Beagle down again

[jillery]

No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
2.

In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
reported that mailbox was full.

The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
vet.

On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
> 2.
>
> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
> reported that mailbox was full.
>
> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
> vet.

It's almost unheard of in my university for mail servers to go down
for more than a day, yet here it is about 23 hours after Beagle went down
in an enormously prestigious university, U. of Toronto.

> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.

We wouldn't have these communication troubles if DIG were to heed my perennial advice
to post to SBP to notify us when we can expect Beagle to be back up
(unless he doesn't know, in which case he shouldn't be afraid to break the bad news to us).
Then if that expectation is not fulfilled, he could send us periodic updates here.

If DIG still has access to gmail, which should be distinct from his university server,
he could post to SBP using Google Groups, even if he is as adverse to that posting
resource as you are. It would set a lot of minds at ease.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
>> 2.
>>
>> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
>> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
>> reported that mailbox was full.
>>
>> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
>> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
>> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
>> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
>> vet.
>
>It's almost unheard of in my university for mail servers to go down
>for more than a day, yet here it is about 23 hours after Beagle went down
>in an enormously prestigious university, U. of Toronto.

False equivalence. Your university almost certainly doesn't support a
moderated Usenet froup which requires the use of an email server
specifically for that purpose.

>> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
>> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
>> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
>> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.
>
>We wouldn't have these communication troubles if DIG were to heed my perennial advice
>to post to SBP to notify us when we can expect Beagle to be back up
>(unless he doesn't know, in which case he shouldn't be afraid to break the bad news to us).
>Then if that expectation is not fulfilled, he could send us periodic updates here.

Incorrect. The initiating events are whatever causes Beagle to become
comatose. A later step is to notify a person of that initiating
event. Another step is for a person to identify and diagnose that
initiating event. The final step is to restore Beagle back to working
condition. What you describe above is at most the penultimate step
and in any case is of low priority to all others.

>If DIG still has access to gmail, which should be distinct from his university server,
>he could post to SBP using Google Groups, even if he is as adverse to that posting
>resource as you are. It would set a lot of minds at ease.

Access to gmail doesn't help when its inbox is overflowing.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
>> 2.
>>
>> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
>> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
>> reported that mailbox was full.
>>
>> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
>> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
>> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
>> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
>> vet.
>
>It's almost unheard of in my university for mail servers to go down
>for more than a day, yet here it is about 23 hours after Beagle went down
>in an enormously prestigious university, U. of Toronto.

IMBW but as I understand it, Beagle is a voluntary activity by DIG and
has no official role in the U. of Toronto.

>
>
>> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
>> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
>> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
>> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.
>
>We wouldn't have these communication troubles if DIG were to heed my perennial advice
>to post to SBP to notify us when we can expect Beagle to be back up
>(unless he doesn't know, in which case he shouldn't be afraid to break the bad news to us).
>Then if that expectation is not fulfilled, he could send us periodic updates here.

If you are that unhappy with the service, I suggest you ask for your
money back - I'm sure they will be happy to give you a full refund.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
> >> 2.
> >>
> >> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
> >> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
> >> reported that mailbox was full.
> >>
> >> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
> >> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
> >> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
> >> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
> >> vet.
> >
> >It's almost unheard of in my university for mail servers to go down
> >for more than a day, yet here it is about 23 hours after Beagle went down
> >in an enormously prestigious university, U. of Toronto.

> IMBW but as I understand it, Beagle is a voluntary activity by DIG and
> has no official role in the U. of Toronto.

Most of my use of university email is "voluntary" in that it does
a lousy job of discriminating between spam and "official" email,
including intra-departmental email, which it often sends to the
"Deleted items" folder -- never notifying me of that, of course.

Anyway, if you are correct about the use of a different server for
Beagle and personal email, we are then left in the dark as to what
he is using for personal email.

> >
> >> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
> >> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
> >> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
> >> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.
> >
> >We wouldn't have these communication troubles if DIG were to heed my perennial advice
> >to post to SBP to notify us when we can expect Beagle to be back up
> >(unless he doesn't know, in which case he shouldn't be afraid to break the bad news to us).
> >Then if that expectation is not fulfilled, he could send us periodic updates here.

> If you are that unhappy with the service, I suggest you ask for your
> money back - I'm sure they will be happy to give you a full refund.

Looks like you aren't using Google Groups, but are instead
using a server for which you pay a fee.

With the original Google Groups, and the original New Google Groups,
I was able to find such things out by accessing beaucoup d' headers,
but with what I call "Newest Google Groups" this headers service has been eliminated.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Facts: David lives and works in Europe. Talk origins is not moderated by any computers
present at U Toronto anymore. For a few years now, the computer running the servers has
been an Amazon Web Services client (or equivalent). I don't know the full specifics but
that's how virtualization works, the hardware becomes interchangeable. Continued references
to the U Toronto or the Professor who used to loan space and an internet connection for the
talk.origins moderator to run the service is outdated. That former Professor is also retired
and no longer controls the space where the computer used to be.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:46:02 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
> >> 2.
> >>
> >> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
> >> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
> >> reported that mailbox was full.
> >>
> >> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
> >> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
> >> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
> >> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
> >> vet.
> >
> >It's almost unheard of in my university for mail servers to go down
> >for more than a day, yet here it is about 23 hours after Beagle went down
> >in an enormously prestigious university, U. of Toronto.

> False equivalence. Your university almost certainly doesn't support a
> moderated Usenet froup which requires the use of an email server
> specifically for that purpose.

Not clear what you mean by this. Moderated newsgroups do not require
anything special in the way of email servers. I posted to the moderated
newsgroup sci.bio.evolution (now defunct) for years with ordinary email address.

BTW talk.origins is not moderated in the usual sense
(which generally involves long wait times for your post to show up).

> >> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
> >> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
> >> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
> >> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.
> >
> >We wouldn't have these communication troubles if DIG were to heed my perennial advice
> >to post to SBP to notify us when we can expect Beagle to be back up

Call the above Plan A. Now comes Plan B:

> >(unless he doesn't know, in which case he shouldn't be afraid to break the bad news to us).
> >Then if that expectation is not fulfilled, he could send us periodic updates here.

> Incorrect. The initiating events are whatever causes Beagle to become
> comatose. A later step is to notify a person of that initiating
> event. Another step is for a person to identify and diagnose that
> initiating event.

If these steps (Plan A) take longer than 12 hours, DIG could still use Plan B,
which I still think is worth the trouble.

> The final step is to restore Beagle back to working
> condition. What you describe above is at most the penultimate step
> and in any case is of low priority to all others.

"low priority" suggests that it might be futile to try to reach DIG, but
do keep trying if you think of other ways, please.

Have you tried his colleague Larry Moran, the Sandwalk man,
to see whether he could personally ask DIG about it?

> >If DIG still has access to gmail, which should be distinct from his university server,
> >he could post to SBP using Google Groups, even if he is as adverse to that posting
> >resource as you are. It would set a lot of minds at ease.


> Access to gmail doesn't help when its inbox is overflowing.

One does not need gmail to access Google Groups; it's only that it streamlines the process.
I accessed GG for ca. a full decade with non-Google email addresses.


Peter Nyikos

PS the downtime is now ca. 27 hours old, and I expect some more t.o. regulars to trickle into s.b.p.,
which I call "talk.origins in exile" whenever Beagle is down (and before it, Darwin).

[Peter Nyikos]

Too bad I didn't see this before I did my last post (seconds before this one came in).

> For a few years now, the computer running the servers has
> been an Amazon Web Services client (or equivalent). I don't know the full specifics but
> that's how virtualization works, the hardware becomes interchangeable. Continued references
> to the U Toronto or the Professor who used to loan space and an internet connection for the
> talk.origins moderator to run the service is outdated.

I take it you are referring to Larry Moran, the Sandwalk man. Do you happen to know whether he is
still at U. Toronto (not that this matters, under the circumstances)?

>That former Professor is also retired
> and no longer controls the space where the computer used to be.

He should have some privileges as Professor Emeritus, but I don't
know how far those reach.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

He’s busy with a book and battling the dark forces of ENCODE. Being
retired, checking into whether talk.origins is operational is probably very
low on the list of his concerns.

I dunno if DIG has a trigger that tells him Beagle is tits up. Apparently
not. The active engagement I see is when he’s checking if BSD updates
borked the system.

Guess this adds more suspense to Chez Watt results.

[Peter Nyikos]

In addition to Wikipedia? or in place of it?

I'm referring to the t.o. thread,
Re: Larry and Wikipedia go at it again
while people were still on topic there.

> Being retired, checking into whether talk.origins is operational is probably very
> low on the list of his concerns.
>
> I dunno if DIG has a trigger that tells him Beagle is tits up. Apparently
> not. The active engagement I see is when he’s checking if BSD updates
> borked the system.

IOW, there's no telling how much longer s.b.p. will double as
"talk.origins in exile." Since I said more regulars from s.b.p.
can be expected to trickle in, you showed up.


And now, you've started us on one of the "exiled" topics:

> Guess this adds more suspense to Chez Watt results.

It does. I only got around to looking at the voting thread after Beagle went down,
and the people who had posted on the voting thread hadn't bothered to vote before it went down.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 07:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

What on earth has that to do with Beagle?

[Peter Nyikos]

It has about as much to do with it as your comment to which
it is a response.

Anyway, you might as well settle down to participating in
"talk.origins in exile," like Hemi and I did on the topic of Chez Watt.

> >With the original Google Groups, and the original New Google Groups,
> >I was able to find such things out by accessing beaucoup d' headers,
> >but with what I call "Newest Google Groups" this headers service has been eliminated.

By "such things" I meant such things as header lines telling us that the posting host
was "eternal September," etc. as well as message-IDs.

By denying us access to message-IDs, "Newest Google Groups" is putting us at the
mercy of what Wikipedia calls "url rot". When Google took over Deja News to turn it into
"Old Google Groups," untold myriads of urls instantly became obsolete.
But even that is dwarfed by what happened to all the old Netscape urls.

Sic transit gloria mundi.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

I'm posting this is hopes of shutting this thread down because it doesn't belong here, certainly
not the meta discussions and ill-informed speculations.

talk.origins is a robo moderated newsgroup that uses a number of programs to receive, process,
and relay usenet posts, discarding some posts that fail moderation criteria. In ancient times, it
mattered that the software was resident on a particular physical computer so its specific
internet connection and the hardware it ran on mattered. That was then, this is now. Now, the
software that performs the moderation runs through an Amazon Web Services client. At least
in concept, this is a virtualized implementation. That makes it hardware independent in the sense
that these programs run within a hosting program that is in most respects like their operating
system. The same physical computing device can run multiple virtual computers. Any of the
virtual computers can be moved to a different physical computer. If physical computing hardware
fails, babysitting software generally detects the fault and simply moves the virtual computer to
different hardware. In some cases, the same virtual computer can span multiple physical computers
(not important to talk.origins which has very light duty).

I may misstate some details here but the software works like this. There is an email server component.
This is a piece of software that receives emails addressed to it. A simple email server will typically
process an incoming mail message, format it and save it in a database (perhaps on the same
hardware but in a modern world often a different virtual implementation that very likely is running
on separate hardware which saves it on network storage). Email servers are also capable of
recognizing special types of incoming email and routing them for additional processing. For example,
the talk.origins server is parameterized to recognize that an incoming message has the formatting
of a usenet post to talk.origins and has further parameters to send it to another program for processing.
I believe there is a standard bit of unix software in use as that called innd (not sure of name). That software
in turn has parameterization that can invoke yet another piece of software to process the message.
For talk.origins, that yet another bit of code is the robomod software. It adds the equivalent of a verification
stamp that says the post has been approved by the moderator then sends it back out to usenet servers
for subsequent propagation as happens with non-moderated newsgroups.

The sequence is roughly client software takes user generated post, sends it to usenet server. Usenet
server checks to see if post is to moderated newsgroup, if yes (and not "approved" yet), routes post to
moderator's email. talk.origins email server gets message, processes header and passes on to next
processing code, that code invokes robomod script and for good submissions adds approval header,
sends back to usenet server, usenet server propagates message. Along this path, other aspects of the
internet are working to translate routing parameters to various physical locations using the protocols
of the internet. These protocols are capable of dynamically adjusting the mapping of named entities,
like beagle.org to the physical or virtual location of that "computer".

talk.origins moved to an Amazon Web Services computing solution back in 2017 for multiple reasons.
One is that the administrator of the hardware had moved on so wasn't around to fix simple things
in a timely manner, for example, the old physical server Darwin once had the physical internet cable
come unattached when a cleaning crew came through to do something like clean the blinds. It took
about a week for the admin/moderator to get access to the locked room where the box was housed
(and given free internet access). Further, that location was being lost due to an impending retirement.
And more reasons like the fact that virtualized services are simply the right way to go and should
require the least maintenance, something to consider when it's all voluntary service. There is a cost
of renting the AWS client and paying for the domain name but there was an early benefactor who
agreed to cover the modest expense. I think the moderator picks it up these days.

I'm sure I've scrambled a detail or two as the last time I ran a mail server doing something similar
(send in a pair of sequences with the subject "Align" and it would run alignment software on
properly formatted sequences in the message body and then send back the result as a return message)
I was saying the last time I did that was in 1989. I've helped others virtualize things for bioinformatic
needs ten years ago but wasn't as hands on.

The fix to getting talk.origins up again will likely be simple once the moderator knows it needs to
be done and has time to log in and restart things. Of course weirdness can occur if some admin
blocks beagle from sending or receiving mail because of some confusion, or some automatic
software update overwrites a parameter that needs to be custom set. But the main issue is that
the moderator works for free in his spare time and he has a job and a life that takes precedent,
or at least should.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> talk.origins moved to an Amazon Web Services computing solution back in
> 2017 for multiple reasons.
> One is that the administrator of the hardware had moved on so wasn't
> around to fix simple things
> in a timely manner, for example, the old physical server Darwin once had
> the physical internet cable
> come unattached when a cleaning crew came through to do something like
> clean the blinds. It took
> about a week for the admin/moderator to get access to the locked room
> where the box was housed
> (and given free internet access). Further, that location was being lost
> due to an impending retirement.
>

There goes my theory that Larry had “inadvertently” kicked out the power
plug of the UPS from the wall socket. Or dropped a stapler on the UPS power
button. Stuff Waldorf might have done from the balcony seats when Fozzie
was on stage.

Do you happen to know how close his pending book _What’s In Your Genome_ is
to publication? Asking for a friend.

[erik simpson]

DIG is aware of the problem. SBP doesn't need TOs infamous collection of nutters and trolls. For that matter,
neither does TO need them, but there they are. Unfortunately, both groups are nearly dead in any
event.

[jillery]

Thank you for the very comprehensive review of the relevant historical
and technical issues.

WRT to this thread being off-topic and not belonging in SBP, that is
technically correct. However, for the technical reasons described in
the OP, and because both froups have many users in common, SBP became
a defacto back channel to reach DIG when Beagle suffers comas, as
happens semi-regularly. A single OP is sufficient for that purpose.
Considering its urgency, its off-topic nature reasonably can be
tolerated by even the most curmudgeonly nitpickers. "meta"
discussions inspired by the OP are incidental effects having little to
do with its purpose.

[*Hemidactylus*]

[looks around]

Our presence does much to improve the place.

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I dunno if DIG has a trigger that tells him Beagle is tits up. Apparently
> not. The active engagement I see is when he’s checking if BSD updates
> borked the system.
>

Looks like DIG is working on things to get t.o. back in gear.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>DIG is aware of the problem. SBP doesn't need TOs infamous collection of nutters and trolls. For that matter,
>neither does TO need them, but there they are. Unfortunately, both groups are nearly dead in any
>event.

So you have a direct connect to DIG. I understand why you don't share
it, but that you or someone like you does affirms my reasons for
posting my OP to SBP.

DIG posted a couple of non-English texts to T.O. However, whatever he
did to do so has not made T.O. work for mere mortals. I ask you to
inform him of that fact.

[erik simpson]

It's not for me to publish anyone else's information. I'm sure he's aware of the fact that
it's still down. As the good Lawyer has pointed out, things have changed greatly over the
years when someone could trip over the power cord and bring down a server. Mostly, the result
is more reliable systems overall, at the expense of much greater interconnectivity, with lots of
possible failure points. Security issues have also multiplied, although I can't see what implications
that has for archaic gab groups. I'll bet it's back up sooner rather than later. If DIG gets fed up, who
knows?

[*Hemidactylus*]

He perhaps applied a BSD update that’s causing headaches? I’m assuming part
of this is hardware he controls, hence the BSD patching in kernel and
userland. But part of it is clouded off in Amazon’s farmlands somewhere? Or
is the BSD OS installed in a virtual machine hosted on AWS? So DIG has no
hardware aside from maybe a laptop used to administrate BSD running inside
ersatz “hardware” on whatever AWS is based upon?

[erik simpson]

Update: DIG's last post says "Maybe next week" in Danish, according to Google. Happy weekend!

[erik simpson]

Who knows? Maybe this whole NG is just you talking to an elaborate bot. There actually isn''t
any DIG and this is all a hoax. Even you might be part of the show. Come to think of it, some
of the participants here are pretty unbelievable. Fake news, fake newsgroups, fake politics, etc.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On the separate Larry’s book issue I found this:
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Your-Genome-99-Junk/dp/148750859X/
…which is promising but not very informative as to prospective date.

This adds more detail:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/whats-in-your-genome-laurence-a-moran/1142545848#

May 16? Hopefully it comes in an ebook.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The bot glitched with The Berenstain Bears, so I’m on to its games.

[erik simpson]

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

[Peter Nyikos]

So far, no one YOU consider to be a nutter or a troll is posting to s.b.p. except those who were
already here before Beagle went down. You were perfectly OK with people
coming here from t.o. with the robo-moderator being down until Glenn showed up
during the last downtime, and he is no more of a troll than you are.

> For that matter,
> neither does TO need them, but there they are. Unfortunately, both groups are nearly dead in any
> event.

You aren't making matters any better. When I began the thread on pterosaur origins, you
did a one-liner in reply:

"Very good! Posts like this are most welcome."

You haven't posted there since then.

Daud Deden and I have continued the thread, but if you consider him to be a nutter, I can see
why you aren't participating.

However, no such excuse exists for you ignoring the thread where John Harshman and I have been
conversing for most of this month about ancient birds. John is your best friend in both t.o. and s.b.p.,
isn't he? Since Oxyaena disappeared, there seems to be no competition for that distinction here
(nor, AFAIK, in talk.origins).

In the interests of fairness, I should add that you DID give a nice update two days ago
on the "Possible fossil?" thread when I asked you how things were going after the
thread had been dormant since mid-September. But that was a thread in which you
began with an OP about something you'd found and were seeking to find out
what kind of thing it was. And the thread had stuck to that topic all the way.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Looks like both you and erik missed the post to which I replied as follows:

________________________

Re: Patch check

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:
> Kernel and userland patches done.
>
> --D.
Still no other posts besides yours show up here since Nov. 2.

Peter Nyikos

========================================

It looks like English. Does anyone reading this disagree?

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Kernel is deep operating system stuff. Userland is more superficial:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_space_and_kernel_space

On that mapping various “daemons” are within userspace. DIG might be
exercising some daemons in how Beagle and the rest of t.o. operates when we
send posts.

DIG in some capacity is using a form of Unix called FreeBSD which has some
differences from Linux, which you might be more familiar with as a desktop
implementation. DIG is using this BSD variant to run a server. Linux can
run servers too.

Patches might mean updates to the operating system that have recently been
released. If you do this on your desktop it is usually straight forward and
easy through a graphical interface. DIG might be using a console or
remoting in with arcane command line stuff and needing to navigate around
the file system to make changes and check for breakages. Doesn’t sound fun.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Empathy check:
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/cutting-edge/

[erik simpson]

DIG introduced two threads. The second in in Danish (except for Daggett's response). Do you disagree?

[*Hemidactylus*]

More germane the headers reveal he posts using slrn on FreeBSD
corroborating much of what I’ve written. For Peter’s edification slrn is a
newsreader that doesn’t use a graphical user interface. Definitely not
Google Groups level stuff there.

[erik simpson]

Peter thinks computers are the work (or may do the work) of the devil. Cladistics
and other dark deeds are done with them. BTW, DIg's "maybe next week" is actually
a reply to Daggett's suggestion that they go viking. So maybe TO will just have to wait.

[erik simpson]

I don't consider Daud a nutter, but someone with a very robust imagination.

I don't feel obligated to participate in every conversation, so I don't need any "excuses"
to withhold my counsel. I don't find anything particularly exciting about the pterosaur
thread.

As for your exchanges with Harshman, they have a sense of deja vu about them.
As my knowledge of phylogentic trees is pretty basic, I have little to contribute. I recommend
"Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" (David A. Baum and Stacey D. Smith).
Many of your many objections would be seen as reflecting basic misunderstandings that could
be cleared up by reading it. A review in Systematic Biology describes its intent and scope:

https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/62/4/634/1615731

[jillery]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 16:02:41 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson

<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:44:21 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
>> > <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >DIG is aware of the problem. SBP doesn't need TOs infamous collection of nutters and trolls. For that matter,
>> > >neither does TO need them, but there they are. Unfortunately, both groups are nearly dead in any
>> > >event.
>> > So you have a direct connect to DIG. I understand why you don't share
>> > it, but that you or someone like you does affirms my reasons for
>> > posting my OP to SBP.
>> >
>> > DIG posted a couple of non-English texts to T.O. However, whatever he
>> > did to do so has not made T.O. work for mere mortals. I ask you to
>> > inform him of that fact.
>> It's not for me to publish anyone else's information.

Nor did I suggest you should or would.

>I'm sure he's aware of the fact that it's still down.

If you have a direct connect to DIG, then you should know. Despite
the fact that he's a Usenet god, blessed be his name, history has
shown he isn't infallible. As the good Lawyer has pointed out, DIG
has a life beyond T.O., and it's no criticism of him to recognize and
accept that real life tends to distract.

>>As the good Lawyer has pointed out, things have changed greatly over the
>> years when someone could trip over the power cord and bring down a server. Mostly, the result
>> is more reliable systems overall, at the expense of much greater interconnectivity, with lots of
>> possible failure points. Security issues have also multiplied, although I can't see what implications
>> that has for archaic gab groups. I'll bet it's back up sooner rather than later. If DIG gets fed up, who
>> knows?
>
>Update: DIG's last post says "Maybe next week" in Danish, according to Google. Happy weekend!

All the better to refine my devastating retorts.

[jillery]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:28:51 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
>2.
>
>In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
>notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
>reported that mailbox was full.
>
>The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
>the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
>If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
>be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
>vet.
>

>On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
>another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
>somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
>if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.

Beagle is back up and running, thank DIG.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
...

> The fix to getting talk.origins up again will likely be simple once the moderator knows it needs to
> be done and has time to log in and restart things. Of course weirdness can occur if some admin
> blocks beagle from sending or receiving mail because of some confusion, or some automatic
> software update overwrites a parameter that needs to be custom set. But the main issue is that
> the moderator works for free in his spare time and he has a job and a life that takes precedent,
> or at least should.

I comment on my own witty perspicacity in anticipating the sort of error that occurred. It was a block
on sending/receiving mail because of an update in a global list of spam sites, so I was, shall we
say, half right. I thus proudly accept the title of Half Wit and retire from this group.

[erik simpson]

Half a wit is better than none.

[Glenn]

Which half is better?

[jillery]

Some Creationists might ask "What good is half a wit?

[Peter Nyikos]

At first I thought you were imitating Hemidactylus ("Our presence does much to improve the place")
or jillery ("...my devastating retorts"), but you wound up being more modest than them.

To give credit where credit is due, the rest of us were stumbling blindly in the dark,
while, as they say,

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But don't let it go to your head. You are king of the t.o. exiles concerned about when
and how Beagle would be back. That's a subset of all the t.o.exiles, and the others were off
in their own virtual land.


Back to the rough and tumble,


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:31:42 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:00:43 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 4:24:48 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:13 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 1:51:29 PM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 07:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> > > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> > > > > >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > >> >If DIG still has access to gmail, which should be distinct from his university server,
> > > > > >> >he could post to SBP using Google Groups, even if he is as adverse to that posting
> > > > > >> >resource as you are. It would set a lot of minds at ease.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Peter Nyikos
> >
> > > DIG is aware of the problem. SBP doesn't need TOs infamous collection of nutters and trolls.

> > So far, no one YOU consider to be a nutter or a troll is posting to s.b.p. except those who were
> > already here before Beagle went down. You were perfectly OK with people
> > coming here from t.o. with the robo-moderator being down until Glenn showed up
> > during the last downtime, and he is no more of a troll than you are.

> > > For that matter,
> > > neither does TO need them, but there they are. Unfortunately, both groups are nearly dead in any
> > > event.

Erik, judging from your subsequent comments, you don't think it is all that unfortunate.

> > You aren't making matters any better. When I began the thread on pterosaur origins, you
> > did a one-liner in reply:
> >
> > "Very good! Posts like this are most welcome."
> >
> > You haven't posted there since then.
> >
> > Daud Deden and I have continued the thread, but if you consider him to be a nutter, I can see
> > why you aren't participating.
> >
> > However, no such excuse exists for you ignoring the thread where John Harshman and I have been
> > conversing for most of this month about ancient birds. John is your best friend in both t.o. and s.b.p.,
> > isn't he? Since Oxyaena disappeared, there seems to be no competition for that distinction here
> > (nor, AFAIK, in talk.origins).
> >
> > In the interests of fairness, I should add that you DID give a nice update two days ago
> > on the "Possible fossil?" thread when I asked you how things were going after the
> > thread had been dormant since mid-September. But that was a thread in which you
> > began with an OP about something you'd found and were seeking to find out
> > what kind of thing it was. And the thread had stuck to that topic all the way.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> I don't consider Daud a nutter, but someone with a very robust imagination.
>
> I don't feel obligated to participate in every conversation,

Why don't you start another on-topic one yourself? Note what I said up there: the last one you started
had been dormant until mid-September, and I haven't noticed any newer comments by you since then
that are on-topic for s.b.p., unless you count that one-liner I quoted up there.

> so I don't need any "excuses"
> to withhold my counsel. I don't find anything particularly exciting about the pterosaur
> thread.

So "nearly dead" only means "not exciting enough to tempt me, Erik Simpson, to wade in", eh?

> As for your exchanges with Harshman, they have a sense of deja vu about them.
> As my knowledge of phylogentic trees is pretty basic, I have little to contribute.

That is painfully obvious, judging from the clueless suggestion you make next:

> I recommend "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" (David A. Baum and Stacey D. Smith).

Glenn or Hemidatylus or you might benefit from what appears to be an undergraduate level text, but I got over the misconceptions
the review talks about at the age of 12 by studying the evolutionary trees in Romer's 1945 classic, _Vertebrate Paleontology_.

> Many of your many objections would be seen as reflecting basic misunderstandings that could
> be cleared up by reading it.

You are blindly following Harshman as though everything he writes about my objections were gospel truth.

Just take a look at how badly he botched the description of earlier on-topic back-and-forth between
us earlier on the same thread. I had to correct him twice in the following post:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/EHNLnO8VAgAJ
Re: Hesperornid Acquisition here in Columbia ATTN: Popping mad

> A review in Systematic Biology describes its intent and scope:

Your hero Harshman might benefit from a (possibly nonexistent!) book that fits an excerpt in the review:

> https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/62/4/634/1615731
Excerpt:
Phylogenetics is now starting to move away from trees. Many botanists, for example, have found trees problematic as a phylogenetic model, due to the widespread hybridization that is assumed to occur among many plant species, and so have many microbiologists, due to the prevalence among bacteria of what we now call horizontal gene transfer. These people need to understand phylogenetic networks rather than phylogenetic trees, which is a much more complex task.

In his last two posts, Harshman was treating a couple of phylogenetic issues as being completely
settled by trees. Stay tuned for further developments on that long-running thread I linked,
which has long outgrown its title.


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

[*Hemidactylus*]

I did do some free advertizing for Larry’s upcoming book. But given four or
five people read this place when talk.origins isn’t down and maybe 8-10
when it is, I’m not exactly a marketing genius.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Glenn or Hemidatylus or you might benefit from what appears to be an
> undergraduate level text, but I got over the misconceptions
> the review talks about at the age of 12 by studying the evolutionary
> trees in Romer's 1945 classic, _Vertebrate Paleontology_.
>

Hemidatylus already has a digital copy of Vertebrate palaeontology by
Michael J. Benton. Hemidatylus also has Radinsky’s The Evolution of
Vertebrate Design and Turtles As Hopeful Monsters by Olivier Rieppel. I had
read some stuff on cladistics way back when and personally met turtle
expert Peter Pritchard multiple times and got him riled up a time or two
just by mentioning cladistics. At the time I knew which buttons to push to
elicit a passionate response. So I’ll pass on the suggestion. I also
informally met Mayr when he came to my school.

[jillery]

My understanding is Hemi's comment is satire. The intent of my
comment is self-deprecating exaggeration. As usual, your comments
above demonstrate your inability to recognize either.

[erik simpson]

Amazing. You learned all you need to know about phylogentic trees from Romer? The 1945 edition?
It's clear from your floundering in your conversations with Harshman that you haven't learned much
about it since you 12, Judging from your tone, you'll hear nothing more from me for a while.

[*Hemidactylus*]

He’s been ahead of the curve since 12 by reading now really dated books.
Next up…Galen!

[Peter Nyikos]

<crickets>

> > Note what I said up there: the last one you started
> > had been dormant until mid-September, and I haven't noticed any newer comments by you since then
> > that are on-topic for s.b.p., unless you count that one-liner I quoted up there.

> > > so I don't need any "excuses"
> > > to withhold my counsel. I don't find anything particularly exciting about the pterosaur
> > > thread.

> > So "nearly dead" only means "not exciting enough to tempt me, Erik Simpson, to wade in", eh?

<crickets>

> > > As for your exchanges with Harshman, they have a sense of deja vu about them.
> > > As my knowledge of phylogentic trees is pretty basic, I have little to contribute.

> > That is painfully obvious, judging from the clueless suggestion you make next:

> > > I recommend "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" (David A. Baum and Stacey D. Smith).
> > Glenn or Hemidatylus or you might benefit from what appears to be an undergraduate level text, but I got over the misconceptions
> > the review talks about at the age of 12 by studying the evolutionary trees in Romer's 1945 classic, _Vertebrate Paleontology_.


> > > Many of your many objections would be seen as reflecting basic misunderstandings that could
> > > be cleared up by reading it.

You made this taunt up without having any idea what might constitute a
"basic misunderstanding" by me might be, did you?

I suspected as much when I responded:

> > You are blindly following Harshman as though everything he writes about my objections were gospel truth.

You breezed past the next four lines as though they weren't there:

> > Just take a look at how badly he botched the description of earlier on-topic back-and-forth between
> > us earlier on the same thread. I had to correct him twice in the following post:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/EHNLnO8VAgAJ
> > Re: Hesperornid Acquisition here in Columbia ATTN: Popping mad

Nov 8, 2022, 8:31:15 PM (18 hours ago)

Harshman didn't reply so far to this post, which has a good bit of new on-topic
material in it by me. This is in addition to the corrections, which I will reproduce
on this thread, if you don't clean up your act.

> > > A review in Systematic Biology describes its intent and scope:
> > Your hero Harshman might benefit from a (possibly nonexistent!) book that fits an excerpt in the review:
> >
> > > https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/62/4/634/1615731
> > Excerpt:
> > Phylogenetics is now starting to move away from trees. Many botanists, for example, have found trees problematic as a phylogenetic model, due to the widespread hybridization that is assumed to occur among many plant species, and so have many microbiologists, due to the prevalence among bacteria of what we now call horizontal gene transfer. These people need to understand phylogenetic networks rather than phylogenetic trees, which is a much more complex task.
> >
> > In his last two posts, Harshman was treating a couple of phylogenetic issues as being completely
> > settled by trees. Stay tuned for further developments on that long-running thread I linked,
> > which has long outgrown its title.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos


> Amazing.

Your lack of basic English comprehension is what is amazing, unless you are feigning it,
which would not be the least bit amazing, given your decade-long track record
(except for a 2.5 year hiatus in s.b.p., see below).

> You learned all you need to know about phylogentic trees from Romer? The 1945 edition?

What part of "the misconceptions the review talks about" did you not understand?

> It's clear from your floundering in your conversations with Harshman

What floundering? As usual, you don't hint at any examples,
probably because you are way out of your depth here.

> that you haven't learned much
> about it since you 12,

You have no basis for such a claim, none whatsoever.

> Judging from your tone, you'll hear nothing more from me for a while.

My tone so far has been nothing compared to your oft-destructive behavior in the last 4.5 years
in sci.bio.paleontology, since you sabotaged the oasis of civilization that had been there
for about 2.5 years.

During those 2.5 years, I never had cause to change my tone to you even to the restrained
extent I did now. You are reaping a bit of what you sowed in early 2018.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:18:38 AM UTC-5, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 16:23:53 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:33:45 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > The fix to getting talk.origins up again will likely be simple once the moderator knows it needs to
> >> > be done and has time to log in and restart things. Of course weirdness can occur if some admin
> >> > blocks beagle from sending or receiving mail because of some confusion, or some automatic
> >> > software update overwrites a parameter that needs to be custom set. But the main issue is that
> >> > the moderator works for free in his spare time and he has a job and a life that takes precedent,
> >> > or at least should.
> >> I comment on my own witty perspicacity in anticipating the sort of error that occurred. It was a block
> >> on sending/receiving mail because of an update in a global list of spam sites, so I was, shall we
> >> say, half right. I thus proudly accept the title of Half Wit and retire from this group.
> >
> >At first I thought you were imitating Hemidactylus ("Our presence does much to improve the place")
> >or jillery ("...my devastating retorts"), but you wound up being more modest than them.
> >
> >To give credit where credit is due, the rest of us were stumbling blindly in the dark,
> >while, as they say,
> >
> >"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
> >
> >But don't let it go to your head. You are king of the t.o. exiles concerned about when
> >and how Beagle would be back. That's a subset of all the t.o.exiles, and the others were off
> >in their own virtual land.
> >
> >
> >Back to the rough and tumble,

And here is another example of that below.

> My understanding is Hemi's comment is satire.

That's the opposite of my understanding, based partly on Hemi's reply to the post where
I quoted his comment. Others' mileage may vary.

> The intent of my
> comment is self-deprecating exaggeration.

You need to look up "self-deprecating." It means the opposite of what you seem to think it does.

*I* was indulging in self-deprecating humor when I talked about me (and others) stumbling blindly in the dark
while Lawyer Daggett was "one-eyed". All this is preserved in the text you left in above.

A very different example: Uriah Heep was self-deprecating every time he stressed how 'umble he (supposedly) was.
Of course, there was no humor intended or inferred when he did that.

> As usual, your comments
> above demonstrate your inability to recognize either.

You are doing something a number of people have libeled me as doing:
you are attacking me for disagreeing with you.

However, I don't think even they claimed that I attacked people
for disagreeing with me *before* they disagreed with me.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:05:44 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

Incorrect. It demonstrates your blindness.

>*I* was indulging in self-deprecating humor when I talked about me (and others) stumbling blindly in the dark
>while Lawyer Daggett was "one-eyed". All this is preserved in the text you left in above.

The example to which you refer above is no exaggeration, but is
instead an apt metaphor. There's a difference.

>A very different example: Uriah Heep was self-deprecating every time he stressed how 'umble he (supposedly) was.
>Of course, there was no humor intended or inferred when he did that.

Uriah Heep's comment to which you refer above is an example of false
modesty. That you claim it as self-deprecation again demonstrates
your inability to recognize the difference.

>> As usual, your comments
>> above demonstrate your inability to recognize either.
>
>You are doing something a number of people have libeled me as doing:
>you are attacking me for disagreeing with you.
>
>However, I don't think even they claimed that I attacked people
>for disagreeing with me *before* they disagreed with me.

Your baseless allusions don't count as disagreements any more than
your baseless opinions count as facts.

[Dale]

?

> Beagle is back up and running, thank DIG.

DIG has gone beyond the moderation charter of no more than four
cross-posted groups ...

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

Facebook-> https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
Instagram -> https://www.instagram.com/dalekellytoo/
Twitter -> https://twitter.com/dalekellytoo/
YouTube-> https://www.youtube.com/@dalekellytoo
GitHub -> https://github.com/dalekellytoo
LinkedIn -> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dalekellytoo/
Pinterest -> https://www.pinterest.com/dalekellytoo/

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:40:06 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 11/6/2022 12:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:28:51 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No new posts have appeared in talk.origins since 12:27:35 UTC November
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> In the past, I assumed dgr...@gmail.com was a legitimate address to
>>> notify Greig. However, the last time I posted to that address, Google
>>> reported that mailbox was full.
>>>
>>> The last T.O. post from Greig used dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org. IIUC
>>> the Beagle Usenet server and mail server are the same physical device.
>>> If so, both would go down at the same time, and so that address would
>>> be useless for notifying Greig that Beagle requires a vist from the
>>> vet.
>>>
>>> On the possibility Greig has forwarded/echoed these addresses to
>>> another mail server, I have posted a notice to both. However, if
>>> somebody from S.B.P has a known good method for contacting Greig, or
>>> if Greig is an S.B.P. lurker, I hope this post will serve as notice.
>>
>>
>
>?
>
>> Beagle is back up and running, thank DIG.
>
>
>DIG has gone beyond the moderation charter of no more than four
>cross-posted groups ...

When and where?

[Dale]

?

> When and where?

Ed Conrad ...

[jillery]

I know you know how to post whole sentences. What about Ed Conrad?

[Peter Nyikos]

The jillery is reduced to highly questionable nitpicking followed by exaggerated
derogatory claims about me and my points. It's a pattern frequently followed
by another person given to frequent trolling: JTEM.

The jillery, unlike JTEM, has been successful in lining up a good many regulars in a mutual
"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with her/them, including
three who are active on this thread. That is the really big difference between jillery
and JTEM, and it contributes greatly to jillery being the most dangerously dishonest regular
in talk.origins. [Whether the jillery becomes a regular here in s.b.p. may depend on whether
the main OP's by the jillery are about YouTube videos of highly irregular quality.]


Peter Nyikos

PS I've left in the whole post to which I am responding below, so that anyone
reading this can decide whether to contest my opening sentence. I believe
that the three people to whom I alluded in my second paragraph will not do so,
my description of them there notwithstanding.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:39:52 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The jillery is reduced to highly questionable nitpicking followed by exaggerated
>derogatory claims about me and my points.

As usual, PeeWee Peter accuses jilery of doing what he does even while
he's doing it.

>It's a pattern frequently followed
>by another person given to frequent trolling: JTEM.

If PeeWee Peter posts that name three times, his strange bedfellow
might appear.

<snip PeeWee Peter's transparent mindless spam, for the sake of
readers who have no interest in it>

[Lawyer Daggett]

Ed Conrad was banned for repeated nymshifting. For example,
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/W4r5gs6FZ2U/m/H5DOOl8a1R0J
Ed posted within the current robomoderated epic.
Nymshifting was a published cause for banishment per hte FAQ the moderator
used to public bi-monthly.

He has indeed passed on. https://www.truskowskyfuneralhome.com/obituary/edward-conrad

See this for the memory hole
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RJnJFktwOmw/m/YFen7TYJCAAJ

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:24:28 PM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
> On 11/9/2022 8:19 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:40:06 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/6/2022 12:00 PM, jillery wrote:

> >>> Beagle is back up and running, thank DIG.
> >
> >>
> >> DIG has gone beyond the moderation charter of no more than four
> >> cross-posted groups ...

This comment should have been posted to talk.origins, seeing as how Beagle
had been back up for three days before it was posted.

It is off topic for sci.bio.paleontology, which has never been moderated
in any sense of the word. That is why we have been able to post
here whenever Beagle (and before it, Darwin) was down.

> >
> ?
>
> > When and where?
>
> Ed Conrad ...

You seem to be referring to events of 15 or more years ago, like the 2007 post which
Lawyer Daggett linked in his post of about an hour ago.

Did DIG cross-post to more than four groups RECENTLY? I echo jillery's question: When and where?
And I add: to what moderated charter are you referring? Was there any formal
charter back when robo-moderator was set up?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> Ed Conrad was banned for repeated nymshifting. For example,
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/W4r5gs6FZ2U/m/H5DOOl8a1R0J
> Ed posted within the current robomoderated epic.

Thanks for this information, which corrects some misconceptions of mine
in the post to which you are following up. After a lot of hesitation, I decided
to cancel that post and to replace it with another which tries to get Dale to
answer some questions that he didn't answer, including two by jillery and
another pair by myself.

> Nymshifting was a published cause for banishment per hte FAQ the moderator
> used to public bi-monthly.

It still is cause for banishment, isn't it?
[It does seem, though, that DIG hasn't been able to catch all offenders.]

If Ed posted under a different name during my first posting stint on t.o. (mid-1995 to mid-2001)
that could explain why I never saw any posts under that name back then.

On the other hand, I saw numerous posts by Ted Holden in which he relayed claims
by Ed to having found Haversian canals in claimed fossils made of coal. Ted even linked
photographs which could be construed as indistinct fossils of Haversian canals.
Perhaps, then, Ed had taken a long posting break from talk.origins during that time.

Do you have any relevant data from those years?

> He has indeed passed on. https://www.truskowskyfuneralhome.com/obituary/edward-conrad

Thanks for this information.

> See this for the memory hole

"memory hole" has negative connotations suggesting feigned memory loss.
I had honestly forgotten about some key information in the thread you've linked from 2017:

> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RJnJFktwOmw/m/YFen7TYJCAAJ

Thanks for this great trip down memory lane. Your link took me to a direct reply
by me to a post in which DIG (using his full name, David Iain Greig) not only
told me a lot about the causes for banishment, but even had some nice personal
comments about me. But it was also good to see some other posts along that thread.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:01:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > Ed Conrad was banned for repeated nymshifting. For example,
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/W4r5gs6FZ2U/m/H5DOOl8a1R0J
> > Ed posted within the current robomoderated epic.
> Thanks for this information, which corrects some misconceptions of mine
> in the post to which you are following up. After a lot of hesitation, I decided
> to cancel that post and to replace it with another which tries to get Dale to
> answer some questions that he didn't answer, including two by jillery and
> another pair by myself.
> > Nymshifting was a published cause for banishment per hte FAQ the moderator
> > used to public bi-monthly.
> It still is cause for banishment, isn't it?
> [It does seem, though, that DIG hasn't been able to catch all offenders.]
>
> If Ed posted under a different name during my first posting stint on t.o. (mid-1995 to mid-2001)
> that could explain why I never saw any posts under that name back then.
>
> On the other hand, I saw numerous posts by Ted Holden in which he relayed claims
> by Ed to having found Haversian canals in claimed fossils made of coal. Ted even linked
> photographs which could be construed as indistinct fossils of Haversian canals.
> Perhaps, then, Ed had taken a long posting break from talk.origins during that time.
>
> Do you have any relevant data from those years?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E-_UNazl-Rs/m/Jhj8hzT5HtoJ

My contemporaneous impressions were as follows.
Ed exhibited what might be characterized as "classic symptoms". I won't expand
upon what I mean by that. Despite that, a number of talk.origins regulars took
what might be called 'the high road' and offered their academic and technical
expertise to examine Ed's claims. This included an invitation by PZ Myers to
use his facilities to examine Ed's specimens with Ed present. It happened.

The record demonstrates what I will characterize as rather extreme patience
and indulgence for an amateur with some rather dubious claims. Deference was
given to a person lacking the background to know better. Such Deference was
not extended to any similar degree to others who ought to know better.

Ed's samples were confirmed to be concretions by proper analytical techniques,
even though that was essentially a foregone conclusion. Despite it being a foregone
conclusion, the tests were made in case there was indeed some miracle at work.
It was a moment for talk.origins to be proud of, in a way. Of course, few good deeds
go unpunished. It was also a foregone conclusion that a conclusive demonstration
that Ed's sample were concretions would not satisfy him, but he was given a chance.

And I don't consider "memory hole" to be pejorative.

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 08:52:48 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:24:28 PM UTC-5, Dale wrote:

>> On 11/9/2022 8:19 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:40:06 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> >> DIG has gone beyond the moderation charter of no more than four
>> >> cross-posted groups ...
>

>> > When and where?
>>
>> Ed Conrad ...
>

>Ed Conrad hasn't posted to talk.origins in decades, so his t.o. posts happened before talk.origins
>became "moderated" in its unconventional robo-moderated form. Until that was set up,
>t.o. was not moderated in any sense of the word.
>
>OTOH sci.bio.paleontology has always been un-moderated, which is why we were able to post

>here whenever Beagle (and before it, Darwin) was down.

To be pedantically precise, neither moderation nor Beagle's status
informs posting "here". As I noted elsethread, posting notices of
Beagle's status is a defacto backchannel to informing DIG. Said
backchannel was necessary at one time when Beagle hardware was
private. Now that Beagle lives in the cloud, DIG might be informed
automatically. However, to the best of my knowledge, DIG hasn't said
if that's the case. It would be nice if he would.


>Did DIG cross-post to more than four groups recently? I echo jillery's question: When and where?

>And I add: to what moderated charter are you referring?
>
>

>Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:53:33 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:01:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> > > Ed Conrad was banned for repeated nymshifting. For example,
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/W4r5gs6FZ2U/m/H5DOOl8a1R0J
> > > Ed posted within the current robomoderated epic.

How far back did that extend? Did "Darwin" go back to its beginning? If not,
what preceded Darwin?

> > Thanks for this information, which corrects some misconceptions of mine
> > in the post to which you are following up. After a lot of hesitation, I decided
> > to cancel that post and to replace it with another which tries to get Dale to
> > answer some questions that he didn't answer, including two by jillery and
> > another pair by myself.

> > > Nymshifting was a published cause for banishment per hte FAQ the moderator
> > > used to public bi-monthly.
> > It still is cause for banishment, isn't it?
> > [It does seem, though, that DIG hasn't been able to catch all offenders.]
> >
> > If Ed posted under a different name during my first posting stint on t.o. (mid-1995 to mid-2001)
> > that could explain why I never saw any posts under that name back then.
> >
> > On the other hand, I saw numerous posts by Ted Holden in which he relayed claims
> > by Ed to having found Haversian canals in claimed fossils made of coal. Ted even linked
> > photographs which could be construed as indistinct fossils of Haversian canals.
> > Perhaps, then, Ed had taken a long posting break from talk.origins during that time.
> >
> > Do you have any relevant data from those years?

> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E-_UNazl-Rs/m/Jhj8hzT5HtoJ

Bizarre features: (1) every single post on that thread is dated at the same time of day, 3:00:00 AM
on the main page that lists all the posts on the thread.

(2) When I initiate replies to the first two posts to the thread, the time remains the same but the dates
are also identical:

On Saturday, July 27, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Paul Myers wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ed Conrad wrote:

but then the dates changed, as one might expect in successive posts, but the 3:00:00 AM remained unchanged.


But even if those features have coherent explanations, the fact remains that this
was PZM's side of the story; the thread title says as much:

Re: MY SIDE OF THE STORY (A Visit to Temple for ``testing")

After all, the OP was by Paul Myers, as I noted before, and we don't know
what Ed's side of the story is except for that one post following the OP.

> My contemporaneous impressions were as follows.
> Ed exhibited what might be characterized as "classic symptoms". I won't expand
> upon what I mean by that. Despite that, a number of talk.origins regulars took
> what might be called 'the high road' and offered their academic and technical
> expertise to examine Ed's claims.

I'd like to know who they were and what they offered. Was any one of them
a certified geologist with expertise in distinguishing between fossils and
things that might look like them to a layman?

And I use "layman" very broadly: Erik Simpson is a talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology regular
and an avid fossil collector; and yet he did an OP in s.b.p. earlier this year asking whether
something he had found was a fossil:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/PVBo-oVY13c/m/k_UhOObEAwAJ
Possible fossil?
Sep 1, 2022, 5:36:58 PM

> This included an invitation by PZ Myers to
> use his facilities to examine Ed's specimens with Ed present. It happened.

PZM is a developmental biologist, a discipline far removed from the kind of expertise
called for: a certified geologist as described above. Why didn't he invite one to
be there during the examination?

> The record demonstrates what I will characterize as rather extreme patience
> and indulgence for an amateur with some rather dubious claims. Deference was
> given to a person lacking the background to know better. Such Deference was
> not extended to any similar degree to others who ought to know better.

In fact, that kind of deference is unique in the annals of talk.origins or sci.bio.paleontology AFAIK.
Do you know of any other examples?

>
> Ed's samples were confirmed to be concretions by proper analytical techniques,

The discrepancies in the account do not lead to such a conclusion.
Take a closer look at the description of a professionally prepared lab specimen which showed Haversian
canals beautifully and what transpired in a number of places between Ed and PZ. Here is one excerpt:
________________________________________________________________________________
> I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular
> slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet,
> while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are
> not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.

Those were OLD slides, and I'm not sure I'll be able to track down where
that particular slide came from. However, it is representative. If you'd
like a similar slide of your own, check out some of the biological supply
houses (like Carolina Biological, <http://www.carosci.com/>). They can
answer any of your specific questions about preparation, and will cheerfully
sell you as many slides as you can afford.

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

I'd rate PZ's response as less than satisfactory. Do you disagree?

> even though that was essentially a foregone conclusion. Despite it being a foregone
> conclusion, the tests were made in case there was indeed some miracle at work.

WHAT tests? There was no sign of any CONTROLS in those "tests": proper controls
would be scrapings made of BONE in the same manner and using the same tools that the scrapings
from Ed's specimen were made. Ideally, using both fresh bone and fossilized bone.

The closest thing to a control was the thing PZ excused as being "OLD slides" in the
account excerpted above. And that particular "control" favored Ed more than it did PZ.

> It was a moment for talk.origins to be proud of, in a way. Of course, few good deeds
> go unpunished.

That much is very true: I've seen copious good deeds being punished repeatedly in talk.origins,
deeds much more clearly good than what the above impressions suggest.

> It was also a foregone conclusion that a conclusive demonstration
> that Ed's sample were concretions would not satisfy him, but he was given a chance.

Since you have not yet made a case for a conclusive demonstration having
been made, this statement of yours lacks foundation. Will you try to provide a
better case than what you've made so far?

> And I don't consider "memory hole" to be pejorative.

It is if one knows what the memory holes were used for in George Orwell's _1984_.
Unless, of course, Orwell redefined the term from an earlier non-pejorative prior use. Did he?


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

I find your responses tedious and horribly biased.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060101010100/http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html

I disagree with almost all of your personal conclusions. This thread fairly well
documents that you are not a reliable source on issues which you nevertheless
feel competent to opine upon. The above link which archives a fair record of
the analysis of Ed's samples more than suffices for an honest reader to
understand what occurred and how your impulses are misguided.

And to be clear, while the analysis of Ed's samples was a high spot, no, it wasn't
a special exception. Honest people did receive some fair treatment. They also
had various hot heads virtually scream at them. Part of being honest is, in my
opinion, ignoring some of the hot heads and focusing on calmer voices. Otherwise
you're just in it for a fight and only pretending to be intellectually curious.
And I beg the pardon of the group for this exchange.

[erik simpson]

Where are you going with this "conversation? Do you think Ed (or his follower Lin Liangtai) had
real fossils (man as old as coal, etc.)? Or is this just one of your abstract "truth and justice" campaigns?

[Peter Nyikos]

The same direction you went last month: trying to find out whether something was a fossil or not.
Didn't you read what I wrote about you up there?

[repeated from above:]

> > And I use "layman" very broadly: Erik Simpson is a talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology regular
> > and an avid fossil collector; and yet he did an OP in s.b.p. earlier this year asking whether
> > something he had found was a fossil:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/PVBo-oVY13c/m/k_UhOObEAwAJ
> > Possible fossil?
> > Sep 1, 2022, 5:36:58 PM

> Do you think Ed (or his follower Lin Liangtai) had
> real fossils (man as old as coal, etc.)?

Why this irrelevant change of topic? There was no way PZ Myers's "experiments" could
have identified the fossil bone, if that is what it was, as a human bone or even that
of any specific tetrapod. The tests of which "Lawyer Daggett" sang to the high heavens
could have decided, at best, whether it was fossil bone or not, and the focus of attention
was the existence or nonexistence of Haversian canals:

[reposted from above:]

> > Take a closer look at the description of a professionally prepared lab specimen which showed Haversian
> > canals beautifully and what transpired in a number of places between Ed and PZ. Here is one excerpt:
> > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > > I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular
> > > slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet,
> > > while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are
> > > not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.

Those were Ed Conrad's words, and PZ Myers was very evasive in reply.
Are you happy about that reply?

> Or is this just one of your abstract "truth and justice" campaigns?

There is nothing abstract about what transpired between Conrad and Myers.
You and "Lawyer Daggett" have only him to blame for the way I responded
to the ONLY piece of evidence I had to work with in the post to which
you are responding: a post by Myers (NOT Conrad) which supposedly
told MYERS's side of the story and showing him cutting a pretty poor figure.

If "Lawyer Daggett" hadn't pussyfooted around so much when he linked that 1996 post,
you would have had no cause to make the snarky comment you did just now.
Look at what he wrote at the beginning:

> > > Ed exhibited what might be characterized as "classic symptoms". I won't expand
> > > upon what I mean by that.

If Daggett had straightforwardly written that Ed was a kook and a crank for
thinking he had found *human* bones in Carboniferous strata, I would
have wholeheartedly agreed. But I would have reiterated what I told Ed's
mouthpiece Ted Holden: if he had wanted to get an unbiased reaction from professionals,
he should have been much more modest and merely say that he found what looks to him
like a fossil bone, and would appreciate a professional evaluation.

And then there was this even more extreme pussy-footing by Daggett:

> > > The record demonstrates what I will characterize as rather extreme patience
> > > and indulgence for an amateur with some rather dubious claims.

It *is* rather dubious for an amateur to claim that something that was repeatedly
identified as a concretion was actually the fossil of a bone. Someone unfamiliar
with these events of 1996 [does that include even you, Erik?] would never
suspect from Daggett's pussyfooting that the "rather dubious" claims were outlandish claims
that there were human bones in Carboniferous strata ca. 300 mya.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 9:38:04 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:53:33 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:01:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > If Ed posted under a different name during my first posting stint on t.o. (mid-1995 to mid-2001)
> > > > that could explain why I never saw any posts under that name back then.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, I saw numerous posts by Ted Holden in which he relayed claims
> > > > by Ed to having found Haversian canals in claimed fossils made of coal. Ted even linked
> > > > photographs which could be construed as indistinct fossils of Haversian canals.
> > > > Perhaps, then, Ed had taken a long posting break from talk.origins during that time.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any relevant data from those years?
> >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E-_UNazl-Rs/m/Jhj8hzT5HtoJ

> > Bizarre features: (1) every single post on that thread is dated at the same time of day, 3:00:00 AM
> > on the main page that lists all the posts on the thread.
> >
> > (2) When I initiate replies to the first two posts to the thread, the time remains the same but the dates
> > are also identical:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 27, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Paul Myers wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 27, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ed Conrad wrote:
> >
> > but then the dates changed, as one might expect in successive posts, but the 3:00:00 AM remained unchanged.
> >
> >
> > But even if those features have coherent explanations, the fact remains that this
> > was PZM's side of the story; the thread title says as much:

I take back what I wrote here. Paul Myers was too popular to worry about
making a good impression on objective people. He was surrounded
by "groupies" who had little idea of the science needed to evaluate
what was going on, but who would back him to the hilt.

In the linked thread, three "groupies" and Andrew MacRae participated.
MacRae did not address the dispute directly. Two of the "groupies" confined themselves to insults
and gave no clue as to whether they had understood a word about the scientific issues,
while the third simply echoed back what Myers had told Ed, hence gave
no such clue either.

You give no support for these alleged "findings". Judging from what you link next,
it looks like you were under the delusion that I actually believed that Ed *might* have had
human bone from ca. 300 million years ago.

>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060101010100/http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html

It's all about refuting Ed's outlandish claims about *human* bone.
As I told Erik earlier this week, there was no way PZ Myers's "experiments" could

have identified the fossil bone, if that is what it was, as a human bone or even that

of any specific tetrapod. The issue was about whether there were Haversian canals, and that's
all I talked about before you linked Myers's thread from 1996.

I seriously doubt that you looked at the rather disorganized webpage that you
linked this time around. You see, after some digging, I found a little gem that
confirms that I was on the right track in what I wrote about CONTROLS [see preserved text above]:

Paul V. Heinrich wrote:
Greenleaf and Yemane (1993) report that the larger concretions contain the well-preserved remains of whole lycopsid stems and leaves. It is very likely, that these concretions might also contain bones and bone fragments. As a result, it could be possible to section one of these concretions and find well preserved cellular structure of either bone or plant remains. Thus, it might be possible to find and either misinterpret or misrepresent the inclusions of bone in these concretions as
evidence of the concretions themselves being bones.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/heinrich_geology.html

> I disagree with almost all of your personal conclusions. This thread fairly well
> documents that you are not a reliable source on issues which you nevertheless
> feel competent to opine upon.

As usual, you give no clue as to how this thread is supposed to document any such thing.

> The above link which archives a fair record of
> the analysis of Ed's samples more than suffices for an honest reader to
> understand what occurred and how your impulses are misguided.

This is the wrong venue for making such unsupported claims.
The regulars of sci.bio.paleontology know me too well to think
that I am wrong about what you simply call "the analysis of Ed's samples"
without detailed explanation of why I am accused of being wrong.

Yes, Erik Simpson demonstrated his long-time solidarity with you
in talk.origins by asking some loaded questions, but he was too cagey
to make any such claims as the ones you are making. And I thoroughly
disposed of those questions. Care to dispute this, "Lawyer Daggett"?

>
> And to be clear, while the analysis of Ed's samples was a high spot, no, it wasn't
> a special exception.

I doubt that you can name even one case that was even half as high as you
make out Myers's treatment to be.

> Honest people did receive some fair treatment.

Only if they didn't rock the boat -- remember, this was talk.origins, widely
seen as one of the cesspools of Usenet.

> They also
> had various hot heads virtually scream at them. Part of being honest is, in my
> opinion, ignoring some of the hot heads and focusing on calmer voices.

Your nihilistic concept of "honesty" is duly noted.


<snip second half of this GIGO>

> And I beg the pardon of the group for this exchange.

The only thing you should beg pardon for is your pussyfooting
around before this tirade of yours, as though anyone not around in
talk.origins in 1996 could fathom what your talk about "rather dubious claims"
was all about. I told Erik about that in more detail than I am telling it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/piprYPdW6qg/m/ofPwsHooCQAJ
Re: Beagle down again
Nov 21, 2022, 6:45:41 PM

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos