Harshman is reduced to outright lies below, and you, Glenn, are right on the money at the end.
Harshman can be expected to shove the evidence I talk about below down his memory hole,
and Erik [1] to follow suit. And so, I want you, Glenn, to bear witness to it and refer to it if the occasion calls for it.
[1] and Hemidactylus, who has jumped into a thread he knows next to nothing about.
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 5:09:14 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 12:34:32 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/5/22 11:46 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 6:27:36 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 8/2/22 11:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> "troll" is not a very useful word because people seldom bother to
> > >>> say what it means to them.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've found "polemical opportunist" to better describe what Harshman does,
> > >>> because it has a narrower range of meanings. It denotes someone who
> > >>> frequently says things because they sound clever or convincing but
> > >>> don't care if they are true, false, or of unknown veracity.
Harshman immediately gave a strong demonstration of polemical opportunism:
> > >> You have no evidence that I've ever done any such thing,
> > >
> > > I have plenty of evidence, John, going back over more than a decade.
> > > Let's start with one case that occurred less than a month ago, on this very thread:
> > >
> > > "Either you are wrong about this or mammal paleontologists who have done the work are all incompetent."
> > > --
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/58Cewad9BQAJ
> > > Jul 7, 2022, 10:11:54 PM
> > >
> > > You obviously did not care whether there were any other possibilities,
> > > yet anyone who is competent at thinking scientifically and has one-tenth
> > > of our knowledge could have come up with at least two of them, as I did immediately.
> > > And you had to ackowledge that they were valid alternatives to your false dichotomy.
The closing line is absolutely true, while the preceding three lines are true beyond a reasonable doubt,
and Harshman is powerless to argue otherwise.
> > > And it certainly looks like a case of polemical opportunism: the evidence powerfully suggests that
> > > you purposely chose a highly insulting false dichotomy for its "cleverness"
> > > and didn't give a hoot about coming across as a competent scientist.
Harshman, having painted himself into a corner, just plain lied with:
> > This is all purely in your imagination.
Wait, it gets worse below:
> > >> and in fact I deny ever having done so.
> > >
> > > You are in denial, in the psychologically negative sense of the term.
> > > It continued in subsequent back-and-forth, and your last post in
> > > that sequence was a masterpiece of polemical opportunism.
> > >
> > > I haven't replied to that post yet, but if you keep on being in denial,
> > > I can go through it with a fine toothed comb.
> > Please don't. It will all be your imagined characterization of purely
> > innocent statements.
Even Iago, in Shakespeare's "Othello," wasn't so brazenly self-righteous and insincere.
More about this below, when I address what you wrote at the end.
> >
> > How about paleontology?
The ENTIRE issue about which Harshman told his false dichotomy was
pure paleontology. I gave scientific evidence which he has adamantly avoided
looking at, and has indulged in pure polemic about it.
All of which reinforces my immediate reaction to that false dichotomy:
"If these are the only alternatives you could think of, then you must be suffering from
a long lack of meaningful discussions with research biologists *qua* research biologists."
Harshman has aggressively responded to that conclusion, but hasn't dared to address the conditional clause,
"If these are the only alternatives you could think of," let alone confirm or deny it.
<snip for focus>
> > >>> For instance, Harshman attaches one meaning to the word "insult"
> > >>> when accusing others of it, and another when he is accused of it.
> > >
> > >> This is all from your fertile imagination.
> > >
> > > This formulaic taunt is devoid of reality in this context.
> > I'm afraid you aren't in a position to judge, living within your fertile
> > imagination as you do.
Harshman is bordering on libel with his closing clause. And "I'm afraid you aren't" is his standard
code for "I'd love it if people thought you weren't."
> > > When I give evidence of you behaving in a irresponsible way,
> > > you very frequently label it an "insult" without trying to refute what I wrote.
> > >
> > > In contrast, when you make insulting comments about me, without any evidence, like the one
> > > you have uttered just now, you sometimes retort, "that wasn't an insult, it was an observation."
> > >
> > > Your behavior was even more blatantly hypocritical and irresponsible on the thread
> > > . . Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
> > > This was where you wrote such highly insulting things about Glenn as:
> > >
> > > "most of his posts seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots,"
> > > . . --
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/XtrSILUmAQAJ
> > > . . Jul 5, 2022, 9:05:48 AM
> > Are those insulting?
Harshman knows HE was insulting, and without credible evidence for his allegation
about you "seeming" to be this way, Glenn.
He is here grasping at straws in trying to divert attention from that fact.
> > Do you disagree? What do you think is the intention
> > behind most of his posts?
> I learned a long time ago that the only person that I would fool is myself.
> You take such things as I say as an insult, yet I am serious. You don't appear to have learned such lessons, and appear not to have grown up. Perhaps, probably, I am too eager at times to consider the reasons, but even then I do confront myself before the first word comes out of my mouth.
Like you, Glenn, I've learned to wait a LONG time before coming to the kind of conclusions
about people that Harshman is all too eager to make about you and me, often without
having a leg to stand on. I waited until late in 2018 to come to an opinion about him that is
close to the one I have now, after almost 8 years of hoping that he will get better.
I gave him every possible benefit of the doubt up to that point, but I finally realized that I was being played for a sucker.
>I don't get defensive, although many seem to be convinced that I do. Invoking "most of my posts" isn't really a wise thing to do, unproductive.
And he has not come up with ONE post as described, never mind "most". Not even after I suggested
he turn to the many people in talk.origins who are as down in the mouth about you as he is.
> The specific instance Peter cites should be the subject of your question. Yet instead of addressing that, you ask leading questions, add some innuendo, and deflect from responding directly to Peter. He is right on the money about insults. I recall times when you have argued that your insults were not insults, or not ad hominem, because they were true.
Were they? Harshman has a dismal track record where that kind of comeback to me is concerned.
> It appears you do not or will not consider others may sincerely feel the same way. If so, why not?
I doubt that Harshman will respond to this, but I will show you on Monday just how right you
are about him.
On Monday, I will reply in detail to the post about which Harshman brazenly lied above with:
"It will all be your imagined characterization of purely innocent statements."
None of it will be imagined; everything will be irrefutable, in a post that you can
remind Harshman about each time he gets too domineering and insulting.
It will also be useful against allies such as Hemidactylus and Simpson when
they play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about Harshman.
Peter Nyikos