<crickets>
> >>>>>>> There are precedents. A while back, there was a talk.origins regular
> >>>>>>> who called himself Steady Eddie. Then he disappeared, but seemingly
> >>>>>>> returned a few years later. The impostor gave himself away by using
> >>>>>>> foul language that Eddie wouldn't have dreamed of using.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have no such suspicions about Pandora. I think she was just humoring your first remark.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, she has a sense of humor, which you unfortunately lack.
> >>>>> You have never tried to explain that perennial canard of yours.
> >>>>> You certainly haven't shown any support for it here; quite the contrary.
> >>>
> >>> Your response blithely ignores that last line.
> >>>
> >>>> You've got to be kidding.
> >>>
> >>> No, I am not. The only "support" I have ever seen is endless repetition
> >>> of the canard, with no attempt to explain why what I write fits it.
> >>> Harshman even excused himself from an explanation in his own reply,
> >>> and lied that everyone knows it.
> >
> > You do not deny having lied in that way; a prudent course of action,
> > since you haven't got a leg to stand on. However, you cast
> > prudence to the winds below.
> Sorry. I deny having lied that way. Shouldn't have to tell you.
Are you really as deluded as that last sentence indicates?
In the first place, you are a known liar. I caught you earlier this year lying about me,
documented here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27 PM
You never replied to that, and I documented it again here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/1KVDt92EAwAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
May 3, 2023, 10:00:10 PM
At the end of the latter post, I responded to some silliness by you as follows:
___________________________________________ repost ___________________________
> And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
> resulting from this irrelevant seed.
What nonsense! You never replied to the post I linked at the beginning.
I expect the same to happen to this post.
================================= end of repost
Of course, my "expectation" came true, with not just the first post linked above
entering into the expectation, but with dozens of other such posts over the years,
where the evidence of your dishonesty was just too strong.
In the second place, you must have heard of the saying,
"De gustibus non est disputandum," ("there is no disputing about taste")
and yet, above, you have avoided giving any excuse for flouting this saying.
Third, your "everyone" is a lie. I doubt that you can name three talk.origins regulars
besides you and your perennial sidekick erik who publicly claim that I lack a sense of humor.
I can name at least one who saw a longish satire I did in talk.origins, and said publicly
that it showed that claims about me lacking a sense of humor are false.
I could go on, but I think it is more important to point out that I am NOT
disputing the claim that I have no sense of humor. What I AM disputing
is your sincerity and integrity in saying "Shouldn't have to tell you."
> > You are guilty below of a dirty debating tactic which I call The One Shade of Gray Meltdown.
> >
> > This consists of seizing on one or two things two disparate things have in common,
> > and pretending there is little or no difference between them.
> >
> >> So this is your way of avoiding becoming embroiled in interpersonal
> >> conflicts?
> >
> > I gave that advice to John Kerr-Mudd, a newcomer to both talk.origins
> > and sci.bio.paleontology. It is an excellent policy for anyone who
> > hasn't had many months of observation in talk.origins as to who is guilty
> > of dishonest behavior in interpersonal conflicts, and who is
> > honest and sincere, even in the midst of these conflicts.
I, on the other hand, have had a total of almost two decades
of interaction in talk.abortion, alt.abortion, talk.origins, and
sci.bio.paleontology (often simultaneously) with people who
indulge regularly in dirty debating tactics, and so I am well
equipped to deal with them. John Kerr-Mudd may be well
equipped in other forums, but he needs to be able to have some
idea of where people are coming from before wading in.
> > I neglected to mention that the same
> > advice applies to newcomers here.
> >
> > The reason is that you and erik simpson destroyed an agreement
> > we had between us back in mid-2015 to treat sci.bio.paleontology
> > like an embassy where we lay aside our personal grievances
> > [understood: the ones raging in talk.origins at the time]
> > and treat each other like the best of ambassadors.
> >
> > The agreement lasted until early 2018, when erik refused
> > to apologize for a serious breach he had made in that
> > agreement right about when I went on a long posting break
> > in December 2017. Not only that, but he then gave a totally
> > different standard for his own behavior, and you backed him
> > all the way.
> >
> > An accomplice of his who disappeared about a year and a half ago also backed him,
> > then helped him to continue in his dishonest, hypocritical ways.
> > When his accomplice crossed over a particularly sacrosanct line,
> > I boycotted their posts for the rest of 2019.
> >
> > You, Harshman, raised a big stink about me doing that,
> > but I held firm, for several good reasons.
> Perhaps, in the interest of restoring on-topic posting,
What hypocrisy! I've started two thoroughly
on-topic threads in just these past two weeks.
I don't think I have EVER seen you start an on-topic
thread in sci.bio.paleontology; certainly not in the last 7 years.
> you should stop
> making long posts about your personal grievances.
Dishonest misrepresentation. My main message above
was that the very existence of dishonesty and hypocrisy
in sci.bio.paleontology is the responsibility of yourself and erik,
and that third un-named former copious participant.
But then, I suppose you see nothing wrong with dishonesty
and hypocrisy when you and erik indulge in it.
Peter Nyikos