On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > >
> > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > >
> > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
> > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > >
> > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > >
> > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> >
> > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > said this time around, not about the OP:
I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
> > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > [end of copy]
You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.
> > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> >
> > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > >
> > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > >
> > > > > No trolling intended.
What is your definition of trolling, Erik?
Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
when called out on it.
I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
> > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> > > > More flamebait.
I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."
And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:
> > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
> > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> >
> > [repeated from above]
> > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > >
> > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > [end of copy]
> >
> > The text to which I was referring is this
> >
> > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
<crickets>
> > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
That's another form of trolling.
> > See also below.
> > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > stick to paleo, good.
You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.
> > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> >
> > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > [end of copy]
> >
> > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > trolling this time around.
Here came the invitation:
> > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> Let me be perfectly clear:
You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
> I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> who is saying what to whom.
Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]
> The repeated material above is a case in point.
I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
>The following is not an insult:
True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
>the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].
Peter Nyikos