Proposition for Peter

[Oxyaena]

Peter, I have a proposition for you that I suggest you hear out. We are
both interested in paleontology, and in all probability we'd be friends
in real life. How about we have a fresh start. A real one. One we both
should plan to stick to, for it impedes in the way of actual
conversation about paleontology and as a person I have nothing against
you, merely how you act. I know you'd disagree with me on that, so let's
consider it a dead issue.

Starting now, I pledge to be far more civil towards you and to let
bygones be bygones. Do you?

[Oxyaena]

I think I should try to make the offer more appealing to try to get you
to agree to it. Peter, I also propose that I will no longer flame and
harass you, that I acknowledge there will occasionally be disagreement
that may turn heated, but I will strive my best to be respectful and
courteous of you in the future.

I don't think you're a bad man, Peter, I never did. Deeply flawed,
perhaps, but who isn't? We're all human. In fact, there are several
things that I admire about you, Peter, and I know you've expressed
similar sentiments toward me in the past.

I promise to write a juicy paleontology post *tomorrow*, since my time
is running short now. I`m looking forward to it.

Respectfully, and sincerely:

Oxyaena

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 10:30:04 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/15/2018 10:17 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> > Peter, I have a proposition for you that I suggest you hear out. We are
> > both interested in paleontology,

But you disdain dinosaurs and the Mesozoic, and only you know
how much else there is that does not interest you. I'm game for
any branch of paleobiology, including paleobotany.

> > and in all probability we'd be friends
> > in real life.

Come off it. With the hundreds, if not thousands of libels that have flown
between us, how could be we friends?

You and I both know a lot about the libels. I don't think even you
would deny the existence of huge numbers.

> > How about we have a fresh start. A real one. One we both
> > should plan to stick to, for it impedes in the way of actual
> > conversation about paleontology and as a person I have nothing against
> > you, merely how you act.

It is the same with me. But you have no publicly speakable idea what sorts
of actions I oppose. OTOH I have talked about them many times.

> > I know you'd disagree with me on that, so let's
> > consider it a dead issue.
> >
> > Starting now, I pledge to be far more civil towards you and to let
> > bygones be bygones.

You seem to have a totally different interpretation of "letting bygones
be bygones" than I do, and I don't think we ever resolved the difference.

> I think I should try to make the offer more appealing to try to get you
> to agree to it.

You have no idea how to make an offer that is appealing to me.
That is because you have put yourself into a mindset which
makes it impossible for you to acknowledge that I often
proceed from altruistic motives, in a very conscientious way.

> Peter, I also propose that I will no longer flame and
> harass you, that I acknowledge there will occasionally be disagreement
> that may turn heated, but I will strive my best to be respectful and
> courteous of you in the future.

The "of you" is where you completely fail to understand me. I want you
to stop making unsupportable derogatory charges of people who may
be misguided but deserve courtesy despite that: Mario, Deden, JTEM,
and other people who might try to join sci.bio.paleontology.

I want to be able to call you out when you accuse them of being trolls,
or being exemplars of Dunning-Kruger, etc. on the basis of laughably
inadequate evidence. And I will not take it kindly if you lambast me
for not doing "my own research" on the charges you make without lifting a
finger to tell me where the hell I am supposed to go searching in huge haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.

I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with difficulty or not at all.
And so, even if newcomers sounds like fools, but seem not to
be deceitful or hypocritical, I give them the benefit of a doubt
that I no longer have where your behavior is concerned.

> I don't think you're a bad man, Peter, I never did.

You give every sign of being an ethical nihilist, so "bad" does
not mean the same to you as it does to me. Remember when Erik
told you to "chill" and I said that if the things you said
about me were true, you jolly well would be justified in having
written everything you did? I proceeded to describe how worked
up he had been about much more minor things, and two alternative
explanations for this anomaly, describing two highly un-objective
systems of "morality" hardly worthy of the name.

None of the troika, {Harshman, Oxyaena, Simpson} has dared to
touch that post with a ten foot pole. I think there is a high
probability that all three of you are pretty close to one of
those descriptions.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 10/16/2018 6:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
>> Peter, I also propose that I will no longer flame and
>> harass you, that I acknowledge there will occasionally be disagreement
>> that may turn heated, but I will strive my best to be respectful and
>> courteous of you in the future.
>
> The "of you" is where you completely fail to understand me. I want you
> to stop making unsupportable derogatory charges of people who may
> be misguided but deserve courtesy despite that: Mario, Deden, JTEM,

You brought that infamous troll here. Stop defending those unworthy of
being defended. You're the worst troll of them all.

> and other people who might try to join sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> I want to be able to call you out when you accuse them of being trolls,
> or being exemplars of Dunning-Kruger, etc. on the basis of laughably
> inadequate evidence.

Bullshit. Tell me how someone who asserts that there are "no examples of
savanna fauna in the New World" *isn't* an example of the Dunning-Kruger
effect, even after being given multiple different examples of such.

> And I will not take it kindly if you lambast me
> for not doing "my own research" on the charges you make without lifting a
> finger to tell me where the hell I am supposed to go searching in huge haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.

It's called "Google".


]

>
>> I don't think you're a bad man, Peter, I never did.
>
> You give every sign of being an ethical nihilist, so "bad" does
> not mean the same to you as it does to me. Remember when Erik
> told you to "chill" and I said that if the things you said
> about me were true, you jolly well would be justified in having
> written everything you did?

Because they *are* true, you projecting pathological liar.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 6:34:03 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 6:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> >
> >> Peter, I also propose that I will no longer flame and
> >> harass you, that I acknowledge there will occasionally be disagreement
> >> that may turn heated, but I will strive my best to be respectful and
> >> courteous of you in the future.
> >
> > The "of you" is where you completely fail to understand me. I want you
> > to stop making unsupportable derogatory charges of people who may
> > be misguided but deserve courtesy despite that: Mario, Deden, JTEM,
>
>
> You brought that infamous troll here.

"infamous troll" is a charge that you AND Harshman
seem incapable of supporting credibly. Harshman even
offered to drop his claim that JTEM is a worse troll
than you, in return for me not pressing my searing indictment of you.

What's more, Harshman is even afraid to support the claim
that HE is not nearly as bad of a troll as YOU. He snipped the challenge
from a post where he falsely accused me of not telling what
game-changing events had occurred to alter the balance between
you and your s.b.p. opponents, and between himself and his s.b.p.
opponents.

All this is nicely documented in my posts to the thread
where the following provides a summary:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/s4GvNGVaSWg/qSbgV01rBwAJ
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3abd4d0a-6f6c-4dbc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Where's Erik?

> Stop defending those unworthy of
> being defended. You're the worst troll of them all.

You persist in using jillery's self-serving definition of "troll":
someone who posts statements very apt to provoke heated opposition.
This value-free definition makes no distinction between valid
and invalid statements. And so you might be able to successfully
defend your claim that I am the worst troll *sensu* jillery of them all.

>
> > and other people who might try to join sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> > I want to be able to call you out when you accuse them of being trolls,
> > or being exemplars of Dunning-Kruger, etc. on the basis of laughably
> > inadequate evidence.
>
> Bullshit. Tell me how someone who asserts that there are "no examples of
> savanna fauna in the New World" *isn't* an example of the Dunning-Kruger
> effect, even after being given multiple different examples of such.

I can't, because I am not a professional psychologist. But I can say
this much: Dunning-Kruger is an indictment of a whole person,
which cannot be established on the basis of one example like the
one you give.

Besides, I've got much better evidence of Harshman behaving like
a victim of mild to moderate Alzheimer's than your one example above
being symptomatic of D-K.

And since Harshman is arrogantly dismissive of my concern for
his welfare, I expect you to be similarly dismissive.

>
> > And I will not take it kindly if you lambast me
> > for not doing "my own research" on the charges you make without lifting a
> > finger to tell me where the hell I am supposed to go searching in huge haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.
>
>
> It's called "Google".

That is the biggest haystack of them all. Try again.

> >
> >> I don't think you're a bad man, Peter, I never did.
> >
> > You give every sign of being an ethical nihilist, so "bad" does
> > not mean the same to you as it does to me. Remember when Erik
> > told you to "chill" and I said that if the things you said
> > about me were true, you jolly well would be justified in having
> > written everything you did?

The reference for that incident appears at the end of this post.

> Because they *are* true, you projecting pathological liar.

So much for your "sincere, respectful" offer: I give you hints
as to how you might modify it to make it attractive to me,
and you revert to being a troll implicitly crying, "Feed me!
Feed me!"

That's all your last sentence really amounts to, and you
know it, but it would ruin your usefulness [1] as a troll
to give up pretending that you've written the truth.

[1]Useful, that is, to Harshman and Simpson here; and to them and to
jillery, Casanova, Mark Isaak, and probably other people in talk.origins.

> > I proceeded to describe how worked
> > up he had been about much more minor things, and two alternative
> > explanations for this anomaly, describing two highly un-objective
> > systems of "morality" hardly worthy of the name.
> >
> > None of the troika, {Harshman, Oxyaena, Simpson} has dared to
> > touch that post with a ten foot pole. I think there is a high
> > probability that all three of you are pretty close to one of
> > those descriptions.

I see you still haven't dared to touch what followed my "...jolly well..."
comment. In contrast to your dependence on waving your hands over
huge haystacks, I provide ample reference for the whole post to you below:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/RNINuDOndSM/65-DxCJ4DwAJ
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 04:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f28e0c13-bad1-458a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pterosaur dietary hypotheses


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

How about this: I accept your terms, and I won't flame you anymore. Deal?

[Peter Nyikos]

What "terms" do you have in mind here? Your offer is a strange one:
"I won't flame you anymore" is UNDERSTOOD in the hints I have given you,
but ALSO understood is: "I won't flame anyone who participates in
sci.bio.paleontology any more."

By "flaming" I mean making derogatory insults instead of charges of
misbehavior that you back up and discuss in a rational manner.
"[snip mindless bullshit]" definitely does not qualify, for instance.

Harshman's claim -- and yours, of course -- that JTEM is a troll
was pure flaming. Not only did Harshman not try to back it up,
he even avoided trying to show that he is less of a troll than JTEM.
He even labeled the challenge that he try to show that as "a stupid challenge."

Are you willing to retract your claim that JTEM is a troll? If not,
are you willing to take on a similar challenge instead of ducking it
-- or worse, insulting it the way Harshman did?


Peter Nyikos

PS Your offer is even stranger when one considers that you aren't
addressing anything below.

[erik simpson]

How can you possibly not see that JTEM is a troll?

[Peter Nyikos]

Because one doesn't "see" such things on the basis of what
I've seen from JTEM so far. The majority of THAT has occurred
here in sci.bio.paleontology in the last couple of weeks,
and Harshman has trolled JTEM a tad more than JTEM has trolled
him during that time.

Since YOU think it is obvious that JTEM is a troll,
how can YOU possibly not think that Harshman is a troll?

He is even trolling ME on the thread, "The Big Splits In Hominidae,"
as I recounted to Oxyaena a few minutes ago:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/GYE2DEWtCAAJ
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <77f7244a-afd2-49b5...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae

I believe my PS to that post applies with "Simpson" in place of "Harshman".
Here is how it went:

PS If I'm wrong about Oxyaena ever reading this, then my next
guess is that this is going to be another one of those posts
that "Harshman doesn't see because he doesn't want to see it."


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

You obviously haven't seen much of JTEM. He's been around quite a while, and
I've never seen anything from him that would make me think otherwise.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 10:58:46 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 7:05:18 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 6:03:53 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 12:34:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:43:55 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > > > On 10/17/2018 11:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 6:34:03 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> > > > > >> Stop defending those unworthy of
> > > > > >> being defended. You're the worst troll of them all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You persist in using jillery's self-serving definition of "troll":
> > > > > > someone who posts statements very apt to provoke heated opposition.
> > > > > > This value-free definition makes no distinction between valid
> > > > > > and invalid statements. And so you might be able to successfully
> > > > > > defend your claim that I am the worst troll *sensu* jillery of them all.

Here is a little loophole for you, Erik: do you use the word "troll"
*sensu* jillery as well?


<huge snip to get to where you came in>

> > > How can you possibly not see that JTEM is a troll?
> >
> > Because one doesn't "see" such things on the basis of what
> > I've seen from JTEM so far. The majority of THAT has occurred
> > here in sci.bio.paleontology in the last couple of weeks,
> > and Harshman has trolled JTEM a tad more than JTEM has trolled
> > him during that time.
> >
> > Since YOU think it is obvious that JTEM is a troll,
> > how can YOU possibly not think that Harshman is a troll?

<crickets>

> > He is even trolling ME on the thread, "The Big Splits In Hominidae,"
> > as I recounted to Oxyaena a few minutes ago:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/GYE2DEWtCAAJ
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <77f7244a-afd2-49b5...@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae
> >
> > I believe my PS to that post applies with "Simpson" in place of "Harshman".
> > Here is how it went:
> >
> > PS If I'm wrong about Oxyaena ever reading this, then my next
> > guess is that this is going to be another one of those posts
> > that "Harshman doesn't see because he doesn't want to see it."
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> You obviously haven't seen much of JTEM.

Since you are addicted to bottom-posting, I direct your attention
to something up there that you probably would miss otherwise:
a chance to clarify what you mean by "troll."

If it is the way jillery uses the word, your charge carries very
little weight because you do not distinguish between honest,
sincere statements that nevertheless provoke angry responses,
and dishonest/hypocritical/insincere statements that are
almost certain to provoke rebuttals in people with at
least a rudimentary sense of morality and fair play.

> He's been around quite a while, and
> I've never seen anything from him that would make me think otherwise.

On the other hand, you seem unable to point me to any examples
of JTEM obviously behaving like a troll. The one thing I've
seen elsewhere that suggests it is his rather idiosyncratic suspicion
that our John Harshman is not the John Harshman who has a number
of peer-reviewed publications, mostly in the systematics of
ornithology, to his credit.

But if you peruse the following long post, you will see that
Harshman is repeatedly avoiding a question that might at least show
that there is some method to JTEM's "madness".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/i7g8TrVtK6c/HdxCWJcLCQAJ
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c7cf56c9-e6dc-48a1...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Molecular paleontology: Dickinsonia is an animal

Harshman grew so incensed by my harping on the question that he
snipped everything in reply and charged me with a wholesale violation
of what HE calls a "gentleman's agreement", but has yet to explain
just why he claimed I was in violation.

He also has yet to say anything about his understanding of what
this agreement consisted of. And that is significant, for the
following reason. A while back, you "made the stupid mistake" of claiming
that one condition was that we would lay aside grievances that
cropped up in sci.bio.paleontology,
whereas the agreement specified talk.origins instead.


It's "just a coincidence" that this "stupid mistake" was very
much self-serving, and you played it to the hilt.


Peter Nyikos