly would have kicked in.

> In the
> meantime, your use of your RL name doesn't stop you from the most
> egregious behaviors.

"egregious" only in the eyes of self-righteous people whose
morality coincides with whatever is convenient for them,
and has nothing to do with universal principles like
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

>
> >> HTH but I doubt it.
> >
> >By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Peter T. has evidently
> >lost interest in what you insincerely pretend everyone should
> >know is the "topic". He broke his promise to e-mail
> >me about it last weekend, and hasn't been heard from here in a week.

> My guess is you scared him away.

Far more likely: he got discouraged over seeing that his original
plan of having a big group involved just wasn't going to fly.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:23:46 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Since you never named what "this topic" is,
>> >>
>> >> "This topic" is "Anyone want to join a google hangout on air for a
>> >> debate?" Most people wouldn't have to ask.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's just the title of the thread.
>>
>>
>> Wrong again. That's what Thorsteinson was talking about, before you
>> hijacked the topic with your rant about how you single-handedly
>> preserved Truth, Justice and the American Way by protecting the world
>> from my lies and dishonesty.
>
>Typical pouty whining, making up a tall tale about the way
>I was the only person in this ng who responded favorably
>to Peter T.'s invitations.

Of course, I made no such tall tale. You're just making stuff up.
That's what you do.

Tu quoque back atcha.