Bill Nye says he underestimated debate's impact

[eridanus]

Bill Nye says he underestimated debate's impact

<http://www.newsdaily.com/article/e6fdcbbd9f89b66920c53ee81a2d27dd/bill-nye-says-he-underestimated-debates-impact>

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- TV's "Science Guy" Bill Nye said he
underestimated the impact of a February debate in Kentucky on evolution
and creationism that drew a massive online audience.

When Nye agreed to the debate at The Creation Museum with its founder
Ken Ham, he said he believed it would draw about as much attention as
presentations he makes on college campuses.

But the Feb. 4 event was widely promoted by the museum, "and soon it
seemed like everyone I met was talking about it," Nye wrote in a
3,000-word letter published in the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer.

"I slowly realized that this was a high-pressure situation," he said.

It continues...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 05:55:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

He needs to get out more if he didn't realize this is a
high-controversy and emotionally charged issue, especially
in places like Kentucky.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[eridanus]

If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with the
trick to collect some more money.
Eri

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:41:05 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El jueves, 17 de abril de 2014 20:12:33 UTC+1, Bob Casanova escribió:
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 05:55:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
> > <leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >Bill Nye says he underestimated debate's impact
> > >
> > ><http://www.newsdaily.com/article/e6fdcbbd9f89b66920c53ee81a2d27dd/bill-nye-says-he-underestimated-debates-impact>
> > >
> > >LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- TV's "Science Guy" Bill Nye said he
> > >underestimated the impact of a February debate in Kentucky on evolution
> > >and creationism that drew a massive online audience.
> > >
> > >When Nye agreed to the debate at The Creation Museum with its founder
> > >Ken Ham, he said he believed it would draw about as much attention as
> > >presentations he makes on college campuses.
> > >
> > >But the Feb. 4 event was widely promoted by the museum, "and soon it
> > >seemed like everyone I met was talking about it," Nye wrote in a
> > >3,000-word letter published in the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer.
> > >
> > >"I slowly realized that this was a high-pressure situation," he said.
> > >
> > >It continues...
> >
> > He needs to get out more if he didn't realize this is a
> > high-controversy and emotionally charged issue, especially
> > in places like Kentucky.
>

> If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with the
> trick to collect some more money.

He should have had a contract giving him a share, 30 per cent
maybe, of subsequent donations to the cause.

And then he should have admitted this during the show.

That would put anyone watching off the idea of sending money.

That sentence is going to challenge a reader of English as a
second language, but I'm going to leave it in.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:12:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 05:55:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
><leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bill Nye says he underestimated debate's impact
>>
>><http://www.newsdaily.com/article/e6fdcbbd9f89b66920c53ee81a2d27dd/bill-nye-says-he-underestimated-debates-impact>
>>
>>LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- TV's "Science Guy" Bill Nye said he
>>underestimated the impact of a February debate in Kentucky on evolution
>>and creationism that drew a massive online audience.
>>
>>When Nye agreed to the debate at The Creation Museum with its founder
>>Ken Ham, he said he believed it would draw about as much attention as
>>presentations he makes on college campuses.
>>
>>But the Feb. 4 event was widely promoted by the museum, "and soon it
>>seemed like everyone I met was talking about it," Nye wrote in a
>>3,000-word letter published in the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer.
>>
>>"I slowly realized that this was a high-pressure situation," he said.
>>
>>It continues...
>
>He needs to get out more if he didn't realize this is a
>high-controversy and emotionally charged issue, especially
>in places like Kentucky.

If by "emotionally charged issue" you mean evolution and creationism,
Nye pointed out in his article that the official debate topic was "Is
creation a viable model of origins in the modern scientific era?” He
also said "Note that this title does not include the word “evolution,”
nor does it connote or imply that we would discuss evolution
specifically."

So Nye's self-admitted belated awareness of the high pressure was more
likely due to Ham's skewed promotions than Nye's unlikely case of
naivety and lack of worldliness.

[jillery]

That's why you're not Bill Nye.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:23:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

But anything questioning the viability of Creationism as a
valid model would be an emotionally charged issue; no
mention of evolution required. It's the questioning of the
literal nature of Scripture which is the issue, not any
particular proposed alternative.

>So Nye's self-admitted belated awareness of the high pressure was more
>likely due to Ham's skewed promotions than Nye's unlikely case of
>naivety and lack of worldliness.

Could be, although I contend that the topic itself was bound
to cause controversy in what is part of the Bible Belt.

[eridanus]

I had not any problems to understand what you are saying here.
Eri

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:15:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

But you still miss the point. It's not that Nye failed to recognize
the controversy, or that he was unprepared for controversy, but for
the degree of interest in the controversy. You fault him for that, as
evidence of his lack of worldliness. OTOH I applaud Nye's candor, and
regard his surprise as understandable and due to events outside his
control.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:58:25 -0400, the following appeared

It wasn't my intent to fault him at all, merely to note that
he didn't seem to anticipate the degree to which the
discussion would arouse controversy. I don't consider that a
fault per se, since no one is omniscient.

> OTOH I applaud Nye's candor, and
>regard his surprise as understandable and due to events outside his
>control.

Agreed, and no contradiction to what I first noted (perhaps
a bit more snarkily than I intended).

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:10:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I regret if it appears I am beating this point beyond death, but you
brought it up. To affirm what Billy Nye freely admitted to is one
thing. To say that "he should get out more", as you did, is quite
another. The latter implies that the problem itself, and/or the
problem's solution, rests with Bill Nye.

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with the
>trick to collect some more money.
>Eri

I'm guessing that they will lose more over the long haul than they
have gained, both in money and people.

In school I dated a woman who had never had anybody question any of
the beliefs she had grown up with. I'm sure that there are many who
still grow up in a society where no one offers any alternative.

Nye may have made a lot of people start doing what is very dangerous
fro religion. Think.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Yeah, thinking turned out really dangerous to religious beliefs for people
like Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Mendel, Lema�tre, Francis Collins,
Kenneth Miller ...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <fjc6l99kemvvmoc1n...@4ax.com>,

Ah, yes. Advertisers study how many times people must be exposed to a
message before they act on it, calculating such things as cost per
thousand exposures and how many times the average exposee is hit.

For a complete explanation of Easter


<http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/04/16/eggs2/>

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[John S. Wilkins]

Anyone before Lema�tre was religious by default. But I agree with those
after: they found ways to reconcile religion with real science and to do
it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[eridanus]

El domingo, 20 de abril de 2014 15:03:50 UTC+1, John S. Wilkins escribi�:

it is really easy if one accepts that Bible cannot be understood
in a literal sense. I was like 17 years when a catholic priest told
me the bible should not be taken in a literal sense, but it had
a moral sense. Of course, at that time I was not so well informed as
to doubt even of the moral sense of the bible; once you read some
stories of the OT. Once you check on this, the idea that it has a moral
message ceases to be obvious. A few passages of the NT also contradict
the idea of a sweet Jesus. Then, the moral message ceases to be...
so clear cut.
But for the idea of a divine creator that created the Universe in a "big
bang" and let everything happen... it cannot be disputed, neither proved.
It becomes a metaphysical proposition. Like god.

Eri

[eridanus]

from this link I found this other
The Ethics of Jesus
<http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/the-ethics-of-jesus>
It is a blog and he comments the following:

I've come to conclusions, some of which which I will reveal up front.
First, the "synoptic" gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are strongly
similar to each other, and the fourth gospel, John, is very different.
Essentially all of the ethical teachings are in the first three. What
little ethics there IS in John is remarkable more for what it does NOT
say. The first three have a lot of common quotations and stories, John
has no quotations in common with the others. For this reason I am first
going to cover the ethics taught in the first three gospels, and then
discuss John.
------
It continues saying,
Second, The ethics of Jesus, as presented in the synoptic gospels, is
very difficult, very challenging. But there is an underlying logic to
it: the ethics of Jesus are apocalyptic.
Jesus is reported to have believed and taught that the world as people
then knew it was coming to an end; he was an apocalyptic preacher.
Matthew chapter 24, Mark chapter 13, Luke chapter 21, all speak of an
apocalyptic end time, with earthquakes, famines, wars, with false
prophets and religious persecutions, with mass deaths and turmoil. He
stresses that no one knows when this will happen, so we should keep
ourselves ready at all times. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke he says "This
generation will not pass away till all these things take place." Though
he says no one knows the day and hour, he apparently thinks it will be
"soon", within the lifetime of those hearing him speak. In Matthew 10:23
he says:
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say
to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before
the Son of man comes.
--------------
a little later he says,
An even more clearly unworldly teaching is Luke 14:26-33,
26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother
and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own
life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross
and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring
to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he
has enough to complete it? ... 33 So therefore, whoever of you does not
renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
-----------
there is a lot of references along these lines, that any one can read if
he wants.
As a summation of all those fragments of the gospels he says,

Summing up so far: Abandon all your Earthly ambitions. Forsake your
Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.
Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works. Avoid
getting any Earthly reward for your good works. Follow the Law of Moses,
both the letter and the spirit of it. Abstain from all sin, inside and
out; abstain from covetousness, abstain from anger, abstain from lust.
Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust. Practice strict
nonviolent pacifism; do not resist evil, do not strike back, do good to
those who hate you. Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking. Do
not judge others, that is not your job, Judgement Day will come soon
enough. Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even
as your father in Heaven is perfect."
---------
The author of the blog concludes that the famous dispute about the salvation
if by the works or the faith, is bend in the three synoptic gospels as
a question of the works. You have to do some difficult works to save you.

But in the gospel of John, he presents some comments saying,
In each of the first three gospels there is an apocalyptic chapter, where
Jesus warns of the end of the world, with disasters and wars and mass
death and turmoil, followed by Judgment Day, coming soon. There is no
apocalyptic chapter in John. At the end of John he speaks of his own
future "coming", apparently the "second coming", but gives no apocalyptic
warnings or descriptions. There is no hint that the second coming will be
anytime soon.
If you go through the gospel of John and collect only the ethical
teachings, skipping everything else, you will find that there are very
few. The Jesus described in John never says to help the poor, much less
does he say anything about selling your possessions. The only time he
mentions the poor, he says "the poor you always have with you." He never
says to follow the Law of Moses, never says to abstain from all sin and be
perfect, never says to cut off body parts that tempt you to sin. He
never says to be humble.

What DOES he say? He says three things over and over. "Believe in me",
he who believes will get into heaven. "Eat my body and blood", those who
take communion will have eternal life. And "Obey me, keep my
commandments." Those who do not believe and do not obey will be
condemned. But there are only two commandments mentioned in the entire
book. He does say to practice forgiveness; In chapter 8 there is the
story of the woman caught in adultery, and Jesus says "let him who is
without sin cast the first stone." Other than that, the only commandment
he gives is to "love one another". In other words, love other
Christians. John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I
have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will
know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
------
This comments show the NT contains different ideas about Jesus, different
messages. It looks that the different authors choose a different approach
to invent the life of Jesus. These two different approaches to the story
of Jesus tell us we are before a work of fiction. John could had not been
a disciple of Jesus as well as the other writers, Luke, Mark and Matthew.
Not only for they present important differences on the teachings of Jesus
but also because... some important parts of the story are omitted in some
gospels. This is according to my reasoning why the gospels proved the
story of Jesus is a collection of fiction stories about Jesus.

Eri
I posted this not for you, but to tease a little some believers that could
read this.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:16:41 -0400, the following appeared

Yes, and I stated (actually, "implied") that my initial
comment, while accurate regarding what he probably should
have known about his audience and in agreement with his own
evaluation, was inappropriately snarky.

[jillery]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:42:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

There's an irony here. You're apologizing for your snark, over which
I have no particular concern. Yet you again hold Bill Nye responsible
for predicting and anticipating the (at the time) future actions of an
organization not his own, and the emergent behavior of an emergent
audience to those actions. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken
Ham wasn't (pleasantly) surprised at the degree of interest that he
helped to generate.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John S. Wilkins wrote:
> AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with
>>>> the trick to collect some more money.
>>>> Eri
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that they will lose more over the long haul than they
>>> have gained, both in money and people.
>>>
>>> In school I dated a woman who had never had anybody question any of
>>> the beliefs she had grown up with. I'm sure that there are many who
>>> still grow up in a society where no one offers any alternative.
>>>
>>> Nye may have made a lot of people start doing what is very dangerous
>>> fro religion. Think.
>>
>> Yeah, thinking turned out really dangerous to religious beliefs for
>> people like Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Mendel, Lema�tre,
>> Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller ...
>
> Anyone before Lema�tre was religious by default.

But Augustine and Aquinas in both exercised considerable wide ranging
intellectual thought and reasoning without any indication of that leading to
a weakening of their religious beliefs; on the contrary, they both felt
comfortable with reconciling those beliefs with what man can glean from the
natural world, Augustine in his famous "Often, a non-Christian knows
something about the earth ..." piece and Aquinas with his 5 Ways arguments.

> But I agree with
> those after: they found ways to reconcile religion with real science
> and to do it.

Anyone who believes that thinking is a danger to religious belief simply
reveals the shortcomings in their own thinking.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 20 April 2014 20:07:14 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:42:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:16:41 -0400, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

> >>I regret if it appears I am beating this point beyond death, but you
> >>brought it up. To affirm what Billy Nye freely admitted to is one
> >>thing. To say that "he should get out more", as you did, is quite
> >>another. The latter implies that the problem itself, and/or the
> >>problem's solution, rests with Bill Nye.
> >
> >Yes, and I stated (actually, "implied") that my initial
> >comment, while accurate regarding what he probably should
> >have known about his audience and in agreement with his own
> >evaluation, was inappropriately snarky.
>
> There's an irony here. You're apologizing for your snark, over which
> I have no particular concern. Yet you again hold Bill Nye responsible
> for predicting and anticipating the (at the time) future actions of an
> organization not his own, and the emergent behavior of an emergent
> audience to those actions. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken
> Ham wasn't (pleasantly) surprised at the degree of interest that he
> helped to generate.

If David Duke is invited to debate on race by the NAACP, he should
figure that the meeting is to serve their purpose more than his.

Ken Ham is building an Ark. I assume he believes that God told
him to; I haven't checked. But I don't think he's ever surprised
that his endeavours prosper.

[jillery]

Again, the challenge here is whether one should reasonably be held to
account for anticipating the magnitude of the response, not the
response itself.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:07:14 -0400, the following appeared

Actually, for *not* anticipating the probable reactions. I'm
surprised that someone of his general intelligence and
knowledge level was unaware that a Bible Belt audience would
react strongly to anything smelling even faintly of a
rejection of Biblical literalism, assuming he had an
interest in the potential reactions of his audience to what
I believe he should have realized is a controversial
subject. And one is always responsible for one's lack of
knowledge in a public forum; who else would be?

I regret the way I expressed my surprise, but not the
surprise itself.

> Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken
>Ham wasn't (pleasantly) surprised at the degree of interest that he
>helped to generate.

Agreed, but that's a somewhat different, if related, issue.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:40:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>>There's an irony here. You're apologizing for your snark, over which
>>I have no particular concern. Yet you again hold Bill Nye responsible
>>for predicting and anticipating the (at the time) future actions of an
>>organization not his own, and the emergent behavior of an emergent
>>audience to those actions.
>
>Actually, for *not* anticipating the probable reactions.

To MAY to, To MAH to.

>I'm
>surprised that someone of his general intelligence and
>knowledge level was unaware that a Bible Belt audience would
>react strongly to anything smelling even faintly of a
>rejection of Biblical literalism, assuming he had an
>interest in the potential reactions of his audience to what
>I believe he should have realized is a controversial
>subject. And one is always responsible for one's lack of
>knowledge in a public forum; who else would be?

Yet he has long and direct experience confronting Bible Belt audiences
in public forums, I suspect far more than the two of us combined. If
so, this leads to my inference that the size and intensity of the
reaction was an emergent feature that no one could reasonably have
predicted.

>I regret the way I expressed my surprise, but not the
>surprise itself.

I will refrain from making any snarky comments about you being
responsible for your lack of knowledge about yourself (except for this
one ;-P)

[John S. Wilkins]

AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Painter wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> >>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with
> >>>> the trick to collect some more money.
> >>>> Eri
> >>>
> >>> I'm guessing that they will lose more over the long haul than they
> >>> have gained, both in money and people.
> >>>
> >>> In school I dated a woman who had never had anybody question any of
> >>> the beliefs she had grown up with. I'm sure that there are many who
> >>> still grow up in a society where no one offers any alternative.
> >>>
> >>> Nye may have made a lot of people start doing what is very dangerous
> >>> fro religion. Think.
> >>
> >> Yeah, thinking turned out really dangerous to religious beliefs for

> >> people like Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaītre,

> >> Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller ...
> >

> > Anyone before Lemaītre was religious by default.

>
> But Augustine and Aquinas in both exercised considerable wide ranging
> intellectual thought and reasoning without any indication of that leading to
> a weakening of their religious beliefs; on the contrary, they both felt
> comfortable with reconciling those beliefs with what man can glean from the
> natural world, Augustine in his famous "Often, a non-Christian knows
> something about the earth ..." piece and Aquinas with his 5 Ways arguments.
>
>

My point is that intellectuals before around 1900 were almost always
religious, so religion cannot be either the cause of nonthinking, nor,
in my opinion, a cause of thinking. It is like saying that because
everyone before a certain date ate bread, bread causes some kind of
viewpoint.

> > But I agree with
> > those after: they found ways to reconcile religion with real science
> > and to do it.
>
> Anyone who believes that thinking is a danger to religious belief simply
> reveals the shortcomings in their own thinking.

Or of their religion. Many religious people think that thinking *is* a
challenge to faith. When I did theology I was warned that it would cause
me to doubt my faith (as it happened, theology was not the cause of my
apostasy).

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:41:05 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> If I were in his shoes, I would had not helped the creationist with the
> trick to collect some more money.
> Eri

Also, the debate gave Ham name recognition that he didn't have before
[I certainly never heard of him before the debate], and this might
have been the deciding factor in _Time_ accepting a review of
the film "Noah" by Ham.

http://time.com/42274/ken-ham-the-unbiblical-noah-is-a-fable-of-a-film/

Here's a detail I hadn't heard of from elsewhere:

"The film's Noah wants to destroy the human race and doesn't want his sons
to have children. In perhaps the most shocking part of the film, Noah
plans to kill his unborn grandchild, the child of Shem's wife,
if it is a girl. As Noah values his animals on board more than people
and rants about it, he becomes a psychopath."

Ham couldn't resist putting in some creationist comments, but they
were mercifully few. The only one of note was this one:

"Even putting aside a scene that presents evolution's purported
progression of simple animals to humans, I noted pagan elements
in Noah."

There is nothing pagan about evolution; it's only an excessively
literalist interpretation of the Bible that makes it seem that way.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:47:40 -0400, the following appeared

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

>On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:40:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>>There's an irony here. You're apologizing for your snark, over which
>>>I have no particular concern. Yet you again hold Bill Nye responsible
>>>for predicting and anticipating the (at the time) future actions of an
>>>organization not his own, and the emergent behavior of an emergent
>>>audience to those actions.
>>
>>Actually, for *not* anticipating the probable reactions.
>
>
>To MAY to, To MAH to.
>
>
>>I'm
>>surprised that someone of his general intelligence and
>>knowledge level was unaware that a Bible Belt audience would
>>react strongly to anything smelling even faintly of a
>>rejection of Biblical literalism, assuming he had an
>>interest in the potential reactions of his audience to what
>>I believe he should have realized is a controversial
>>subject. And one is always responsible for one's lack of
>>knowledge in a public forum; who else would be?
>
>
>Yet he has long and direct experience confronting Bible Belt audiences
>in public forums, I suspect far more than the two of us combined. If
>so, this leads to my inference that the size and intensity of the
>reaction was an emergent feature that no one could reasonably have
>predicted.

Could be.

>>I regret the way I expressed my surprise, but not the
>>surprise itself.

>I will refrain from making any snarky comments about you being
>responsible for your lack of knowledge about yourself (except for this
>one ;-P)

More a case of a "bad hair day" (what's left of it) rather
than a lack of self-knowledge, but OK.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1lki4dt.1h1rwzz1iz9k77N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Or of their religion. Many religious people think that thinking *is* a
> challenge to faith. When I did theology I was warned that it would cause
> me to doubt my faith (as it happened, theology was not the cause of my
> apostasy).

Actually reading the Bible, perhaps.
OTOH, <http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/04/16/eggs2/> does make a rather
compelling theological case, at least for orthodox Christianity.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:07:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Then I conclude that Bill Nye has more hair than you do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:51:25 -0400, the following appeared

Hard to tell. He has a high forehead like mine (which may or
may not be a recent development; mine's been that way all my
life) and his coverage from the front looks similar to mine.
But I've never seen a pic of him from "high rear", which
would be the determining point; I have to be careful of
scalp sunburn there. ;-)

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:26:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

My point being that as you forgive yourself for having a bad hair day,
perhaps you could cut Nye some slack on similar grounds?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:13:56 PM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But Augustine and Aquinas in both exercised considerable wide ranging
> > intellectual thought and reasoning without any indication of that leading to
> > a weakening of their religious beliefs; on the contrary, they both felt
> > comfortable with reconciling those beliefs with what man can glean from the
> > natural world, Augustine in his famous "Often, a non-Christian knows
> > something about the earth ..." piece and Aquinas with his 5 Ways arguments.

Ditto Robert George, who is a Professor at Princeton U. whose religious
faith is pretty strong from what I've seen.

> > Anyone who believes that thinking is a danger to religious belief simply
> > reveals the shortcomings in their own thinking.

As usual, AlwaysAskingQuestions is being levelheaded.

> Or of their religion. Many religious people think that thinking *is* a
> challenge to faith. When I did theology I was warned that it would cause
> me to doubt my faith (as it happened, theology was not the cause of my
> apostasy).

Robert George posted on how philosophy was the cause of his
"anti-apostasy":

"The triggering event was one I mentioned at the Collection with
Professor West. I had encountered Plato's dialogue Gorgias in
a political theory course taught by Professor Sharpe. It made me
realize that I hadn't actually been thinking much at all.
I had views, but I was scarcely entitled to them.
I was a skilled debater, but skilled in talking for victory,
not for truth. I regarded my interlocutors, especially those
with whom I had partisan or ideological differences,
as adversaries, not as partners in the quest for knowledge
and wisdom.

"My arguments did not reflect any actual thinking that had gotten me
to where I stood on this issue or that; rather, they were offered as
justifications for positions I held for all sorts of questionable
reasons: tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause, the wish to
be and be seen to be sophisticated, the desire to fit in with others
at the College and in elite sectors of the culture generally."
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/02/how-an-ancient-greek-awakened-an-undergrad-from-dogmatic-slumbers

I get the impression most t.o. participants have never progressed
beyond this undergraduate stage. Just look at the Thread Diluting
Kaffeeklatsch that is going on in the thread I started earlier
this month on the evolution of birds. Besides Harshman, myself,
and (to a much lesser extent) Erik Simpson and Roger Shrubber,
everyone else there, including you, is not showing the slightest
interest in the evolution of birds, but is just posting out of
"tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause,
the wish to be and be seen to be sophisticated,
the desire to fit in with others"

> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

and litel intereste in natural philosophie (science)?

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:27:41 PM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1lki4dt.1h1rwzz1iz9k77N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Or of their religion. Many religious people think that thinking *is* a
> > challenge to faith. When I did theology I was warned that it would cause
> > me to doubt my faith (as it happened, theology was not the cause of my
> > apostasy).

See my reply to Wilkins. Now we go from the sublime to the ridiculous:

>
>
> Actually reading the Bible, perhaps.
>
> OTOH, <http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/04/16/eggs2/> does make a rather
>
> compelling theological case, at least for orthodox Christianity.

About as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does.

Peter Nyikos

[John S. Wilkins]

Rather hard for me to do, since I have no expertise in the evolution of
birds and have not (recently at any rate) made any comment about it. But
I will now, despite my lack of expertise.

Birds exist as a clade within theropods. Theropods exist as a clade in
dinosaurs [insert nomenclature here as relevant]. These are statements
of relationships based upon homologies shared by these groups, and
differences within them.

Does that license the inference that birds evolved from some dinosaur
(and not, say, the other way around)? I believe it provides warrant from
that inference, but not that it proves it. However, the alternative
views are less well licensed by the systematics.

I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
folk taxonomy. Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).
This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification
seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
ornithology and paleontology), and so one might understand if not
condone this defence. However, I think that the discovery of feathers in
theropods, and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
viability of the BAND view. All attempts to defend it rely upon cherry
picked data (growth sequences of anterior digits, which are highly
questionable) and little else.

So yes, I think birds are dinosaurs. But not because of tribal loyalty,
but rather reliance upon the technical expertise of people like John
Harshman and others who research the topic and publish good science. You
can read that any way you like.

>
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> and litel intereste in natural philosophie (science)?

Again, that's hard for me to do, since I am a philosopher of science.
And many scientists do seem to like my work, as I get cited more by them
than by philosophers.
>
> Peter Nyikos

You trimmed some of my qualifying comments about what AAQ said. He and I
agree that religion is not necessarily challenged by science. In fact I
have a book under review with Cambridge UP on just that topic.

--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net

[jillery]

You shouldn't talk about your selected deity that way. It might throw
you against the wall to see if you stick.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/23/14 3:33 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> [...] Just look at the Thread Diluting

> Kaffeeklatsch that is going on in the thread I started earlier
> this month on the evolution of birds. Besides Harshman, myself,
> and (to a much lesser extent) Erik Simpson and Roger Shrubber,
> everyone else there, including you, is not showing the slightest
> interest in the evolution of birds, but is just posting out of
> "tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause,
> the wish to be and be seen to be sophisticated,
> the desire to fit in with others"

You requested documentation of your inability to judge other people's
motives. There's an example.

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

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:

I only have time for a brief reply right now, so I focus
on where Wilkins seems to get to the heart of the matter.

> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
> folk taxonomy.

It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.

>Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
> and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).

I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
towards the evidence.

> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification

Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
meaning.

> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
> ornithology and paleontology),

With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]

> and so one might understand if not
> condone this defence. However, I think that the discovery of feathers in
> theropods,

That remains to be seen, if one uses a distinction of
the Tet Zoo author of the article with which Harshman entered
my thread. The distinction is between what he calls "true feathers"
and so-called "protofeathers" or so-called "stage 1 feathers."

Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
what you are saying here.

> and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
> viability of the BAND view.

LOL!!!!! Archaeopteryx had teeth, and the "BANDits" are perfectly
happy with that.

[remainder of GIGO deleted]

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:16:26 -0400, the following appeared

Sure. As I said, I didn't intend an attack, just an
expression of surprise at his lack of foresight. I'll gladly
drop it.

[John Harshman]

On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
> I only have time for a brief reply right now, so I focus
> on where Wilkins seems to get to the heart of the matter.
>
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
>> folk taxonomy.
>
> It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
> Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
> article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
> Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.

This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
BANDits and mainstream systematists. Bakker has to do only with the
latter, and in that Ostrom has priority.

>> Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
>> and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).
>
> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> towards the evidence.

Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."

>> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification
>
> Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
> meaning.

I don't see a problem. He's giving the reason some people like
paraphyletic groups, not a definition of paraphyly.

>> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
>> ornithology and paleontology),
>
> With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
> taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
> though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]

Sorry, but Wilkins is wrong here. Most ornithologists, when they think
of it, are fine with birds being dinosaurs. Avian systematists are in
near-complete agreement. Now, the chief BANDits are indeed avian
paleontologists (Feduccia, Olson, Martin -- Ruben is the main
exception). But even most avian paleontologists think birds are
dinosaurs. There really is no categorization of scientists that would
give us a nice divide.

>> and so one might understand if not
>> condone this defence. However, I think that the discovery of feathers in
>> theropods,
>
> That remains to be seen, if one uses a distinction of
> the Tet Zoo author of the article with which Harshman entered
> my thread. The distinction is between what he calls "true feathers"
> and so-called "protofeathers" or so-called "stage 1 feathers."

What about stage 2 and 3 feathers? Are they true feathers or just
protofeathers?

> Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
> I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
> them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
> what you are saying here.

Ah, the arrogance of the solipsist.

>> and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
>> viability of the BAND view.
>
> LOL!!!!! Archaeopteryx had teeth, and the "BANDits" are perfectly
> happy with that.

Yes, I don't see what Wilkins could have meant there. But now that they
have included dromaeosaurs within birds, the frequent presence of
serrated teeth in those taxa, as well as other standard theropod tooth
characters, blows Feduccia's ideas that teeth are another index of avian
distinctness.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:06:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Based on your replies, I didn't get that impression. So what's
stopping you?

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > I only have time for a brief reply right now, so I focus
> > on where Wilkins seems to get to the heart of the matter.
> >
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
> >> folk taxonomy.
> >
> > It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
> > Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
> > article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
> > Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.
>
> This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
> cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
> BANDits and mainstream systematists. Bakker has to do only with the
> latter, and in that Ostrom has priority.
>
> >> Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
> >> and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).
> >
> > I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> > towards the evidence.
>
> Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."

I thought that the birds are dinosaurs thesis was correct well before I
started reading what John said about this. And what counts as
"politicised" here? Scientific politics? I'm not a scientist.

>
> >> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification
> >
> > Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
> > meaning.
>
> I don't see a problem. He's giving the reason some people like
> paraphyletic groups, not a definition of paraphyly.
>
> >> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
> >> ornithology and paleontology),
> >
> > With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
> > taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
> > though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]
>
> Sorry, but Wilkins is wrong here. Most ornithologists, when they think
> of it, are fine with birds being dinosaurs. Avian systematists are in
> near-complete agreement. Now, the chief BANDits are indeed avian
> paleontologists (Feduccia, Olson, Martin -- Ruben is the main
> exception). But even most avian paleontologists think birds are
> dinosaurs. There really is no categorization of scientists that would
> give us a nice divide.

I agree. I was talking about why folk taxonomies are defended by some,
not most or all, ornithologists. Paraphyletic groupings are what
"defined" specialities in the nineteenth century.

>
> >> and so one might understand if not
> >> condone this defence. However, I think that the discovery of feathers in
> >> theropods,
> >
> > That remains to be seen, if one uses a distinction of
> > the Tet Zoo author of the article with which Harshman entered
> > my thread. The distinction is between what he calls "true feathers"
> > and so-called "protofeathers" or so-called "stage 1 feathers."
>
> What about stage 2 and 3 feathers? Are they true feathers or just
> protofeathers?
>
> > Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
> > I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
> > them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
> > what you are saying here.
>
> Ah, the arrogance of the solipsist.
>
> >> and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
> >> viability of the BAND view.
> >
> > LOL!!!!! Archaeopteryx had teeth, and the "BANDits" are perfectly
> > happy with that.
>
> Yes, I don't see what Wilkins could have meant there. But now that they
> have included dromaeosaurs within birds, the frequent presence of
> serrated teeth in those taxa, as well as other standard theropod tooth
> characters, blows Feduccia's ideas that teeth are another index of avian
> distinctness.

And that was what I meant. I was talking about extant birds.

[John Harshman]

You are a member of the cool crowd on TO, and Peter wouldn't become a
freemason now if you went down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees
and begged him. But actually, if any of you could put in a word for him
he'd love to be a freemason.

>>>> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification
>>>
>>> Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
>>> meaning.
>>
>> I don't see a problem. He's giving the reason some people like
>> paraphyletic groups, not a definition of paraphyly.
>>
>>>> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
>>>> ornithology and paleontology),
>>>
>>> With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
>>> taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
>>> though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]
>>
>> Sorry, but Wilkins is wrong here. Most ornithologists, when they think
>> of it, are fine with birds being dinosaurs. Avian systematists are in
>> near-complete agreement. Now, the chief BANDits are indeed avian
>> paleontologists (Feduccia, Olson, Martin -- Ruben is the main
>> exception). But even most avian paleontologists think birds are
>> dinosaurs. There really is no categorization of scientists that would
>> give us a nice divide.
>
> I agree. I was talking about why folk taxonomies are defended by some,
> not most or all, ornithologists. Paraphyletic groupings are what
> "defined" specialities in the nineteenth century.

Still do, for the most part. That's why we have ichthyologists and
herpetologists. But ornithology is all about a nice clade. What you may
mean is the division between dinosaur paleontologists and avian
paleontologists, which does exist, and of course the "dinosaur" in
"dinosaur paleontologist" does refer to a paraphyletic group. There's
some overlap, though. Dinosaur paleontologists are the ones who deal
with most Mesozoic birds, and avian paleontologists deal mostly with
Cenozoic birds.

>>>> and so one might understand if not
>>>> condone this defence. However, I think that the discovery of feathers in
>>>> theropods,
>>>
>>> That remains to be seen, if one uses a distinction of
>>> the Tet Zoo author of the article with which Harshman entered
>>> my thread. The distinction is between what he calls "true feathers"
>>> and so-called "protofeathers" or so-called "stage 1 feathers."
>>
>> What about stage 2 and 3 feathers? Are they true feathers or just
>> protofeathers?
>>
>>> Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
>>> I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
>>> them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
>>> what you are saying here.
>>
>> Ah, the arrogance of the solipsist.
>>
>>>> and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
>>>> viability of the BAND view.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!! Archaeopteryx had teeth, and the "BANDits" are perfectly
>>> happy with that.
>>
>> Yes, I don't see what Wilkins could have meant there. But now that they
>> have included dromaeosaurs within birds, the frequent presence of
>> serrated teeth in those taxa, as well as other standard theropod tooth
>> characters, blows Feduccia's ideas that teeth are another index of avian
>> distinctness.
>
> And that was what I meant. I was talking about extant birds.

This is still quite confused, I'm afraid. You will have to explain why
birds with teeth is a blow to the BAND view. It's a blow to the
creationists, but that's about all I can see from here.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:36:35 PM UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:

[....]

> You trimmed some of my qualifying comments about what AAQ said. He and I
>
> agree that religion is not necessarily challenged by science. In fact I
>
> have a book under review with Cambridge UP on just that topic.
>
> --
>
> John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
>
> http://evolvingthoughts.net

About when will it see publication?

In case the Group didn't know:

"Species: A History of the Idea" is now available on Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iJGj5MughUgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=species+history+of+an+idea&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xMJZU9-iHoeoyATKoYLgAw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=species%20history%20of%20an%20idea&f=false

Ray

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> On 4/24/14 5:48 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >

....

> >>> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> >>> towards the evidence.
> >>
> >> Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."
> >
> > I thought that the birds are dinosaurs thesis was correct well before I
> > started reading what John said about this. And what counts as
> > "politicised" here? Scientific politics? I'm not a scientist.
>
> You are a member of the cool crowd on TO, and Peter wouldn't become a
> freemason now if you went down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees
> and begged him. But actually, if any of you could put in a word for him
> he'd love to be a freemason.

He's got an apron...
...

[Michael Siemon]

In article <1lknqhx.1siktxj4fxilqN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4/24/14 5:48 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> ....
> > >>> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> > >>> towards the evidence.
> > >>
> > >> Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."
> > >
> > > I thought that the birds are dinosaurs thesis was correct well before I
> > > started reading what John said about this. And what counts as
> > > "politicised" here? Scientific politics? I'm not a scientist.
> >
> > You are a member of the cool crowd on TO, and Peter wouldn't become a
> > freemason now if you went down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees
> > and begged him. But actually, if any of you could put in a word for him
> > he'd love to be a freemason.
>
> He's got an apron...
> ...

Eastern (US Atlantic shore) blue crabs have aprons too, or at least
that's what they're called in the cleaning instructions...

[eridanus]

We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
are not very well informed about it. We hear something, we pay some
attention, but we cannot engage in disputes on the topic.
The first article I had read about birds being an offshoot of
some type of dinosaurs convince me. To think otherwise I need to
read another article very well argued. I had not read yet any
such article. So, when you mentioned this theme, I shut up. If you
have very good arguments against the birds being an offshoot of
dinosaurs present them. I will read them.

> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
> and litel intereste in natural philosophie (science)?
>
> Peter Nyikos

this Robert George was saying something sensible.

The problem is... to find the truth. This is really a hard quest.
More difficult even than the quest of the Holy Grail.
Then, mentioning the truth, or our alliance for a quest of to the truth,
is not enough; this is mostly using a magic spell, to enhance the
purity of our intentions. Thus, somewhat this incantation would give
the impression that we are close to find the Holy Grail.

Truth is so elusive that is never used in science disputes. Only the
basic data are real, our interpretation of the meaning of those data
is bound to be disputed.
Even if we have a great faith on some vintage theories, for they seem of
trivial understanding, even some of those trivial theories can be wrong;
for in spite of being considered trivial, we do not examine them anymore.
We are purposely trying to understand or to challenge the new theories.
Then, certitude is also a banned word in science. But not for teachers
and professors. But those are not the science.
Eri

[eridanus]

El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 19:23:38 UTC+1, John Harshman escribi�:

> On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > I only have time for a brief reply right now, so I focus
> > on where Wilkins seems to get to the heart of the matter.
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
> >> folk taxonomy.
>
> > It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
> > Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
> > article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
> > Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.
>
> This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
> cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
> BANDits and mainstream systematists. Bakker has to do only with the
> latter, and in that Ostrom has priority.

What are BANDits and where I can read another modern article about birds
being an evolution of some class of dinosaurs?; the last article I read
was in Scientific American in the 70's or so.
Eri

hi, Harshman.

[eridanus]

El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 18:21:47 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>
> I only have time for a brief reply right now, so I focus
>
> on where Wilkins seems to get to the heart of the matter.
>
>
>
> > <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
>
> > folk taxonomy.
>
>
>
> It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
>
> Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
>
> article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
>
> Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.
>
>
>
> >Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
>
> > and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).
>
>
>
> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> towards the evidence.

How can be politicized a theory about birds being or not being an evolution
from theropods?
Is it the republicans are against the birds coming from dinosaurs?
and the democrats are favor of this theory?

Is it that Billy Graham was against this theory... or George W. Bush?
Eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:36:12 -0400, the following appeared

Not a thing. Dropped.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:23:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> >> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
> >> folk taxonomy.

> > It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
> > Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
> > article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
> > Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.

> This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
> cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
> BANDits and mainstream systematists.

No, if anyone is conflating them it is Wilkins.

We've been through this before, you and I. Romer sort of flirted with
the idea that birds might be [descended from] dinosaurs but you told me
that he never endorsed it, not even in his 1966 edition [which I haven't
seen yet]. His 1945 edition put birds, saurischians, and crocodilians
in a clade with a three-pronged divergence that didn't commit any two
together. Interestingly, he put ornithischians outside this clade and
even outside a clade formed by the aforementioned trio and pterosaurs
and phytosaurs.

Don't be surprised by the word "clade." The "bubble diagram" on page 210
of the 1945 edition shows these clades very clearly, even though they
are not called clades.

> Bakker has to do only with the latter,

I never hinted otherwise.

> and in that Ostrom has priority.

But Ostrom did not gain immediate worldwide acceptance, did he? If
that occurred significantly before Bakker's cover article, I'd sure be
interested.

> >> Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
> >> and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).

> > I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> > towards the evidence.

> Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."

Get real. The following is much closer to a translation, "You seem to have
been fooled by Harshman's and Prothero's hyperbole (e.g. that Feduccia has
a lot in common with creationists) into thinking BANDits actually endorse
this primitive creationist way of looking at birds."

> >> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification

> > Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
> > meaning.

> I don't see a problem. He's giving the reason some people like
> paraphyletic groups, not a definition of paraphyly.

"Some people" does not include me, it most assuredly did not include
Romer or Colbert, and it does not include creationists to whom the very idea
of paraphyly is anathema. Can you think of anyone it DOES include?

And what makes you think WILKINS can think of anyone like that? Methinks
he has just absorbed your cladophile philosophy.

> >> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
> >> ornithology and paleontology),

> > With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
> > taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
> > though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]

> Sorry, but Wilkins is wrong here. Most ornithologists, when they think
> of it, are fine with birds being dinosaurs.

Of course. As you enthusiastically said, the idea that birds are
dinosaurs is "way, way cool" with kids, and what ornithologist would
not want them to think that way? What ornithologist would like to
tell kids that "birds are pseudo-crocodiles [Pseudosuchians]"?
The most likely response would be "oo, gross" or "oh, yukk".

<snip of things to be dealt with separately>

> > Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
> > I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
> > them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
> > what you are saying here.

> Ah, the arrogance of the solipsist.

Ah, the arrogance of someone who knows he can deliver defamatory,
almost dehumanizing insults at me and get away with it.
Do you really think Wilkins would have written the following if
he'd read what WE -- not I, but both of us -- have been writing?

> >> and "ancestral" or "primitve" birds with teeth destroys the
> >> viability of the BAND view.

> > LOL!!!!! Archaeopteryx had teeth, and the "BANDits" are perfectly
> > happy with that.

> Yes, I don't see what Wilkins could have meant there.

See above about a more faithful translation of what I had written than
your juvenile taunting "Translation" for one possibility. His own reply
to you doesn't dispel that.

[unreferenced claim about Feduccia deleted]

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

[John Harshman]

It isn't absolutely clear what Romer's bubble diagrams are intended to
mean, and whether short dotted branches are intended to convey actual
separate lineages. If it's the same diagram in the 1966 edition, they
all emerge from a bubble that may be "Thecodontia", but I can't say
they're intended to be a clade.

>> Bakker has to do only with the latter,
>
> I never hinted otherwise.
>
>> and in that Ostrom has priority.
>
> But Ostrom did not gain immediate worldwide acceptance, did he? If
> that occurred significantly before Bakker's cover article, I'd sure be
> interested.

I do not see what point you're trying to make here. Are you claiming
that Bakker was more influential in promoting the BAD notion that
Ostrom? Or what?

>>>> Birds do stuff that dinosaurs (the folk category) didn't,
>>>> and lack features had by dinosaurs (like teeth and flexible long tails).
>
>>> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
>>> towards the evidence.
>
>> Translation: "I see you don't agree with me."
>
> Get real. The following is much closer to a translation, "You seem to have
> been fooled by Harshman's and Prothero's hyperbole (e.g. that Feduccia has
> a lot in common with creationists) into thinking BANDits actually endorse
> this primitive creationist way of looking at birds."

I strongly doubt that Wilkins has been influenced in his views by either
me or Prothero.

>>>> This sort of functional (technical term, paraphyletic) classification
>
>>> Sorry, "paraphyletic" has a different and much more time-honored
>>> meaning.
>
>> I don't see a problem. He's giving the reason some people like
>> paraphyletic groups, not a definition of paraphyly.
>
> "Some people" does not include me, it most assuredly did not include
> Romer or Colbert, and it does not include creationists to whom the very idea
> of paraphyly is anathema. Can you think of anyone it DOES include?

> And what makes you think WILKINS can think of anyone like that? Methinks
> he has just absorbed your cladophile philosophy.

Once more you overestimate my influence on him.

>>>> seems to be embedded in professional divisions (between, for instance,
>>>> ornithology and paleontology),
>
>>> With an ornithologist, whose professional papers are in EXTANT birds
>>> taking on some pretty well known paleontologists. [Not Feduccia,
>>> though the description may fit him too; Harshman.]
>
>> Sorry, but Wilkins is wrong here. Most ornithologists, when they think
>> of it, are fine with birds being dinosaurs.
>
> Of course. As you enthusiastically said, the idea that birds are
> dinosaurs is "way, way cool" with kids, and what ornithologist would
> not want them to think that way? What ornithologist would like to
> tell kids that "birds are pseudo-crocodiles [Pseudosuchians]"?
> The most likely response would be "oo, gross" or "oh, yukk".

You seem to be claiming that ornithologists do things for childish
reasons. But I'm sure that must be my misinterpretation.

> <snip of things to be dealt with separately>
>
>>> Do try and at least READ what Harshman and I say about these things.
>>> I don't expect you to comment on them, but if you had been reading
>>> them carefully, you would have said rather different things than
>>> what you are saying here.
>
>> Ah, the arrogance of the solipsist.
>
> Ah, the arrogance of someone who knows he can deliver defamatory,
> almost dehumanizing insults at me and get away with it.
> Do you really think Wilkins would have written the following if
> he'd read what WE -- not I, but both of us -- have been writing?

So far I don't know what he means by it, so I can't say.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:53:37 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 18:21:47 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

> > I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
> > towards the evidence.

> How can be politicized a theory about birds being or not being an evolution
> from theropods?

I was talking about politics in the broad sense. See my first post
to the "dynamics" thread in reply to Dai Monie, where I wrote about
that concept. IN Harshman's case, it includes hurling one insult after
another in the direction of "BANDits" that make out Feduccia, etc.
out to be a bunch of idiotic cranks, hardly worthy of the name "scientist."

When I pointed out to Harshman that Feduccia's research and publication
record outshines his many times over, in an effort to stem the never
ending tide of demeaning descriptions, he jeered with words to the
effect, "Are you saying that this means he is right and I am wrong?"
even though nothing I said suggested that. In so doing, he was just
being a political animal, insulting my intelligence.

See also my correction of his intelligence-insulting "Translation"
of what you are quoting from me above. That "Translation" was more
"politics" in the Aristotelian sense of the word [see that reply to
Dai Monie again].

> Is it the republicans are against the birds coming from dinosaurs?
> and the democrats are favor of this theory?

No, I am not talking about USA politics. I am talking about the
politics within the "polis" of talk.origins, and also at conferences
where Harshman internalizes a lot of what he hears about e.g. a
long and detailed article by James and Pourtless that has barely
been scratched by critics.

Harshman called the article a "disaster" using a blatant *ad hominem*
to justify that insult: the fact that the authors did not accept any
of the homologies that had been challenged by "BANDits," as though
that somehow justified setting those homologies in granite without
further debate.

At first he couldn't find a single published place where that article got
criticized, then he gave me two, one of which was completely useless,
while the other only scratched the surface and gave at least one frivolous
nitpick.

When I pointed out that nitpick to Augray, he taunted and jeered, probably
under the mistaken impression that I am a Feduccia fan, and when I
made it clear to him that I was not, he disappeared, and neither he
nor Harshman (or anyone else) has ever tried to show that it was NOT a
frivolous nitpick.

I could go on and on about the "politics" of this "birds are
dinosaurs" debate, but I think you get the picture.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/14 5:19 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:53:37 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>> El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 18:21:47 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:
>
>>> I see you have absorbed Harshman's highly politicized attitude
>>> towards the evidence.
>
>> How can be politicized a theory about birds being or not being an evolution
>> from theropods?
>
> I was talking about politics in the broad sense. See my first post
> to the "dynamics" thread in reply to Dai Monie, where I wrote about
> that concept. IN Harshman's case, it includes hurling one insult after
> another in the direction of "BANDits" that make out Feduccia, etc.
> out to be a bunch of idiotic cranks, hardly worthy of the name "scientist."

Cranks, yes. Idiotic, no. Some of the BANDits have done some good
science, but never, that I can tell, regarding the subject of BAND.

> When I pointed out to Harshman that Feduccia's research and publication
> record outshines his many times over, in an effort to stem the never
> ending tide of demeaning descriptions, he jeered with words to the
> effect, "Are you saying that this means he is right and I am wrong?"
> even though nothing I said suggested that. In so doing, he was just
> being a political animal, insulting my intelligence.

So what exactly were you trying to do by mentioning Feduccia's
publication record? Was it political? (As I said, I'll hold up my record
against his any time, but it doesn't seem at all relevant. Please show
me how it's relevant.)

> See also my correction of his intelligence-insulting "Translation"
> of what you are quoting from me above. That "Translation" was more
> "politics" in the Aristotelian sense of the word [see that reply to
> Dai Monie again].

That should be your "correction". Scare quotes are useful.

>> Is it the republicans are against the birds coming from dinosaurs?
>> and the democrats are favor of this theory?
>
> No, I am not talking about USA politics. I am talking about the
> politics within the "polis" of talk.origins, and also at conferences
> where Harshman internalizes a lot of what he hears about e.g. a
> long and detailed article by James and Pourtless that has barely
> been scratched by critics.

Here you make up a little story about where I get my opinions. Do you
have any evidence for that claim? I'll answer: no, you don't. And the
reason J&P hasn't been scratched by critics is that it's been mostly
ignored. Have you read it?

> Harshman called the article a "disaster" using a blatant *ad hominem*
> to justify that insult: the fact that the authors did not accept any
> of the homologies that had been challenged by "BANDits," as though
> that somehow justified setting those homologies in granite without
> further debate.

You apparently wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you in the ass.
That's a critique of their methodology. Note that the result of
eliminating those characters is not, as they claim, support for an
alternative hypothesis but lack of resolution.

> At first he couldn't find a single published place where that article got
> criticized, then he gave me two, one of which was completely useless,
> while the other only scratched the surface and gave at least one frivolous
> nitpick.

Or perhaps you just don't understand the nature of the criticism?

> When I pointed out that nitpick to Augray, he taunted and jeered, probably
> under the mistaken impression that I am a Feduccia fan, and when I
> made it clear to him that I was not, he disappeared, and neither he
> nor Harshman (or anyone else) has ever tried to show that it was NOT a
> frivolous nitpick.

I don't at the moment recall what the particular frivolous nitpick was,
but I'm willing to discuss why J&P is a disaster if you like.

> I could go on and on about the "politics" of this "birds are
> dinosaurs" debate, but I think you get the picture.

What is your position on this debate? Are you entirely neutral, or do
you have a favored hypothesis?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> El mi�rcoles, 23 de abril de 2014 23:33:38 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

> > I get the impression most t.o. participants have never progressed
> > beyond this undergraduate stage. Just look at the Thread Diluting
> > Kaffeeklatsch that is going on in the thread I started earlier
> > this month on the evolution of birds. Besides Harshman, myself,
> > and (to a much lesser extent) Erik Simpson and Roger Shrubber,
> > everyone else there, including you, is not showing the slightest
> > interest in the evolution of birds, but is just posting out of
> > "tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause,
> > the wish to be and be seen to be sophisticated,
> > the desire to fit in with others"

> We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
> are not very well informed about it.

Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.

More of ye olde talk.origins politics. Today, however, I may have
put an end to at least that kind of hypocrisy with a post
that showed just HOW hypocritical jillery, the most aggressive
of these critics, was being:

Subject: Re: The "birds are dinosaurs" issue.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/pEWJEUTOxEs/WTBe8b490SkJ

> We hear something, we pay some
> attention, but we cannot engage in disputes on the topic.
> The first article I had read about birds being an offshoot of
> some type of dinosaurs convince me. To think otherwise I need to
> read another article very well argued.

By now it would have to be many articles, or a book like
_Riddle of the Feathered Dragons_ AND a hypothetical book that
refutes it instead of just "playing politics" with the data and
arguments therein.

Since the majority is secure in the knowledge that they ARE the
majority they may just keep resorting to ridicule in the hopes
that young researchers will be scared away from taking a very
deep look at the opposition and so the opposition will die a natural
death.

> I had not read yet any
> such article. So, when you mentioned this theme, I shut up.

A very wise decision. Would that all the clowns on that thread
shared it.

> If you
> have very good arguments against the birds being an offshoot of
> dinosaurs present them. I will read them.

I don't think anyone has very good arguments that overwhelm the
other viewpoints. Harshman's behavior certainly does not inspire
confidence that they exist.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

>> We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
>> are not very well informed about it.
>
>Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
>anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
>off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
>hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
>time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.

I absolutely agree, it's extremely hypocritical for you to complain
about diluting off-topic chatter when you're the source for it.

There's nothing here about Bill Nye, or the subject he debated. You
have diluted this thread by cross-threading your self-serving SPAM
from another topic. Why did you inject your obfuscating noise into
this topic? It's as if you can't help yourself.

>More of ye olde talk.origins politics. Today, however, I may have
>put an end to at least that kind of hypocrisy with a post
>that showed just HOW hypocritical jillery, the most aggressive
>of these critics, was being:

In your wet dreams, pervert.

>> I had not read yet any
>> such article. So, when you mentioned this theme, I shut up.
>
>A very wise decision. Would that all the clowns on that thread
>shared it.

Your big red nose and floppy feet are major clues who the clown is
here. All that you complain about here is on your head, Bozo.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 26 de abril de 2014 01:19:49 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

there is always a lot of passions with theories. And sometimes the egos
of people are also at stake. So, you should not make a bad blood for
such trifles. To make bad blood is a phrase from Spanish, it means to get
disturbed or offended with something. You are too sensitive to be in
a public forum of Internet.
Eri

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 26 de abril de 2014 01:51:00 UTC+1, John Harshman escribi�:

the offense he seems to have taken about this question of Fiduccia it
seems that he is in favor of his theory. I never had heard talk about
Fiduccia till I arrived here. I understood that when the theory that
birds are some form of evolved dinosaurs I liked it, and had not any
doubts that it was a good theory. But I am rather an ignorant about
the details of evolution and cannot be totally sure, why it can be
wrong (this theory). The argument of lack of fossils do not look
enough evidence to me. These birds could had evolved from some sort
of minority dinosaurs that were not enough for us to find fossils
of them yet. But it is clear that birds have a significative likeness
with theropods. And this is enough evidence for me. If the theory
would had postulated that birds had evolved from Sarcosuchus, I would
had not believe a word.
I do not care if dinosaurs had feathers or not. It seems that some
people is proving that many of the dinos had feathers. But should we
had watched fossils of these feathers? I am not sure. The evidence
that prove these feathers existed are not so straightforward or clear.
I had watched a few videos in which it seems the idea has been proved.
I have not any problems to accept some dinos were decorated with feathers.
Mostly among the smaller dinosaurs that had more problems with cold,
as they lived mostly on higher latitudes. In winter the there must
exist some cold, I can figure. Then, the smaller dinosaurs needed more
insulation than bigger dinosaurs to pass the colder spells of weather.

eri

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 26 de abril de 2014 01:55:18 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

> On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>
> > El mi�rcoles, 23 de abril de 2014 23:33:38 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:
> > > I get the impression most t.o. participants have never progressed
> > > beyond this undergraduate stage. Just look at the Thread Diluting
> > > Kaffeeklatsch that is going on in the thread I started earlier
> > > this month on the evolution of birds. Besides Harshman, myself,
> > > and (to a much lesser extent) Erik Simpson and Roger Shrubber,
> > > everyone else there, including you, is not showing the slightest
> > > interest in the evolution of birds, but is just posting out of
> > > "tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause,
> > > the wish to be and be seen to be sophisticated,
> > > the desire to fit in with others"
>
> > We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
> > are not very well informed about it.
> Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
> anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
> off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
> hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
> time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.
>
> More of ye olde talk.origins politics. Today, however, I may have
> put an end to at least that kind of hypocrisy with a post
> that showed just HOW hypocritical jillery, the most aggressive
> of these critics, was being:

Don't be so harsh criticizing people, Peter. In science there had been
always a lot of passing between different theories. Think about
what could be the reason that you are so content with the theory
of Fiduccia. Probably because he is challenging a widespread topic
well accepted with people interested in evolution. You seem to have
some conservative roots, and you would be delighted that someone
would be able to prove the ToE wrong. As long as he would do it
within a scientific frame; I mean with scientific reasoning, like IDists.
Then, those that believe in evolution would not accept the new
theory at first sight, but rejected. We will think that something must
be wrong. That the new theory contains some flaws or blatant
errors "we" cannot finger up so easily. But this is the general idea.
This is not different to a religious believer that even if he feels he
is a scientist, he is uneasy with the theory of evolution and start
to look for some faults, some absurdities, etc.
First of all, we are the result of some upbringing in our childhood.
Then, as we become adults, a person can develop an interest for
more religion or for more science to have some means of life.

We are a set of conditioned reflexes. This explains the stability
of all religions. If people would had been controlled by some
neutral rationality, not any religion would had existed today.

Then, basically, our ideas are "implanted" ideas; or the result of
some social conditioning, done mostly at home. It does not exist
any neutral algorithm to convince you of the existence of lord
Krishna or Jesus Christ, or that Mohamad was really a prophet that
was hearing the words of an angel, etc.
Then, science is rarely the result of an operant conditioning at
our early childhood. Our mums are very rarely good scientists and
educators at the same time; not were scientists our nannies, in case
we had been under the care of a nanny.
Then, most often science is something one learns later. But there is
a catch, some teachers are rather aversive, like they were hating
the job they were doing; and thus create an aversive conditioning
against science they are teaching. People began to hate science at
school due to several circumstances. This aversion for science
can last throughout our adult years, even if we had to earn some
degree and we are teaching in a university or a college.

But in science, people is very passionate and they fight often for
their own theory, or for some theory they like best; for whatever
reason they can like it. Then, it looks personal, but is quite human
to dispute about this or that. It is rather common even on trivial
and mundane questions. I recall here something I read about
late 19th century in Spain. In many bars, it was often frequent
to dispute what was best tenor, or soprano, in the world. Or who
was the best violinist in the world, Pablo Sarasate, of course. The
disputes often got very hot, and some people even stabbed his
adversary in these trivial disputes. A few people died after being
stabbed in some of those disputes. It had not yet been invented
the sports to dispute about the best player in the world and such.

So, here in the Net, there is not any danger that anyone would
stab another for a dinosaur that had become a bird or other
silly thing. Then, as there is not any risk that anyone would
would shot his adversary in these disputes, the language becomes
a little more aggressive that would be necessary.
Eri

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 02:43:46 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El s�bado, 26 de abril de 2014 01:19:49 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:
>> On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:53:37 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>>
>> > El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 18:21:47 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:

[...]

>> I could go on and on about the "politics" of this "birds are
>> dinosaurs" debate, but I think you get the picture.

Which has exactly zero to do with Bill Nye and the impact of his
debate with Ken Ham, and everything to do with "peter" spewing his
diluting SPAM across multiple topics.

>there is always a lot of passions with theories. And sometimes the egos
>of people are also at stake. So, you should not make a bad blood for
>such trifles. To make bad blood is a phrase from Spanish, it means to get
>disturbed or offended with something. You are too sensitive to be in
>a public forum of Internet.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Please, Mark. Do to reply to him anymore about his whining, to see
>if he forget about his topic. The reinforcer of a poster is to see
>that someone replies to it. If no one replies to a poster, he would
>persist for a time, but eventually he would eclipse and go away.


Is there more than one Eridanus posting to T.O.?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 25 April 2014 18:46:13 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 19:23:38 UTC+1, John Harshman escribi�:
> > On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > >> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
> > >> folk taxonomy.
> > >
> > > It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
> > > Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
> > > article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
> > > Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
> > cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
> > BANDits and mainstream systematists. Bakker has to do only with the
> > latter, and in that Ostrom has priority.
>
> What are BANDits and where I can read another modern article about birds
> being an evolution of some class of dinosaurs?; the last article I read
> was in Scientific American in the 70's or so.

I think that in this context, BAND = "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs",
and a "BANDit" is someone who argues against the opinion that
birds are descended from dinosaurs.

A separate argument is that all land animals are descended from
things that swam in the sea, but should we say that land animals
are fish, because our ancestors were fish? And should the same
point apply to birds and dinosaurs? Given that birds lived
alongside dinosaurs...

By the way, I may have mixed up who said what, in the quoted
text, or may have received it in a confused order, already
mixed up.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/25/14 5:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>> El mi�rcoles, 23 de abril de 2014 23:33:38 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net escribi�:
>
>>> I get the impression most t.o. participants have never progressed
>>> beyond this undergraduate stage. Just look at the Thread Diluting
>>> Kaffeeklatsch that is going on in the thread I started earlier
>>> this month on the evolution of birds. Besides Harshman, myself,
>>> and (to a much lesser extent) Erik Simpson and Roger Shrubber,
>>> everyone else there, including you, is not showing the slightest
>>> interest in the evolution of birds, but is just posting out of
>>> "tribal loyalty, personal preference, applause,
>>> the wish to be and be seen to be sophisticated,
>>> the desire to fit in with others"
>
>> We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
>> are not very well informed about it.
>
> Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
> anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
> off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
> hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
> time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.
>
> More of ye olde talk.origins politics. Today, however, I may have
> put an end to at least that kind of hypocrisy with a post
> that showed just HOW hypocritical jillery, the most aggressive
> of these critics, was being:

> [...]

We follow your example. You are our political leader.

A serious question: Since you obviously love politics, do you get
involved in your local city or county politics? If not, why not?

[John Harshman]

On 4/26/14 8:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 25 April 2014 18:46:13 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
>> El jueves, 24 de abril de 2014 19:23:38 UTC+1, John Harshman escribi�:
>>> On 4/24/14 10:21 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:36:35 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>>>> I think what those who think birds are not dinosaurs are defending is
>>>>> folk taxonomy.
>>>>
>>>> It is the old taxonomy, completely standard until the advent of
>>>> Bakker's sensationalistic and speculative _Scientific American_
>>>> article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in the mid-70's. Perhaps significantly,
>>>> Bakker has not done any peer-reviewed papers for a long time now.
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Bakker. You conflate two conflicts: between
>>> cladistic classification and "evolutionary" classification, and between
>>> BANDits and mainstream systematists. Bakker has to do only with the
>>> latter, and in that Ostrom has priority.
>>
>> What are BANDits and where I can read another modern article about birds
>> being an evolution of some class of dinosaurs?; the last article I read
>> was in Scientific American in the 70's or so.
>
> I think that in this context, BAND = "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs",
> and a "BANDit" is someone who argues against the opinion that
> birds are descended from dinosaurs.

That's lately been superseded by MANIAC = "Maniraptorans Are Not In
Actuality Coelurosaurs".

> A separate argument is that all land animals are descended from
> things that swam in the sea, but should we say that land animals
> are fish, because our ancestors were fish? And should the same
> point apply to birds and dinosaurs? Given that birds lived
> alongside dinosaurs...

Yes, and humans lived alongside primates, yet we still consider
ourselves primates.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 26 de abril de 2014 16:03:13 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:

i loved the theory of the birds coming from dinosaurs, or
theropods, but I loved it because it looked logical to me.
It is difficult for me to buy a different explanation.
Of course, I can be wrong and theory can be wrong for some
unknown reason to me. But that is another question.
Then BAND means Birds are not dinosaurs. And BANDit is pun
to make a little ridicule the proposition BAND.
I do not see any reason to change my theory about the birds
as they are. I read this theory in Scientific American in a
time I had a subscription that lasted some 30 years.
Thank you, Robert. The argument of the BAND about not having
any intermediate fossils, or lack of fossils of feathers is not
enough to defeat this theory. I do not see how feathers can
fossilize and I even had seen some picture in what is alleged
a fossil of a feather. But they must be rather rare.
Eri

[jillery]

So are whales fish? I can argue multiple ways. By one definition,
fish applies to any animal living exclusively in the water, ex
shellfish, so yes. By another definition, fish applies to
cold-blooded vertebrates that lives in water, with gills and fins, so
no. By one definition, whales are mammals, and mammals are
warm-blooded, breathe air, and nurse their young, so no. By another
definition, whales and mammals are tetrapods, and all tetrapods derive
from ancestral fish, including whales, so yes.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:12:48 -0400, the following appeared

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

The relationship emphasized seems to depend on what is being
considered at the time, something which isn't limited to
biology.

[John Harshman]

All depends on definitions, eh? I'd say yes or no, depending on context.
If I'm served fish and chips, I don't ask if the fish is whale. But if
I'm talking to a biologist I would certainly not be surprised if she
refers to whales as osteichthyans, i.e. bony fish.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 15:12:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Yeppers. What has happened is that science has found evidence faster
than language has changed to accomodate the evidence. I propose that
the same situation applies birds and dinosaurs.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:07:24 -0700, John Harshman

I submit for considertation that "birds are not dinosaurs" has a
similar dependence.

[John Harshman]

Yes. There is a definition of "dinosaur" in which it would be true, i.e.
dinosaurs as a paraphyletic "primitive" group from which birds are
descended. That, however is not the definition that those who say "birds
are not dinosaurs" are using. They think birds aren't even especially
related to dinosaurs.

[Robert Carnegie]

I was hoping to demonstrate the range of opinion, and also
the range of meanings assigned to words on this topic,
in the present day. So I'm grateful to everyone who is
helping me to do that!

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:22:38 -0700, John Harshman

I hope "peter" provides more and better evidence for that argument
than he does for DP.

[John Harshman]

So far, Peter hasn't even said what his opinion is.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 06:19:22 -0700, John Harshman

And he's using lots of words not saying it. No surprise there.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 1:18:23 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> >> We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
> >> are not very well informed about it.

> >Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
> >anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
> >off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
> >hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
> >time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.

> I absolutely agree, it's extremely hypocritical for you to complain
> about diluting off-topic chatter when you're the source for it.

The generic "you," meaning "one," is the valid way to use it in the
above sentence. In the thread on bird evolution, you are by far the
most prolific of the 5 people I described, so a case could be made
for you being the source or, alternatively, the ringleader.

> There's nothing here about Bill Nye, or the subject he debated.

True, but that sort of thing happens all the time in talk.origins.
At least I am continuing with a topic that is very much relevant
to evolution, and to also creationism, inasmuch as Wilkins talked
about reasons for opposing "birds are dinosaurs" that only creationists
are clueless enough to use.

> You have diluted this thread by cross-threading your self-serving SPAM
> from another topic.

Don't be silly. It's absolutely accepted in talk.origins for groups
of people to post cascades of puns or jokes in the midst of a thread
that started out on a topic relevant to evolution or abiogenesis, the
two main things that this newsgroup is all about.

Although it is somewhat annoying to have to pick out the on-topic
posts, nobody complains because the participants almost never act
like complete hypocrites and attack one of the minority of people
who are very actively pursuing topics relevant to evolution, etc.
with the charge that THEY are posting "SPAM".

> Why did you inject your obfuscating noise into
> this topic? It's as if you can't help yourself.

Better you should blast away at pun cascaders who divert attention from
ongoing discussions about evolution, etc. But you are a quintessential
opportunist, making up artificial "principles" as you go along,
in a nakedly self-serving way: the more you can make me look bad,
the more you make yourself look good.

The rest of your comments were Pee Wee Hermanisms,
and are snipped.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 1:12:48 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:02:43 -0700, John Harshman

> >On 4/26/14 8:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> >> A separate argument is that all land animals are descended from
> >> things that swam in the sea, but should we say that land animals
> >> are fish, because our ancestors were fish? And should the same
> >> point apply to birds and dinosaurs? Given that birds lived
> >> alongside dinosaurs...

> >Yes, and humans lived alongside primates, yet we still consider
> >ourselves primates.

> So are whales fish? I can argue multiple ways. By one definition,
> fish applies to any animal living exclusively in the water, ex
> shellfish, so yes.

I don't think anyone posting to talk.origins uses "fish" that way.

>By another definition, fish applies to
> cold-blooded vertebrates that lives in water, with gills and fins, so
> no.

Harshman's point is that since we are descended from fish, the claim
that we ARE fish is perfectly normal. It is exactly the same criterion
one uses when saying "hummingbirds are dinosaurs" and meaning it literally,
not as a metaphor.

I keep using brackets as in "birds are [descended from] dinosaurs"
to acknowledge that only semantics, and not science, divides those who
say "birds are dinosaurs" from those who say "birds are descended
from dinosaurs". The real division is between these people and those
who say "birds are [descended from] non-dinosaurian archosaurs."

> By one definition, whales are mammals, and mammals are
> warm-blooded, breathe air, and nurse their young, so no. By another
> definition, whales and mammals are tetrapods, and all tetrapods derive
> from ancestral fish, including whales, so yes.

Harshman is very happy with the latter usage, except when talking to
laymen who might think he is really ignorant for saying "whales are
fish," or (perhaps) to those who say
"The Bible does not say a whale swallowed Jonah; it says
a great fish swallowed Jonah."

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 1:12:48 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:02:43 -0700, John Harshman
>
>>> On 4/26/14 8:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>>>> A separate argument is that all land animals are descended from
>>>> things that swam in the sea, but should we say that land animals
>>>> are fish, because our ancestors were fish? And should the same
>>>> point apply to birds and dinosaurs? Given that birds lived
>>>> alongside dinosaurs...
>
>>> Yes, and humans lived alongside primates, yet we still consider
>>> ourselves primates.
>
>> So are whales fish? I can argue multiple ways. By one definition,
>> fish applies to any animal living exclusively in the water, ex
>> shellfish, so yes.

[snip]

>> By one definition, whales are mammals, and mammals are
>> warm-blooded, breathe air, and nurse their young, so no. By another
>> definition, whales and mammals are tetrapods, and all tetrapods derive
>> from ancestral fish, including whales, so yes.
>
> Harshman is very happy with the latter usage, except when talking to
> laymen who might think he is really ignorant for saying "whales are
> fish," or (perhaps) to those who say
> "The Bible does not say a whale swallowed Jonah; it says
> a great fish swallowed Jonah."

The stage is now set to argue about what "very happy" means.

From experience, meaning having read John on this issue before,
I'd say he's content with saying whales are fish provided
that "fish" is defined appropriately. John has previously
written on the fact that "fish" is problematic as lay taxonomy.
It seems to me that he has also expressed that getting people
to appreciate the concepts is really more interesting than
inventing something to fight about based on emotional attachment
to words like fish, or to not being a fish.

So, "very happy" might well miss the mark as a description
if "very happy" involves a compelling release of dopamine
or oxytocin, or even a warm feeling, perhaps some involuntary
contractions of certain facial muscles. I doubt, given what
John has written before, that he would react in an very emotional
way to saying whales are fish. Of course, I lack the mind
reading skills of some others.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 9:22:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Here we see how Harshman replied to the last statement of jillery's to which
I replied less than an hour ago.

> Yes. There is a definition of "dinosaur" in which it would be true, i.e.
> dinosaurs as a paraphyletic "primitive" group from which birds are
> descended.

Nothing primitive about them, if Bakker is to be taken seriously. Are you
using "primitive" in a way related to "plesimorphic"? even so, your words
are of dubious value, because that would mean every ancestral species
is "primitive" wrt every descendant species.

Besides, lots of non-avian dinosaurs had apomorphies of their own
after Aves came into existence.

> That, however is not the definition that those who say "birds
> are not dinosaurs" are using. They think birds aren't even especially
> related to dinosaurs.

Balderdash. I don't know of any BANDit who thinks birds are not
[descended from] archosaurs. What's more, I posted the following
first to sci.bio.paleontology and then to talk.origins, and you didn't
let out a peep of dissent in either place:

"So birds could easily be more closely related to dinosaurs than
[are] crocodilians without ruffling Feduccia's feathers."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/pEWJEUTOxEs/fb5qtFM_aocJ

For that matter, I don't think Feduccia would care one way or
the other if it turned out that Aves is the sister group of
Dinosauria.

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

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 9:22:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Here we see how Harshman replied to the last statement of jillery's
> to which I replied less than an hour ago.

You should have left the words in place. This is critical where words
like "it is true" cry out for the antecedent of "it".
[begin restore]

>>>>> So are whales fish? I can argue multiple ways. By one
>>>>> definition, fish applies to any animal living exclusively in
>>>>> the water, ex shellfish, so yes. By another definition, fish
>>>>> applies to cold-blooded vertebrates that lives in water, with
>>>>> gills and fins, so no. By one definition, whales are
>>>>> mammals, and mammals are warm-blooded, breathe air, and nurse
>>>>> their young, so no. By another definition, whales and
>>>>> mammals are tetrapods, and all tetrapods derive from
>>>>> ancestral fish, including whales, so yes.

>>>> All depends on definitions, eh? I'd say yes or no, depending
>>>> on context.

>>> I submit for considertation that "birds are not dinosaurs" has a
>>> similar dependence.

[end restore]

>> Yes. There is a definition of "dinosaur" in which it would be true,
>> i.e. dinosaurs as a paraphyletic "primitive" group from which birds
>> are descended.

> Nothing primitive about them, if Bakker is to be taken seriously.
> Are you using "primitive" in a way related to "plesimorphic"? even
> so, your words are of dubious value, because that would mean every
> ancestral species is "primitive" wrt every descendant species.

Have you considered consulting a few dictionaries regarding the
definition of _primitive_? For example
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primitive#Adjective

5 (biology) Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage
of development or evolution.

So, your "dubious" interpretation is essentially the accepted
definition of primitive.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:49:46 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 1:18:23 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> >On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>
>> >> We cannot show much interest for the evolution of birds if we we
>> >> are not very well informed about it.
>
>> >Of course, but you have chosen the sensible course and not posted
>> >anything to that thread. Meanwhile the torrent of thread diluting
>> >off-topic chatter goes on unabated, and at least five people have
>> >hypocritically criticized me for getting off-topic from time to
>> >time while never contributing anything to the topic themselves.
>
>> I absolutely agree, it's extremely hypocritical for you to complain
>> about diluting off-topic chatter when you're the source for it.
>
>The generic "you," meaning "one," is the valid way to use it in the
>above sentence.

Only an idiot would misread what I wrote that way.

> In the thread on bird evolution, you are by far the
>most prolific of the 5 people I described, so a case could be made
>for you being the source or, alternatively, the ringleader.

I replied directly to comments that other posters made. In most of
the cases, I replied directly to *your* injection of my nym. So my
comments can be off-topic only if the comments I reply to are
off-topic. In which case, you need to deal with those posters. And
since most of them are from you, that means you need to sit down in
front of a mirror and give yourself a good tongue-lashing. Who knows,
you might even enjoy it.

>> There's nothing here about Bill Nye, or the subject he debated.
>
>True, but that sort of thing happens all the time in talk.origins.

Not even close to the same thing. I can point to the exact places
where you injected your irrelevant SPAM into the conversation. Nobody
else mentioned anything about it.

>At least I am continuing with a topic that is very much relevant
>to evolution, and to also creationism, inasmuch as Wilkins talked
>about reasons for opposing "birds are dinosaurs" that only creationists
>are clueless enough to use.

You have injected your irrelevant SPAM into multiple topics. It's as

if you can't help yourself.

>> You have diluted this thread by cross-threading your self-serving SPAM
>> from another topic.
>
>Don't be silly. It's absolutely accepted in talk.origins for groups
>of people to post cascades of puns or jokes in the midst of a thread
>that started out on a topic relevant to evolution or abiogenesis, the
>two main things that this newsgroup is all about.

There's the problem. You can't tell the difference between puns and
SPAM.

>Although it is somewhat annoying to have to pick out the on-topic
>posts, nobody complains because the participants almost never act
>like complete hypocrites and attack one of the minority of people
>who are very actively pursuing topics relevant to evolution, etc.
>with the charge that THEY are posting "SPAM".

Injecting your irrelevant SPAM into topics is not "pursuing topics
relevant to evolution etc".

>> Why did you inject your obfuscating noise into
>> this topic? It's as if you can't help yourself.
>
>Better you should blast away at pun cascaders who divert attention from
>ongoing discussions about evolution, etc. But you are a quintessential
>opportunist, making up artificial "principles" as you go along,
>in a nakedly self-serving way: the more you can make me look bad,
>the more you make yourself look good.

Projecting again. You don't need any help to look bad. You do that
all by yourself.

Get help.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:50:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 1:12:48 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:02:43 -0700, John Harshman
>
>> >On 4/26/14 8:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> >> A separate argument is that all land animals are descended from
>> >> things that swam in the sea, but should we say that land animals
>> >> are fish, because our ancestors were fish? And should the same
>> >> point apply to birds and dinosaurs? Given that birds lived
>> >> alongside dinosaurs...
>
>> >Yes, and humans lived alongside primates, yet we still consider
>> >ourselves primates.
>
>> So are whales fish? I can argue multiple ways. By one definition,
>> fish applies to any animal living exclusively in the water, ex
>> shellfish, so yes.
>
>I don't think anyone posting to talk.origins uses "fish" that way.

Just for fun, try to post without injecting irrelevant noise. I bet
you can do it if you really want to.

>>By another definition, fish applies to
>> cold-blooded vertebrates that lives in water, with gills and fins, so
>> no.
>
>Harshman's point is that since we are descended from fish, the claim
>that we ARE fish is perfectly normal. It is exactly the same criterion
>one uses when saying "hummingbirds are dinosaurs" and meaning it literally,
>not as a metaphor.
>
>I keep using brackets as in "birds are [descended from] dinosaurs"
>to acknowledge that only semantics, and not science, divides those who
>say "birds are dinosaurs" from those who say "birds are descended
>from dinosaurs". The real division is between these people and those
>who say "birds are [descended from] non-dinosaurian archosaurs."
>
>> By one definition, whales are mammals, and mammals are
>> warm-blooded, breathe air, and nurse their young, so no. By another
>> definition, whales and mammals are tetrapods, and all tetrapods derive
>> from ancestral fish, including whales, so yes.
>
>Harshman is very happy with the latter usage, except when talking to
>laymen who might think he is really ignorant for saying "whales are
>fish," or (perhaps) to those who say
>"The Bible does not say a whale swallowed Jonah; it says
>a great fish swallowed Jonah."

You seem to think you're an expert on what Harshman thinks. Based on
Harshman's replies, he very much disagrees that you know what he
thinks.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 9:22:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>Here we see how Harshman replied to the last statement of jillery's to which
>I replied less than an hour ago.

So what?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:39:34 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> A serious question: Since you obviously love politics, do you get
> involved in your local city or county politics? If not, why not?

That's a silly question. I don't love politics of any kind as much
as you and Harshman obviously love the politics [in the broad sense]
that permeates talk.origins. But I do get a fascination out of the
way this newsgroup is a microcosm. As I told Dai Monie:

________________excerpt_____________________

[A]s you should know, this newsgroup is intensely
politicized, partly because creationism and ID are big political
issues, but also in the sense that talk.origins is like what
the ancient Greeks called a *polis*. Here is something Theodore
Roszak wrote that is relevant to a lot of behavior here:

As Aristotle recognized long ago, the political animal
is political with very nearly the whole of his being;
his zealous will to power, his secret resentments,
his twisted ego drives, his noble aspirations...and
perhaps least of all with his weighing and measuring
intellect. That is why Aristotle wisely gives so much
range to tact, to finesse, to sloppy compromise in the
polis, knowing that here, there can be no exact
accountings or neat classifications.
_Where the Wasteland Ends_, p. 223 in 1972
Anchor Books edition

And this explains, I think, why talk.origins is so much more
popular than sci.bio.evolution. For one thing, it attracts
a lot of political animals who have no real interest in
biology *per se*. And for another, it engages very nearly
the whole of their being, and "perhaps least of all [their]
weighing and measuring intellect."

Future historians, assigning research projects to their graduate
students, could do worse than to send them researching the
archives of talk.origins. They will find a veritable microcosm
of the currents that pervade political life, as well as occasional
high drama when some particularly candid exchange -- something
you almost never see elsewhere outside of fiction -- takes place
and the real nature of some people (not the virtual reality
that many try with all their might and main to create)
is laid bare.
==================== end of excerpt from post on the thread,
Subject: The dynamics of talk.origins

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:26:52 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:39:34 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> A serious question: Since you obviously love politics, do you get
>> involved in your local city or county politics? If not, why not?
>
>That's a silly question. I don't love politics of any kind as much
>as you and Harshman obviously love the politics [in the broad sense]
>that permeates talk.origins. But I do get a fascination out of the
>way this newsgroup is a microcosm. As I told Dai Monie:

And here's an example of "peter's" self-serving SPAM.

[Mark Isaak]

Thank you; that answers the question I just posted on the "dynamics of
t.o." thread. It still does not fully answer my original question,
because this is *not* a political newsgroup, excepting your own
contributions to it and responses specifically to you. You are easily
the most political one here (I would say the *only* political one, but I
might be forgetting a relevant infrequent poster), and you apparently
like being so, because you will not stop. If you enjoy such behavior so
much, why not carry it out in other areas, such as your more literal
community?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:27:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/28/14 8:26 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:39:34 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> A serious question: Since you obviously love politics, do you get
> >> involved in your local city or county politics? If not, why not?

> > That's a silly question. I don't love politics of any kind as much
> > as you and Harshman obviously love the politics [in the broad sense]
> > that permeates talk.origins. But I do get a fascination out of the
> > way this newsgroup is a microcosm. As I told Dai Monie:

I've repeated part of the excerpt from that reply to him:

______________excerpt_____________________

[A]s you should know, this newsgroup is intensely
politicized, partly because creationism and ID are big political
issues, but also in the sense that talk.origins is like what
the ancient Greeks called a *polis*. Here is something Theodore
Roszak wrote that is relevant to a lot of behavior here:

As Aristotle recognized long ago, the political animal
is political with very nearly the whole of his being;
his zealous will to power, his secret resentments,
his twisted ego drives, his noble aspirations...and
perhaps least of all with his weighing and measuring
intellect. That is why Aristotle wisely gives so much
range to tact, to finesse, to sloppy compromise in the
polis, knowing that here, there can be no exact
accountings or neat classifications.
_Where the Wasteland Ends_, p. 223 in 1972
Anchor Books edition

And this explains, I think, why talk.origins is so much more
popular than sci.bio.evolution. For one thing, it attracts
a lot of political animals who have no real interest in
biology *per se*. And for another, it engages very nearly
the whole of their being, and "perhaps least of all [their]
weighing and measuring intellect."

==================== end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!original/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/SkGV0PhuWmkJ
Subject: Re: The dynamics of talk.origins

> Thank you; that answers the question I just posted on the "dynamics of
> t.o." thread. It still does not fully answer my original question,
> because this is *not* a political newsgroup, excepting your own
> contributions to it and responses specifically to you.

Au contraire, Harshman's posts on Feduccia and Meyer [and I do NOT
mean his replies to me about these people] are permeated with
"politics" in the broad sense. And Mitchell Coffey's rabid posts
on what I have written about Giwer wrt the Holocaust are suffused
with politics of the usual kind.

I'm sure Coffey is very, very happy about the huge fine paid by "Le Pen"
in France for daring to say that the Holocaust was just a footnote
in books about WWII. I forget what the fine was, but it was well over the
statutory 40,000 franc fine for Holocaust denial. Wikipedia is your
friend.

[What Le Pen said is, *literally*, a sad commentary on the usual histories
of WWII, but of course he did not mean it that way.]

> You are easily
> the most political one here (I would say the *only* political one, but I
> might be forgetting a relevant infrequent poster),

Mitchell is hardly infrequent, and neither is RonO, who has become
mentally unhinged by his burning hatred for the Discovery Institute
and the "switch scam" he keeps accusing it of operating.

"switch scam" is what he has taken to calling the campaign to teach
about weaknesses in current evolutionary theory.

It is a term as ridiculous as "the sound of one hand clapping".
However, I think even RonO knows that
if such a dedicated disparager of me as Robert Camp can't go along with
RonO's "proof" of the "bait" RonO presented in times past, he had
better let go of the "bait and" part of what used to be his
favorite anti-DI formula.

> and you apparently
> like being so, because you will not stop. If you enjoy such behavior so
> much, why not carry it out in other areas, such as your more literal
> community?

There are too few real opportunities to display the knowledge I have
about various issues, in a way that could have some impact. Besides,
do you know of a single political party that is both concerned about
the environment and with cruelty to unborn human babies of the sort that
no slaughterhouse could get away with?

I have testified a handful of times for various modest restrictions on
abortion, but that's been the extent of my political involvement.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

I will concede some politics on the Feduccia matter, but extremely
little which is not from or in response to you. Likewise regarding
Giwer. And I had not considered RonO, who practices what you consider
politics, but not nearly on the scale you do.

> [snip digression into practicing politics]

>
>> and you apparently
>> like being so, because you will not stop. If you enjoy such behavior so
>> much, why not carry it out in other areas, such as your more literal
>> community?
>
> There are too few real opportunities to display the knowledge I have
> about various issues, in a way that could have some impact. Besides,
> do you know of a single political party that is both concerned about
> the environment and with cruelty to unborn human babies of the sort that
> no slaughterhouse could get away with?

Local politics, at least in my area, are non-partisan.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:11:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/29/14 11:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > Au contraire, Harshman's posts on Feduccia and Meyer [and I do NOT
> > mean his replies to me about these people] are permeated with
> > "politics" in the broad sense. And Mitchell Coffey's rabid posts
> > on what I have written about Giwer wrt the Holocaust are suffused
> > with politics of the usual kind.
>
> I will concede some politics on the Feduccia matter, but extremely
> little which is not from or in response to you.

Perhaps you missed a thread Harshman started in which he and others
disparaged Feduccia, and _Auk_ for having the temerity to publish
a paper by Feduccia, and which went on for about fifty posts
before I started asking for actual content of the offending paper.

I see you ARE missing out on the fact that in our exchanges,
Harshman repeatedly, GRATUITOUSLY insulted Feduccia and other
"BANDits" and "MANIACs" [his politically permeated words] by
attributing to them simplistic attitudes about evidence of
bird ancestry that no scientist worthy of the name would hold.

But then, you apparently haven't been following our exchange
closely enough, belying your claim to be interested in what
passes between us about bird ancestry. You are only interested
in my "politics" and not Harshman's, aren't you?

> Likewise regarding Giwer.

Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.

There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.

Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
about something concerning the Holocaust.

> And I had not considered RonO, who practices what you consider
> politics,

AND is rabid about politics in the usual sense where the teaching of
ID is concerned.

> but not nearly on the scale you do.

I do NOT consider it politics to defend my honor when it is
besmirched by the likes of you, RonO, Harshman and Coffey.
You did it, in spades, in July 2012, when you made the baseless
claim that you'd seen no one enjoying the poisoning of people's
reputations like I do. You did it when two people who OBVIOUSLY
enjoyed poisoning my reputation had done it just a few posts earlier
on the same thread.

In fact, you posted that piece of defamation to deflect attention
from their obvious enjoyment, didn't you?

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:11:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/29/14 11:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

[snip]

>> Likewise regarding Giwer.
>
> Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
> and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
> denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
> put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
> intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
> for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
> of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.

The facts are otherwise.

> There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
> fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
> for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
> between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.
>
> Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
> about something concerning the Holocaust.

[snip]

It's worth noting that Giwer had long claimed that the Holocaust never
happened, and you had the proof of that in your hands 12 years ago.
Giwer's claim that Jews weren't gassed in Auschwitz is all you would
admit to until a few months ago.

Your assertion - that it was an innocent assumption of yours that to
count as Holocaust denial "called for more than" a claim that the Nazis'
did not murder Jews at their leading death camp, where 1 out of 6 Jewish
victims were in fact murdered - is noted.

And once again you celebrate yourself for the only instance in which you
called Giwer on any of his numerous statements of antisemitism, having
spent months denying he was antisemitic at all.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/2/14 10:38 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> [...]

> I do NOT consider it politics to defend my honor when it is
> besmirched by the likes of you, RonO, Harshman and Coffey.

Shrug. How would you define "politics" in your own words, then?

> You did it, in spades, in July 2012, when you made the baseless
> claim that you'd seen no one enjoying the poisoning of people's
> reputations like I do.

Any claim that begins with "I have seen" is not a baseless claim. You
might not know or believe the basis yourself, but to call it baseless is
a misuse of the word.

And just incidentally, your complaining about a post from nearly two
years ago is not defending your honor; it is evidence of secret
resentments, twisted ego drives, and probably a zealous will to power.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:11:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 4/29/14 11:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Likewise regarding Giwer.
> >
> > Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
> > and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
> > denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
> > put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
> > intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
> > for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
> > of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.
>
> The facts are otherwise.

Prove it. What you are substituting below is wildly inaccurate.

> > There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
> > fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
> > for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
> > between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.
> >
> > Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
> > about something concerning the Holocaust.
> [snip]

>
> It's worth noting that Giwer had long claimed that the Holocaust never
> happened, and you had the proof of that in your hands 12 years ago.

Not until I was done with asking y'all for information about
that, and was focused on making it crystal clear that Giwer
was thumbing his nose at denunciations for that hate-driven
"nuking" bit.

> Giwer's claim that Jews weren't gassed in Auschwitz is all you would
> admit to until a few months ago.

In the 12 years that had elapsed when you brought up that old
exchange, I had totally forgotten about your belated documentation.

I might not even have looked at your urls 14 (by now) years ago.
Others were crying "Wolf!" with copious urls that were a complete
waste of time, never documenting anything like the major things
your urls turned out to document.

> Your assertion - that it was an innocent assumption of yours that to
> count as Holocaust denial "called for more than" a claim that the Nazis'
> did not murder Jews at their leading death camp,

See how bad YOUR recollection is? Giwer never denied that huge
numbers died there for other reasons -- starvation, disease,
overwork, beatings... at least not on the thread where I was
involved.

> where 1 out of 6 Jewish
> victims were in fact murdered - is noted.
>
> And once again you celebrate yourself for the only instance in which you
> called Giwer on any of his numerous statements of antisemitism,

Again your recollection fails you. I praised you for the one instance
of blatant antisemitism that you QUOTED, right on that thread of 14
years ago.

> having
> spent months denying he was antisemitic at all.

This is your polemical way of saying that I kept asking
for documentation of antisemitism and got precious little of
it in the way of QUOTES, while keeping a completely open
mind on the subject instead of succumbing to Truth by Blatant
Assertion.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 5/12/2014 11:23 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:11:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/14 11:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Likewise regarding Giwer.
>>>
>>> Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
>>> and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
>>> denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
>>> put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
>>> intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
>>> for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
>>> of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.
>>
>> The facts are otherwise.
>
> Prove it. What you are substituting below is wildly inaccurate.

Prove it's "wildly inaccurate."

Remember when you ridiculed me, without explanation, when I asked you to
prove one of your assertions? Tu quoque only works for you, I guess.

>>> There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
>>> fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
>>> for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
>>> between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.
>>>
>>> Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
>>> about something concerning the Holocaust.
>> [snip]
>
>>
>> It's worth noting that Giwer had long claimed that the Holocaust never
>> happened, and you had the proof of that in your hands 12 years ago.
>
> Not until I was done with asking y'all for information about
> that, and was focused on making it crystal clear that Giwer
> was thumbing his nose at denunciations for that hate-driven
> "nuking" bit.

People had been showing you quotes and other evidence for months. DIG,
for one, told you about his experience with Giwer's Holocaust denial.
You were directed to quotes and photographs, people related the
experience of family members - incredibly, you were demanding on line
evidence that the Holocaust happened, on the grounds that without such
evidence being spoon feed to you, Giwer could be excused for not
accepting that same evidence according you your idiosyncratic standards
of evidence. You got so bad that DIG had to ask you straight out if you
believed the Holocaust happened.

And there you go again, patting yourself on the back for finally
recognizing that Giwer was antisemitic after he said Tel Aviv should
have been nuked over the Liberty incident.

>> Giwer's claim that Jews weren't gassed in Auschwitz is all you would
>> admit to until a few months ago.
>
> In the 12 years that had elapsed when you brought up that old
> exchange, I had totally forgotten about your belated documentation.
>
> I might not even have looked at your urls 14 (by now) years ago.
> Others were crying "Wolf!" with copious urls that were a complete
> waste of time, never documenting anything like the major things
> your urls turned out to document.

DIG knows more about the claims of Holocaust denial than virtually
anyone I know, he, as with everyone else other than Giwer, disagreed
with your excuses for Giwer's take on the evidence.

It wasn't even clear if you bothered to read most most of the evidence
linked to; you'd just huff that you didn't have to read linked to
evidence, we should just quote it for you.

>> Your assertion - that it was an innocent assumption of yours that to
>> count as Holocaust denial "called for more than" a claim that the Nazis'
>> did not murder Jews at their leading death camp,
>
> See how bad YOUR recollection is? Giwer never denied that huge
> numbers died there for other reasons -- starvation, disease,
> overwork, beatings... at least not on the thread where I was
> involved.

Yes, like most Holocaust deniers, he acknowledged large numbers of
deaths in Nazi concentration camps, but claimed they were, fortunes of
war, unintended results of poor conditions, or run-of-the-mill
mistreatment. He denied they were killed because they were Jews; he
denied specialized gas chambers were built for purposed of genocide;
he'd denied any willful, systematic policy of obliterating European
Jewry and other groups. He denied, that is, the Holocaust.

People kept pointing this out to you - you shouldn't even have been
arguing these issues if you didn't know about such basic methods of
Holocaust denial. I kept suggesting you read Deborah Lipstadt's book, to
no avail.

>> where 1 out of 6 Jewish
>> victims were in fact murdered - is noted.
>>
>> And once again you celebrate yourself for the only instance in which you
>> called Giwer on any of his numerous statements of antisemitism,
>
> Again your recollection fails you. I praised you for the one instance
> of blatant antisemitism that you QUOTED, right on that thread of 14
> years ago.

I'm supposed to care that you /praised/ me? I don't remember this one
instance, but I do remember that at least several times you excused
direct antisemitic QUOTES of Giwer.

>> having
>> spent months denying he was antisemitic at all.
>
> This is your polemical way of saying that I kept asking
> for documentation of antisemitism and got precious little of
> it in the way of QUOTES, while keeping a completely open
> mind on the subject instead of succumbing to Truth by Blatant
> Assertion.
>
> Peter Nyikos

You were provided plenty of information about Giwer. A simple assertion
by Giwer that it was counterfeit was good enough for you. The reason you
demanded to be spoon fed QUOTES is that there was so much evidence
linked to, so you decide you couldn't be bothered to actually read much
of it.

And was it an open mind that caused you to claim that I and others were
using Giwer as a "scapegoat" to cover up Pat James' "lies" (and juvenile
taunts) regarding you, and to accuse Giwer's "critics" (your word [2])
of not caring about mass-murder by communists [1,2,3,4]:


[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/TrREAQIW8AIJ

[2]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/6DqBcwdW2fAJ

[3]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/6lPA5aVVMaIJ

[4]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/6lPA5aVVMaIJ

Mitchell Coffey

[eridanus]

El lunes, 12 de mayo de 2014 19:23:43 UTC+1, Mitchell Coffey escribi�:

> On 5/12/2014 11:23 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:11:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >>>> On 4/29/14 11:18 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> [snip]

Let us suppose that Giwer had only read on the newspapers, and
heard on the TV some comments on the Holocaust. Let's suppose
that he had like, most people any particular curiosity to search on
this matter any farther. Then, he must believe those media were
talking of something real, like WWI or WWII, or some details
of both wars, etc. In general the media are telling mostly some
truths and even a few lies mixed up. There is not any way to
make credit worthy a lie, unless most of the information is real.

Then, Holocaust denial, only means some sort of antisemitism,
or more exactly anti-Jewish. For the Arabs are also semitic in
the old parlance. This word semitic comes from the bible that
say the people of Middle East are descendants from Sem, one
of the sons of Noak.

Another reason to deny the Holocaust is some hidden admiration
for the Nazi regime. The guy do not dared to show his admiration
openly, but he did it by denying the Holocaust was a real event.
Or they only killed half a dozen of Jews, etc.

Then, what excuse can we have for Mc Giwer, I suppose we
are talking about this actor, for being and admirer of the Nazi
regime? Well, it must exist the same excuse as for someone
being a believer of any weird religion, Mormon, hari Krishna,
Christian, Buddhist, Moonist, or other. He was the object of
some efficient brain washing. With a right brain-washing one
can end believing any shit whatever. And once you had been
brainwashed, there is very difficult to rewire his brain.

So, anyone that had been brainwashed, do not feel any need to
search for proves against, not in favor, of his believes. An adult
rarely changes the nature of his brain washing. In this sense,
you must excuse him.
Eri

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:23:43 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/12/2014 11:23 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>> Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
> >>> and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
> >>> denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
> >>> put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
> >>> intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
> >>> for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
> >>> of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.

> >> The facts are otherwise.

> > Prove it. What you are substituting below is wildly inaccurate.

> Prove it's "wildly inaccurate."

I gave correctives below. Which ones do you deny?

I don't see you denying ANY of them yet. You are just doing the
McCarthyite trick of posting NEW things to try and incriminate me.

<snip One Shade of Gray Meltdown, accented with pouting>

> >>> There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
> >>> fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
> >>> for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
> >>> between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.

> >>> Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
> >>> about something concerning the Holocaust.

That "something" was carefully described below.

> >> It's worth noting that Giwer had long claimed that the Holocaust never
> >> happened, and you had the proof of that in your hands 12 years ago.

> > Not until I was done with asking y'all for information about
> > that, and was focused on making it crystal clear that Giwer
> > was thumbing his nose at denunciations for that hate-driven
> > "nuking" bit.

I humbled "Topaz", an OPENLY pro-Nazi propagandist, by documenting
this nose-thumbing, and wrung from him the statement that he was
not Matt Giwer. Remember how you and Gans refused to take on Topaz?

I think I know the real reason why, too. Topaz gave out documentation
on the incident that claimed the lives of American servicemen, and you were
afraid I would press him for details, or believe his sources. I did neither.
I have maintained a complete silence wrt Topaz and stayed off that thread
since he gave out the documentation.

Would you like to do damage control? I promise, I will NOT return to that
thread if you or Gans take him on.

> People had been showing you quotes and other evidence for months.

I'd like to see some of those quotes. AFAIK, the first really
solid one was the one you vaguely refer to here here:

> DIG, for one, told you about his experience with Giwer's Holocaust denial.

I IMMEDIATELY acknowledged a quote he provided, which had some negative
information about Giwer, and I took it fully into account
in everything I wrote thereafter.

Strangely enough, I don't see that quote documented in my reply to
DIG for which you posted the url at the end. Instead I see DIG
bending over backwards not to look like someone who treats ME
as innocent until proven guilty. He would have antagonized you
and Pat James and wf3h had he done so, wouldn't he? Here is
what I wrote to him about wf3h, and thanks for providing the url where
I did it:

_________________excerpt_____________________________

Yet, strangely enough, you have followed up to a post
where I caught "wf3h" lying about Giwer and even
calling Giwer a liar based on his own lie, and not batted
an eye at the whole exchange.

In earlier days, you even said some nasty words about "wf3h"
and killfiled him and encouraged others to do the same.

This time, OTOH, the words you added to that followup
focused on me: like a bolt out of the blue, you asked
me whether I deny that there were gas chambers.

The answer is no, and I hereby counter with
another bolt out of the blue question: do you
deny the existence of God?
============================== end of excerpt
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/6DqBcwdW2fAJ

> You were directed to quotes and photographs, people related the
> experience of family members - incredibly, you were demanding on line
> evidence that the Holocaust happened,

Incredibly, you seem to be going seriously unhinged. I never did
anything of the sort.

> on the grounds that without such
> evidence being spoon feed to you, Giwer could be excused for not
> accepting that same evidence

Ah, now the truth behind your rabid spin-doctoring is coming out.
I was wanting people to post the evidence so Giwer could SEE it and
be seen as thumb-nosing in reaction to it. Instead, people whom
you were allied with were saying that the best approach to take
with Giwer was NOT to show him evidence, but to ridicule and insult him.

> according you your idiosyncratic standards
> of evidence. You got so bad that DIG had to ask you straight out if you
> believed the Holocaust happened.

Your spin-doctoring is refuted by the quoted passage. And he didn't even
have to ask me the more specific thing he did.

I think the reason he
asked me that question out of the blue, besides the one I gave above,
was that y'all weren't asking me anyting like that, but were trying to
get me to accept that Giwer was a Holocaust denier and anti-semite
[as opposed to being merely anti-Zionist] and, IIRC, a pro-Nazi
just on y'all's say-so.

I suppose I should have ignored the behavior of "wf3h" and assumed
that, even though HE lied about Giwer and y'all were playing "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil" about that, everything else that everyone
was saying about Giwer was gospel truth. Then, and only then, would
I have not been the target of your fanaticism.

In case you are wondering why I was so insistent on documentation back
then: I have been systematically and massively misrepresented by people
all through my experience in talk.origins, talk.abortion, and
soc.history.medieval and it has taught me not to believe people like you
without documentation, even when they are arrayed ten deep against someone.

I learned the hard way that I am NOT the only one treated that way. Kevin
Darcy was someone whom I only helped after six months of taking seriously
the pack of lies people kept repeating about him. Bob "Osprey" Heishman
was a notable beneficiary of that experience when I returned to
talk.abortion in 2008 and saw people arrayed ten deep against him.
I knew from experience that half of them were pathologically dishonest,
and the other half turned out to have been either conned by them or
in cahoots with them.

I've deleted the rest of your unsupported and largely unsupportable
spin-doctoring of what actually happened, but will deal with it if
anyone besides you says he actually LOOKED at the urls you posted
at the end and thinks they justify what you said in the deleted part--
or above.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 5/12/2014 5:04 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:23:43 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 5/12/2014 11:23 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>> Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
>>>>> and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
>>>>> denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
>>>>> put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
>>>>> intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
>>>>> for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
>>>>> of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.
>
>>>> The facts are otherwise.
>
>>> Prove it. What you are substituting below is wildly inaccurate.
>
>> Prove it's "wildly inaccurate."
>
> I gave correctives below. Which ones do you deny?

I don't see you correcting a single one. I do see you failing even to
respond to issues.

> I don't see you denying ANY of them yet. You are just doing the
> McCarthyite trick of posting NEW things to try and incriminate me.

Wow, so posing links to relevant evidence is "NEW things." The evidence
does incriminate you, though.

> <snip One Shade of Gray Meltdown, accented with pouting>

You cut: "Remember when you ridiculed me, without explanation, when I

asked you to prove one of your assertions? Tu quoque only works for you,
I guess."

So what is it about that you can respond to?

>>>>> There was NO politics from me about Giwer, unless you count the
>>>>> fact that I kept mentioning that I, and I alone, denounced him repeatedly
>>>>> for wanting Tel Aviv nuked in retaliation for an incident in which
>>>>> between 30 and 40 American servicemen lost their lives.
>
>>>>> Somehow, to my naive mind, that is worse than just showing skepticism
>>>>> about something concerning the Holocaust.
>
> That "something" was carefully described below.
>
>>>> It's worth noting that Giwer had long claimed that the Holocaust never
>>>> happened, and you had the proof of that in your hands 12 years ago.
>
>>> Not until I was done with asking y'all for information about
>>> that, and was focused on making it crystal clear that Giwer
>>> was thumbing his nose at denunciations for that hate-driven
>>> "nuking" bit.
>
> I humbled "Topaz", an OPENLY pro-Nazi propagandist, by documenting
> this nose-thumbing, and wrung from him the statement that he was
> not Matt Giwer. Remember how you and Gans refused to take on Topaz?

I've explained why about a half dozen times. You've yet to reason once.

> I think I know the real reason why, too. Topaz gave out documentation
> on the incident that claimed the lives of American servicemen, and you were
> afraid I would press him for details, or believe his sources. I did neither.
> I have maintained a complete silence wrt Topaz and stayed off that thread
> since he gave out the documentation.

You have no evidence for this claim. You're lying, as you have no
evidence I've even seen that post, or more than two of his posts. And
your insane ideation about me worrying about you accepting the views of
a Nazi is your monomania working overtime. Point-of-fact, I would not be
surprised if you accepting a Nazi's argument prima facia, but it doesn't
keep me awake; let me know when you make your first convert to DP, or
any other evidence of sane people taking you seriously.

I'm well aware of the issues regarding the Liberty incident. As I recall
you didn't even know what the USS Liberty issue was when it came up.

> Would you like to do damage control? I promise, I will NOT return to that
> thread if you or Gans take him on.

You think it bothers me that people will associate a Nazi with the
anti-Israel position on an issue? That makes it too easy. On Planet
Nyikos people find Nazis credible sources, but not on Planet Earth. In
any case, as I said above, I told you a number of times why I generally
avoid giving Nazis the attention and publicity they crave. Respond

>> People had been showing you quotes and other evidence for months.
>
> I'd like to see some of those quotes. AFAIK, the first really
> solid one was the one you vaguely refer to here here:
>
>> DIG, for one, told you about his experience with Giwer's Holocaust denial.
>
> I IMMEDIATELY acknowledged a quote he provided, which had some negative
> information about Giwer, and I took it fully into account
> in everything I wrote thereafter.
>
> Strangely enough, I don't see that quote documented in my reply to
> DIG for which you posted the url at the end. Instead I see DIG
> bending over backwards not to look like someone who treats ME
> as innocent until proven guilty. He would have antagonized you
> and Pat James and wf3h had he done so, wouldn't he?

You're paranoia, not to mention your ignorance of DIG, is afoot.

> Here is
> what I wrote to him about wf3h, and thanks for providing the url where
> I did it:
>
> _________________excerpt_____________________________
>
> Yet, strangely enough, you have followed up to a post
> where I caught "wf3h" lying about Giwer and even
> calling Giwer a liar based on his own lie, and not batted
> an eye at the whole exchange.
>
> In earlier days, you even said some nasty words about "wf3h"
> and killfiled him and encouraged others to do the same.
>
> This time, OTOH, the words you added to that followup
> focused on me: like a bolt out of the blue, you asked
> me whether I deny that there were gas chambers.
>
> The answer is no, and I hereby counter with
> another bolt out of the blue question: do you
> deny the existence of God?
> ============================== end of excerpt
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/t3Cahiop9c4/6DqBcwdW2fAJ

Which has no relevance whatsoever. And his question wasn't a bolt out of
the blue; any knowledgeable person reading your posts would have
wondered the same thing.

>> You were directed to quotes and photographs, people related the
>> experience of family members - incredibly, you were demanding on line
>> evidence that the Holocaust happened,
>
> Incredibly, you seem to be going seriously unhinged. I never did
> anything of the sort.

In fact you did. And you were shooting down evidence that the Holocaust
happened - some of this appears in some of the links I copy below.

>> on the grounds that without such
>> evidence being spoon feed to you, Giwer could be excused for not
>> accepting that same evidence
>
> Ah, now the truth behind your rabid spin-doctoring is coming out.
> I was wanting people to post the evidence so Giwer could SEE it and
> be seen as thumb-nosing in reaction to it. Instead, people whom
> you were allied with were saying that the best approach to take
> with Giwer was NOT to show him evidence, but to ridicule and insult him.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that, or anyone else saying that. Pat
James posted evidence; so did I. DIG, who is an expert on Holocaust
denial, had long, detailed debates with Giwer; others questioned Giwer
directly.

>> according you your idiosyncratic standards
>> of evidence. You got so bad that DIG had to ask you straight out if you
>> believed the Holocaust happened.
>
> Your spin-doctoring is refuted by the quoted passage. And he didn't even
> have to ask me the more specific thing he did.

How on Earth does the passage you quote above refutes what I wrote? In
fact, it confirms that "DIG had to ask you straight out if you believed
the Holocaust happened." And he did have you ask you because you were
talking like a Holocaust denier.

> I think the reason he
> asked me that question out of the blue, besides the one I gave above,
> was that y'all weren't asking me anyting like that, but were trying to
> get me to accept that Giwer was a Holocaust denier and anti-semite
> [as opposed to being merely anti-Zionist] and, IIRC, a pro-Nazi
> just on y'all's say-so.

Except there were at least four people - as I recall, DIG, Pat James, PZ
Myer and myself, who posted links to online evidence.

> I suppose I should have ignored the behavior of "wf3h" and assumed
> that, even though HE lied about Giwer and y'all were playing "see no evil,
> hear no evil, speak no evil" about that, everything else that everyone
> was saying about Giwer was gospel truth. Then, and only then, would
> I have not been the target of your fanaticism.

What did "wf3h" lie about Giwer, with links please.

Let me add this context: Giwer is incontrovertibly an antisemite, a
Holocaust denier and a Nazi sympathizer; you just claim you didn't see
convincing evidence until this last year, though it was indisputably
provided to you in 2001. In that context, the evidence we provided to
your, such as the the pictures of gas chambers on the webpage of a
distinguished Holocaust history cite, which you dismissed as because
they were too blurry, etc., looks less blurry. In that context, your
attack on our credibility, above, looks rather demented.

> In case you are wondering why I was so insistent on documentation back
> then: I have been systematically and massively misrepresented by people
> all through my experience in talk.origins, talk.abortion, and
> soc.history.medieval and it has taught me not to believe people like you
> without documentation, even when they are arrayed ten deep against someone.
>
> I learned the hard way that I am NOT the only one treated that way. Kevin
> Darcy was someone whom I only helped after six months of taking seriously
> the pack of lies people kept repeating about him. Bob "Osprey" Heishman
> was a notable beneficiary of that experience when I returned to
> talk.abortion in 2008 and saw people arrayed ten deep against him.
> I knew from experience that half of them were pathologically dishonest,
> and the other half turned out to have been either conned by them or
> in cahoots with them.
>
> I've deleted the rest of your unsupported and largely unsupportable
> spin-doctoring of what actually happened, but will deal with it if
> anyone besides you says he actually LOOKED at the urls you posted
> at the end and thinks they justify what you said in the deleted part--
> or above.
>
> Peter Nyikos

While your guitar gently weeps, I'll note that you've snipped the
support for what you called "unsupported," and that for all your talk of
documentation, you ignore my documentation and provide none to support
your bald assertions - I'm not counting your one non sequitur, which
actually ends up supporting one of my claims and undermining yours.

Mitchell Coffey

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:55:49 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 5/12/2014 5:04 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:23:43 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2014 11:23 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> >>>> On 5/2/2014 1:38 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Coffey dredged him out from the long-ago past when attacking me,
> >>>>> and it was only MUCH later that he finally revealed that "Holocaust
> >>>>> denial" INCLUDES skepticism about gas chambers being actually
> >>>>> put to the use in Ausschwitz for which they had been
> >>>>> intended. I had innocently assumed that Holocaust denial called
> >>>>> for more than that, and so he had a field day accusing me
> >>>>> of "defending" a "Holocaust denier" before finally spilling the beans.
> >
> >>>> The facts are otherwise.
> >
> >>> Prove it. What you are substituting below is wildly inaccurate.
> >
> >> Prove it's "wildly inaccurate."
> >
> > I gave correctives below. Which ones do you deny?
>
> I don't see you correcting a single one.

You did, in the post where I said, "What you are substituting below
is wildly inaccurate." I forgot that I had said "below" when I
deleted that part for the sake of brevity. Even so, the result
was a very long post, and your post to which I am replying rivals
the worst of Ron O in both length and content.

That's a hint for you not to get too carried away. Ron O is finally
getting his just deserts in the thread I started yesterday, and you are
showing signs of following in his footsteps.

Anyway, here was the first wildly inaccurate comment:

> Your assertion - that it was an innocent assumption of yours that to
> count as Holocaust denial "called for more than" a claim that the Nazis'
> did not murder Jews at their leading death camp,

And here was my corrective:

"See how bad YOUR recollection is? Giwer never denied that huge
numbers died there for other reasons -- starvation, disease,
overwork, beatings... at least not on the thread where I was
involved."

You never denied the truth of this corrective, you just posted
some comments related to it.

Wildly inaccurate claim number two:

> And once again you celebrate yourself for the only instance in which you
> called Giwer on any of his numerous statements of antisemitism,

My corrective:

"Again your recollection fails you. I praised you for the one instance
of blatant antisemitism that you QUOTED, right on that thread of 14
years ago."

You claimed not to remember it. Go back to the thread where I held
Giwer's feet to the fire wrt that "nuking of Tel Aviv" monstrosity,
and you will see it.

Wildly inaccurate claim number 3:

> having
> spent months denying he was antisemitic at all.

My corrective:

"This is your polemical way of saying that I kept asking
for documentation of antisemitism and got precious little of
it in the way of QUOTES, while keeping a completely open
mind on the subject instead of succumbing to Truth by Blatant
Assertion."

You posted some irrelevant stuff in reply, including the four urls that
you posted AFTER I was satisfied that he WAS antisemitic.
But you never showed any denial by me that he was antisemitic,
because none existed.

You made a blanket generalization that I was given lots of
information about Giwer. What you neglect to mention was that
a huge chunk of it was by "rick" -- an idiot whose urls, of which
he posted a lot, were useless as far as establishing either
anti-semitism (as opposd to anti-Zionism) or Holocaust denial,
and I wasted a lot of my time looknig at one after another
of them.

And you are partly to blame for that wasted time, because of
the way you played "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
where he was concerned, cheerfully letting him blather on
about the best way to deal with Giwer was not to show how
wrong he was, but to ridicule and insult him.

Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later. As with Ron O, a lot
of what you write is filibuster, so it may be early next month before
I finish with it all. Meanwhile I expect you to be doing a Ron O
of mixing falsehoods and half-truths with true statements in
reply to my initial installments. It's the same sort of never-ending
process as Ron O's and so I am taking it nice and slow, but
not as slow as I did for Ron O last year. He had already
accumulated a much longer 'paper trail' than you have so far.

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

So this hell-hole that was that other newsgroups
you learned your internet persona in, did it have
people consistently starting up threads with other
participants names in the title? Because I could
see how that could really have a negative impact.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:33:38 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> So this hell-hole that was that other newsgroups
> you learned your internet persona in,

I resent this insinuation that I am insincere.

> did it have
> people consistently starting up threads with other
> participants names in the title?

When was the last time you saw me "consistently" do that?
It WAS consistently done in that newsgroup, talk.abortion, and the titles
were usually far more derogatory than the ones I do here. One I blush
to repeat here was by someone whom you might recall,
since he occasionally posted to talk.origins in or near the days when you,
posting under a different moniker [you WERE sincere when you
claimed to have done that, weren't you?]:
Keith "Justified and Ancient" Cochran.

Far more than I do here, but the titles were far worse. One
I blush to repeat here was by someone whom you might recall,
since he occasionally posted to talk.origins in or near the days when you,
posting under a different moniker [you WERE sincere when you
claimed to have done that, weren't you?]:
Keith "Justified and Ancient" Cochran.

> Because I could
> see how that could really have a negative impact.

Nowhere near as negative as the openly dishonest and libelous
attacks that went on. Picture Ron O and jillery multiplied by
ten, and you may have some idea of what it was like.

The libel even spilled sometimes into thread titles.
A "Mother of All Flamewars"
took place in 1993-1994 between two abortion rights fanatics, and
after a while it degenerated into a battle of thread titles,
a hundred or more of them, with allies of each pitching in occasionally,
and neutral people starting thread titles like

"_______________, take the fucking bet!"

"---------, repost the fucking post!"

As you can see, what I do with thread titles is very tame and infrequent
compared to what went on in talk.abortion.

By the way, I kept out of that flamewar and others, viewing them the way
Benjamin viewed the power struggle between Snowball and Napoleon in
_Animal Farm_.

The abortion rights fanatics dominated talk.abortion as much as
the pigs did Animal Farm, and whatever the outcome of flamewars
between them, I knew things would go as they always did -- badly.

Peter Nyikos