Below-50-IQ simulation of the month (Nov 2000)
nyi...@math.sc.edu
"Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month" awards in
other newsgroups, but I've decided to make a minor
modification to the title lest people get the impression that
the person was uniformly simulating a low IQ all through the
month.
That is not, IMO, the case with the winner,
who often seemed quite intelligent in November.
In fact, for a long time, I thought the award
would go either to Captain Wolf or Martin Reboul.
The latter even tried hard for the award, simulating
incomprehension of the word "Simulator" and writing
about himself things like,
How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
...but he was beaten out by a dark horse in the race,
as was Captain Wolf. The dark horse entered the race
late, and I'm not even sure her entry was intentional,
but she's the winner by quite a few lengths.
She goes by the name Renia here. An url of her post
which clinched the award was:
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696886481
and you can already see in it that she had said some
strange things in an earlier post:
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696375544
...which I had tried to correct:
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696822772
...but evidently the corrections were either not
simple enough for Renia to follow, or she had
caught the spirit of trying for the low-IQ simulation
award (perhaps without realizing it).
So I tried again, and the following post may have
done the trick, because neither Renia nor Laura
nor the others who responded to the clincher-post
have replied to it:
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=699745924
In a few minutes I will post a refined version of
this reply of mine to this new thread.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
nyi...@math.sc.edu
won the award for the the best simulation of an IQ under 50
during the month of November. By the way, if anyone can
find a post more richly deserving of the award, I am open
to changing the recipient.
~Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
~Subject: Re: Treatment of defeated enemies (Was: Aptitude test on the
Middle Ages and Mary)
~References: <8v1004$2e...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>
<storeynospam-ya02408...@news.u.washington.edu>
<8v1pdh$1i...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A148B33...@cwcom.net>
<8v3me6$j...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A156CB2...@cwcom.net>
<8v3ven$3...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A15AA01...@bigpond.com.au>
<8vbdf9$1s...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A1B010F...@cwcom.net>
<8vh4lf$i...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A1C6139...@cwcom.net>
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> writes:
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> writes:
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> This one was written in a lighthearted spirit, but
>> >> I was very careful to be historically accurate too.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, Renia actually thought I was quoting a quiz
>> >> from another source, but it's my composition from
>> >> beginning to end.
>Where on earth do you get the idea that I was quoting a quiz from
another source?
When I first responded to this award-winning post,
I simply assumed that Renia had misspoken here without
realizing it. Her first question implicitly accuses me
of thinking Renia was quoting MY OWN quiz from *another* source!
Laura and Paul Gans acted as though they
were completely fooled by this opening question of
Renia's, and she made no effort to correct them,
so perhaps she really meant to ask me that strange
question.
I've already commented on its bizarreness in:
http://x76.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=701046195
But now, on to even stranger things from Renia...
>Or that I didn't realise it was your composition from beginning to end?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was a very natural and modest inference from your reply
to Laura's words, Renia. Laura wrote:
Renia quotes someone's quiz on Tamerlane.
^^^^^^^^^^
and your sole response to that was:
I didn't quote it. Peter Nyikos did.
I know nothing about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note the two lines I've highlighted so far. Can you see
how one relates to the other?
>> >No, I didn't. Someone else thought it was my quiz, and I denied it,
and said
>> >it was your quiz. Viz:
You did NOT say it was my quiz. You said:
[requoted from above]
I didn't quote it. Peter Nyikos did.
I know nothing about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> What you show below does not support what you are saying,
>> Renia. Not the "someone else thought..." part and not
>> the "I...said it was your quiz" part either.
And you haven't added one iota to your "support" this
time around. In fact, you've made it quite clear
that these two statements of yours were incorrect.
>> >> Subject:
>> >> Re: Aptitude test on the Middle Ages and Mary
>> >> Date:
>> >> Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:26:05 +0000
>> >> From:
>> >> Renia
>> >> Newsgroups:
>> >> soc.history.medieval
[...]
[Laura's words again:]
>> >> > Renia quotes someone's quiz on Tamerlane.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Are you actually claiming that Laura Blanchard is saying
>> here that she thinks it is YOUR quiz???
>No,
How *else* is anyone supposed to interpret the words,
Someone else thought it was my quiz,
especially in the light of:
and I denied it, and said it was your quiz. Viz:
> but she appears not to realise that it was YOUR quiz. And this is not
the
>same as saying:
[Nyikos:]
>> >> In fact, Renia actually thought I was quoting a quiz
>> >> from another source, but it's my composition from
>> >> beginning to end.
Sure it's not the SAME, but so what? You insulted me
when I said that you did not explicitly claim that
the battle of Hastings was over before dark, and
IIRC you even thought there was something wrong with
me for not inferring that from your comments.
>Which is what I was originally responding to. It wasn't my quiz. It was
your
>quiz. I never said which source I thought you got it from.
If you KNEW it was my own composition from
beginning to end, it would have been very
strange for you to say *anything* along those lines.
> But it was Laura
>Blanchard who thought I was quoting someone's quiz, without stating
that it was
>your quiz. See below for the full, relevant posts.
I deleted them for the sake of brevity. They clearly
indicate, though, that you had Laura in mind when you
wrote "Someone thought it was my quiz".
> (God, this is a waste of
>time!)
Of course it is. You had already made it pretty darn
clear that the "Someone" who allegedly thought it
was YOUR quiz was supposed to be Laura. It sure
is a waste of time for YOU to keep rubbing that fact in,
since it only reflects badly on YOU.
[...]
>> >You really must read the posts more carefully, Peter.
>>
>> I do, but I assume they are written in
>> standard English.
>They are, which you do seem to have difficulty in comprehending,
...glass houses...stones.
> as is evident
>here, on many occasions.
Baloney. You can't name a single alleged example, can you?
> (No, I'm not going to give you a list of URLs.)
Because you can't--they don't exist.
Edward John Schoenfeld
----------
In article <2g0r2tgfdlvck5r5a...@4ax.com>, David Debono
<david....@montacute.net> wrote:
>I think the following post actually gets the prize
I agree. It also wins the prize for most offensive and ill-mannered post.
Ed
(actual post snipped because my server rejected it as too much included
text)
David Debono
<---------------Cut here -------------------->
Wolf
: I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
: were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
Good question. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an acceptable
answer.
Wolf,
Bard
--
Dolor ad tempus est.
Sanatur vulni.
Cicatrices amantur a scortillis.
http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm
Paul J Gans
>Here is a cleaned-up version of my reply to the post which
>won the award for the the best simulation of an IQ under 50
>during the month of November. By the way, if anyone can
>find a post more richly deserving of the award, I am open
>to changing the recipient.
[...]
Peter, just award it to me and leave other folks out of
it. I can add it to my collection.
You did not understand something that was posted. That's
all right, happens to all of us. Why you want to keep
picking on a truly minor bit of trivia is beyond me.
Everyone else seems to have understood it just fine.
You've got to understand that just because you don't
understand something does not mean that the rest of
the newsgroup is stupid.
----- Paul J. Gans
Renia
now
have no job. You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
a) far too stupid to go out to work
b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
You may or may not have noticed (and as you are supremely unobservant,
then
I doubt you have), but I have already absconded from this newsgroup, so
it
will do you no good to fluff up your own pride up by denigrating me any
longer. I bow before your superior intellect, rapturous good looks (yes,
I've found that ghastly over-sensuous-lipped picture of you on the net -
I
have never seen anything quite so ugly in my life), and superior conduct
in
this newsgroup. One down. Several to go.
Hail, oh pseudo-shitbag.
Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
anyone agrees with me, sign here:
Paul J Gans
>Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
>now
>have no job.
Oh Renia. I am so sorry. Nobody needs that. Nobody.
>You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
>a) far too stupid to go out to work
>b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
>You may or may not have noticed (and as you are supremely unobservant,
>then
>I doubt you have), but I have already absconded from this newsgroup, so
>it
>will do you no good to fluff up your own pride up by denigrating me any
>longer. I bow before your superior intellect, rapturous good looks (yes,
>I've found that ghastly over-sensuous-lipped picture of you on the net -
>I
>have never seen anything quite so ugly in my life), and superior conduct
>in
>this newsgroup. One down. Several to go.
>Hail, oh pseudo-shitbag.
>Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
>anyone agrees with me, sign here:
I don't think he's mad in the normal sense of the term.
But he's clearly not normal. At least in my opinion.
And he is arguably one of the most nasty folks around.
He's been particularly nasty to you. Undeservedly so.
If you want to use the term mad, I'll not argue with you.
----- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
>were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
The ability to produce decent research, which does not guarantee (or,
I hasten to add, preclude) good sense or good manners.
Brian M. Scott
MARTIN REBOUL
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:90jtlj$1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In years past, I have given out a number of
> "Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month" awards in
> other newsgroups, but I've decided to make a minor
> modification to the title lest people get the impression that
> the person was uniformly simulating a low IQ all through the
> month.
Oh Peter! Can't you do any better than this? I'll give you one thing, you do
seem to have some aptitude for learning, although it takes an awfully long while
doesn't it? Good to see no arrow storm (you know, >>>>>> :- those little
things?) of dreary clipped postings this time. Far far too many URL's still, but
it is a start........
> That is not, IMO, the case with the winner,
> who often seemed quite intelligent in November.
> In fact, for a long time, I thought the award
> would go either to Captain Wolf or Martin Reboul.
> The latter even tried hard for the award, simulating
> incomprehension of the word "Simulator" and writing
> about himself things like,
>
> How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
I'm very glad indeed you've brought this up - you couldn't possibly have fallen
into a trap through your deliciously satisfying stupidity and hypocrisy, if I
had actually bothered to set one! In fact, for one who seems as obsessed with IQ
ratings and intelligence levels as DSH is with bottoms, your foolishness
astounds me.............no need for traps at all, just stand back and watch you
trip over your own feet!
How many times have we all heard you bleat, whinge and whine about your remarks
being taken out of context, and your 'carefully crafted arguments and flawless
logic' (sorry, sarcasm.....a weakness of mine) being destroyed by snipping,
clipping and editing? You accuse people of lying (a very nasty word in my book)
for doing such things. So let's have a look at the line you quoted above......
"How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,"
I wrote it, true. But who was the boy in question......? Not me, but a character
named Internet-Barbarian major. That is besides the point however. The actual
meaning of those words, taken out of context, hardly compares with the
implication of the sentence it was snipped from :-
"How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
manage to make such a fool out of him (Professor Nyikos) every sodding
time...?!?!?"
How very VERY appropriate! As for the meaning of ".....simulating
incomprehension of the word "Simulator"...", I'm afraid I really am completely
baffled, but I expect I'm not the only one.
I think a little test is called for here to labour the point properly.........
Can you make a sentence out of these words:-
OWN WITH PETARD HIS HOIST
I know you failed to pass my last exam Peter, so this one is a bit easier. I
don't want you t get a complex. Right, what's next.........
> ...but he was beaten out by a dark horse in the race,
> as was Captain Wolf. The dark horse entered the race
> late, and I'm not even sure her entry was intentional,
> but she's the winner by quite a few lengths.
>
> She goes by the name Renia here. An url of her post
> which clinched the award was:
>
> http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696886481
>
> and you can already see in it that she had said some
> strange things in an earlier post:
>
> http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696375544
>
> ...which I had tried to correct:
>
> http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=696822772
Can I just point out something Peter, before you get too excited with your
triumphant celebrations? Nobody ever bothers to look these things up.......I
thought someone should tell you, sorry.
> ...but evidently the corrections were either not
> simple enough for Renia to follow, or she had
> caught the spirit of trying for the low-IQ simulation
> award (perhaps without realizing it).
>
> So I tried again, and the following post may have
> done the trick, because neither Renia nor Laura
> nor the others who responded to the clincher-post
> have replied to it:
>
> http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=699745924
I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but that is probably because they were
so bored of your dreary, tedious, repetitious postings, they either fell asleep
or went elsewhere. As I am about to do. Silly man!
Cheers
Martin.
> In a few minutes I will post a refined version of
> this reply of mine to this new thread.
Well, they do say 'you can't polish a turd', but I shall take a huge handful of
Dexedrine, and give it a go. BTW, what's your IQ Peter? I can't believe it is
even in double figures, judging from your recent performance!
.
MARTIN REBOUL
your dismal "quiz" again, as it obviously annoyed you. In fact, I did notice
that the three you nomiinated for the prestigious "IQ<50" award, i.e. Renia,
Capt. Wolf and myself, have one thing in common. We have all pulled you up,
pointed out your dullness, stupidity, inaccuracy and foolishness, and shown you
up as the pompous dreary twat you undoubtedly are (and continue to prove so
tirelessly). In other words, we have annoyed you more than anyone else in the
past few weeks. Could there be some connection I wonder? And why has Bob Mulain
escaped your "wrath" (ha hah!)? I hope he will repost 'the Nyikos Fragment'
again soon, as you may have missed it.......................
Here we go then...........
Peter Nyikos wrote
> Nobody knows anything about Tamerlane? That's a sad
> commentary on the state of affairs in this
> newsgroup, if true.
>
> It's also a sad commentary on the state of this newsgroup
> if nobody can name a single medieval person who behaved
> in one of ways a thru e listed below:
>
> ==================== begin excerpt from "pop quiz"
"Ooh! Oooh! Sirsirpleesssir, MisterNikkossir!! CanIanswer sir, sir yesmesir!
Yesme meatthe backsir with my handupsir!!?!"
The Professor's face flushed, his nostrils flared, and he narrowed his
eyes. The enormous head slowly tilted back, allowing him to glare furiously
through his steel rimmed glasses as he looked for the source of the
irritating outburst. His twisted mouth became a thin, grim line when he saw
who it was - that bloody boy again! He cursed quietly under his breath, and
the whole class heard his incontinent snort of anger.
How the bloody Hell that little bastard Internet-Barbarian major had
ever got a place in his Basic Arithmetic Remedial Maths class was completely
beyond him. The Professor had rapidly discovered that this particular boy
was completely impossible to outwit, manipulate, impress or even
intimidate - despite his very best efforts.
Even so, he had a reputation for *never* backing down, and sticking to
his guns however desperate the situation. The Professor had never even
considered the idea of admitting defeat, however absurd or ridiculous his
stance - even in the face of overwhelming evidence and unanimous public
opinion. And he wasn't going to change now, not after so many years of self
righteous and indignant defence of various impossibly ludicrous assertions!
And certainly not by Internet-Barbarian major and his motley crew!
He realised he had to score a point quickly, as he saw the insolent face
of his adversary grinning enthusiastically at him, showing no trace of
respect or fear whatsoever. The Professors' great mind battled to
think of a witty or intelligent remark to put the young whippersnapper
in his place, but as usual it was no good. He'd have to fall back on
another, less intellectually demanding strategy.......
Whack! The Professor smiled cruelly as he heard the satisfying noise of
the board rubber striking home, and the great howl of agony that instantly
followed. The cruel smile quickly left his face however, as he saw that he
had hit the wrong boy..... whoops! It looked like 'Morning Dissembly' time
had arrived yet again!
"Wake up Hines, you loathsome little oik! Stop blubbing and pay attention!
And wipe your unsightly nose.....!" Serves him right anyway, the noxious
little git, he thought, while he tried to think of something else without
success. Eventually he realised there was nothing else for it, and beads of
sweat broke appeared on his great forehead. He struggled to think up some
really vague, irrelevant and tough questions..........
> 1. Which of the following was Timur the Lame, a.k.a. Tamerlane,
> known to do upon conquering a city that put up a fierce resistance
> to him?
> a. He made the leader of the defenders into a general in his army,
> and hired the able-bodied survivors of the enemy force as mercenaries.
>
> b. He let the surviving inhabitants be carried off as slaves, and
> let the city be leveled to the ground, the ground plowed,
> and salt sown into the furrows.
>
> c. He invited the leader of the defenders to a banquet, and,
> with one titanic blow of his broadsword, he cleaved the defeated
> leader in two from shoulder to thigh.
>
> d. He had the right legs of all able-bodied surviving males
> amputated as a token of their submission to him.
>
> e. He had the inhabitants massacred and a pyramid built
> of their severed heads.
"That's easy! Trick question, he went for a jollygood pissup in townsir!"
The Professor's face fell. Blast! He forced an insincere smile, and went on
to the next question.....*surely* he couldn't possibly know this one?
> 2. At least three of the alternatives in Question 1 allude to
> incidents attested to by distinguished historians, and at least
> two of these refer to incidents set in the middle ages. Identify
> such incidents.
His eyes lit up as he saw confusion on Internet-Barbarian major's face. Joy
began to well up inside his wrinkled torso when he saw the beastly boy
scratching his head.....! At long last!! He'd actually WON!!! But it wasn't
to be. His heart sank all the way down to his boots as Internet-Barbarian
major finally spoke......
"Would that be 'distinguished' as in Real Medieval Historians, or Gansian
Sycophants sir............?"
A great wave of despair overwhelmed him, for of course he had no idea at
all.... How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
manage to make such a fool out of him every sodding time...?!?!?
>
> ========================== end of excerpt
And I can answer that now too - because it is so bloody easy! Twat Peter!
cheers
Martin
Brian M. Scott
>Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
>now have no job.
Oh, no! I'm very sorry to hear that.
> You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
>a) far too stupid to go out to work
>b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
Please consider the source, Renia; Peter shouldn't be able to convince
you that grass is green unless you wanted to be convinced, and that's
a claim that has the virtue of being true. (No, I don't think that
he's mad, precisely; but he's undoubtedly humorless, vindictive,
petty, and conceited.)
[...]
Brian
Gryphon801
manners are exceeded only by your bad manners." One would think that even in
an outpost of civilization like South Carolina one would know how to address a
lady.
Nell P. Wright
nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
I suppose you think this is terribly clever? Actually it's pretty
pathetic, but it certainly provides a shining example of what depths you
will sink to get attention...
Nell P. Wright
[snip interminable stupidities]
Nell P. Wright
I second the motion.
Nell P. Wright
David Debono
and, although I sort of understand it, the post actually does not make
any sense at all.
David D.
King Carrot
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
> anyone agrees with me, sign here:
To reuse a phrase in place of mad, I'd suggest "out of touch with
re*al*ity". Consider if you will the mindset of one who would
walk into a room with myriad discussions of medieval subjects
and stand up on a table and call for attention to issue a quiz.
Either a genius or one sadly ignorant of the most basic sense
of how to behave in social settings.
It isn't low IQ but low SQ. His bearing is that of an individual
desperately seeking validation yet so ill aware that he eventually
alienates even the most patient audience.
Observation shows that slight positive reinforcement of better
behavior kicks an already overinflated ego into overdrive and
unleashes yet more antisocial behavior.
He is a net.sociopath with an IQ to be formidiable but an SQ that
makes him most dangerous to himself.
Back to lurking. I almost understand some of the things I read
here.
Phyllis Gilmore
"MARTIN REBOUL" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Well, they do say 'you can't polish a turd', but I shall take a huge
> handful of Dexedrine, and give it a go. BTW, what's your IQ Peter? I
> can't believe it is even in double figures, judging from your recent
> performance!
Those who actually understand the significance of IQ will observe two
things:
1. The older you are when you take an IQ test, the less accurate your
intelligence quotient is, simply because you will have *learned* how to
answer certain questions that a child would have to reason out.
2. More specifically, some people (such as myself) have taken IQ tests
and IQ-like tests multiple times over the course of their lives. Has
anyone else noticed how many similarities there are among the PSAT, SAT,
GRE, GMAT, and standard IQ tests? I would even include the additional
annual tests I took in high school in California (1968-1972) in this
group, although they were never billed as IQ tests.
3. Despite whatever "native" intelligence one may have, certain types of
people--in particular, those with very broad interests--tend to score
better on these tests. Others--such as those from culturally different
or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds--tend to do less well.
4. It is possible to do extremely well on one half of the test and much
less well on the other. And, in my opinion, neither the verbal nor the
math portions say much about cognitive ability.
Phyllis
(If it weren't for the 95% perspiration part, I'd be a genius <grin>.)
Paul J. Gans
> Sadly (I must get a life!) I have actually read it all the way through
> and, although I sort of understand it, the post actually does not make
> any sense at all.
> David D.
Aha! You passed the reading comprehension test with
flying colors.
All that comes through is ">"'s nested seven deep,
personal pique, ranting, and tone. The tone is nasty,
insulting, and ego-ridden.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> In article <3A2D9DCD...@cwcom.net>,
> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>> Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
>> anyone agrees with me, sign here:
> To reuse a phrase in place of mad, I'd suggest "out of touch with
> re*al*ity". Consider if you will the mindset of one who would
> walk into a room with myriad discussions of medieval subjects
> and stand up on a table and call for attention to issue a quiz.
> Either a genius or one sadly ignorant of the most basic sense
> of how to behave in social settings.
> It isn't low IQ but low SQ. His bearing is that of an individual
> desperately seeking validation yet so ill aware that he eventually
> alienates even the most patient audience.
> Observation shows that slight positive reinforcement of better
> behavior kicks an already overinflated ego into overdrive and
> unleashes yet more antisocial behavior.
> He is a net.sociopath with an IQ to be formidiable but an SQ that
> makes him most dangerous to himself.
> Back to lurking. I almost understand some of the things I read
> here.
Uh oh! We've got to increase our obfuscation quotient here... ;-)
---- -Paul J. Gans
tiglath
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:90jtlj$1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In years past, I have given out a number of
> "Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month" awards in
> other newsgroups, but I've decided to make a minor
> modification to the title lest people get the impression that
> the person was uniformly simulating a low IQ all through the
> month.
>
> who often seemed quite intelligent in November.
> In fact, for a long time, I thought the award
> would go either to Captain Wolf or Martin Reboul.
> The latter even tried hard for the award, simulating
> incomprehension of the word "Simulator" and writing
> about himself things like,
>
>
> as was Captain Wolf. The dark horse entered the race
> late, and I'm not even sure her entry was intentional,
> but she's the winner by quite a few lengths.
>
> She goes by the name Renia here. An url of her post
> which clinched the award was:
Peter Nyikos you are a piece of shit.
It would give me great pleasure pushing you into a corner and going to
town on you. An intellectual and ethical pygmie like you deserves no
respect or quarter. You are unfunny, uneducated, and no matter how
much maths you know, you remain a lousy human being. I suggest a
long vacation in Uganda.
tiglath
King Carrot <kingc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90lm9s$b93$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
joking.) If
> > anyone agrees with me, sign here:
>
> re*al*ity". Consider if you will the mindset of one who would
> walk into a room with myriad discussions of medieval subjects
> and stand up on a table and call for attention to issue a quiz.
> Either a genius or one sadly ignorant of the most basic sense
> of how to behave in social settings.
>
> It isn't low IQ but low SQ. His bearing is that of an individual
> desperately seeking validation yet so ill aware that he eventually
> alienates even the most patient audience.
A polite way of saying that there is every indication that Peter
Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him vent
his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.
Gryphon801
Simon Pugh
>Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
>now
>have no job. You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
>a) far too stupid to go out to work
>b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
>
>You may or may not have noticed (and as you are supremely unobservant,
>then
>I doubt you have), but I have already absconded from this newsgroup, so
>it
>will do you no good to fluff up your own pride up by denigrating me any
>longer. I bow before your superior intellect, rapturous good looks (yes,
>I've found that ghastly over-sensuous-lipped picture of you on the net -
>I
>have never seen anything quite so ugly in my life), and superior conduct
>in
>this newsgroup. One down. Several to go.
>
>Hail, oh pseudo-shitbag.
>
>Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
>anyone agrees with me, sign here:
>
Bonkers, and nasty too.
Sorry to hear about the job.
--
Simon Pugh
MARTIN REBOUL
> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Oh, by the way, I actually think you are mad. (And I'm not joking.) If
> > anyone agrees with me, sign here:
>
> re*al*ity". Consider if you will the mindset of one who would
> walk into a room with myriad discussions of medieval subjects
> and stand up on a table and call for attention to issue a quiz.
An arithmetic teacher might......?
> Either a genius or one sadly ignorant of the most basic sense
> of how to behave in social settings.
I think I know the answer to that......
> It isn't low IQ but low SQ. His bearing is that of an individual
> desperately seeking validation yet so ill aware that he eventually
> alienates even the most patient audience.
>
> Observation shows that slight positive reinforcement of better
> behavior kicks an already overinflated ego into overdrive and
> unleashes yet more antisocial behavior.
A subtle way of suggesting we should kick his sorry backside rather than massage
his ego. Well, I can see the logic there......good idea!
> He is a net.sociopath with an IQ to be formidiable but an SQ that
> makes him most dangerous to himself.
True. I refer readers to my previous posting.
> Back to lurking. I almost understand some of the things I read
> here.
Understanding the Nutty Prof's postings isn't that hard. Staying awake while you
read them is however.
cheers
Martin
MARTIN REBOUL
> Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him vent
> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.
MARTIN REBOUL
Renia wrote (to P.Nyikos)
> Hail, oh pseudo-shitbag.
I can't really go along with that. It almost implies he is a *not* shitbag, or a
"sham, spurious, insincere" shitbag (OED). If you meant "less than a shitbag",
or "not even as good as a shitbag" I apologise. Shitbag alone would probably
have been more accurate, for there is no doubt about that. I'll refrain from
suggesting all the other adjectives implying "less than interesting" for fear of
overloading the server and possibly the entire WWW.
Matthew Harley
MARTIN REBOUL wrote:
tiglath wrote > A polite way of saying that there is every indication that Peter
> Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him vent
> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.Interesting.....has anyone else noticed..... P E t e r N y I k o S ....hmmmmm ?Maybe we should call him "Teryko" which obviously means Peter Nyikos has no willy!
Matt Harley
c.c.sb...@42.killspam.us.com
> [...]
In my few weeks of lurking here, it seems to me that whatever Nyikos does
comprehend, either through ignorance, malice or plain stupidity, he
disparages. He obviously is not honest enough with himself to admit that
he doesn't know, and instead seeks to elevate his own estimation of his
own intelligence by ridiculing that of others. This, of course, also
seems to be practiced by D. Spencer Hines and the rest of his "fans", but
none so consistantly as Nyikos.
I really think you should retain a lawyer and deal with these apparent
cyberstalkers that follow you from newgroup to newsgroup. One of them
might actually blow a gasket and explode.
Ravan
--
Ravan Asteris rasteris / at \ rahul / dot \ net
(squish "/ and \" to make symbols like "&")
http://www.rahul.net/rasteris/
tiglath
Peter Nyikos is truly a triumph of the grotesque in mind and body --
He looks like an alopecic warthog stung by bees.
If you don't believe me check http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/
And he is smiling... (I think)
He seems to have written some 77 papers: 5 about maths and 72
snoozers. No bloody wonder.
http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/publications_nyikos.html
His educational background has two entries. In one he gives a bad
name to all Ph.D.s; the other reflects the true education of the man.
http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/#education
I never forget a face, but in your case, Peter Nyikos, I will make an
exception.
-----------------------------------------
MARTIN REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:j5xX5.1848$uC6....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
tiglath wrote
> A polite way of saying that there is every indication that Peter
> Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him
vent
> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of
s.h.m.,
> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.
Interesting.....has anyone else noticed.....
P E t e r N y I k o S ....hmmmmm ?
('scuse HTML!)
Renia
Indeed. Wrong use of hyphen, for which, my apologies.
I meant he is a pretentious shitbag.
Renia
tiglath
Matthew Harley <har...@eircom.net> wrote
>> MARTIN REBOUL wrote:
>>> tiglath wrote
>>> A polite way of saying that there is every indication that Peter
>>> Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him
vent
>>> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of
s.h.m.,
>>> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.
>> Interesting.....has anyone else noticed..... P E t e r N y I k o S
....hmmmmm ?
> Maybe we should call him "Teryko" which obviously means Peter
Nyikos has no willy!
No need to overdo it. I imagine that no-willy has better
psychological ramifications than pencil-stub willy, which is "some"
willy, willy enough I guess to cause clinical levels of spleen, as we
see in Full Perversor Nyikos, Duke of Dangle Wannabe.
Take care now. We don't want to be sued by the RSPCA for cruelty to
shrimps, do we?
Nell P. Wright
[snip]
>
>
>
>His educational background has two entries. In one he gives a bad
>name to all Ph.D.s; the other reflects the true education of the man.
>
>http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/#education
ROTFHWA4PITA!!!!! That's just TOO perfect!!!!
Nell
>
[..]
Gryphon801
that these cases are usually more trouble to win than one might think, even
when the defendant is clearly guilty of egregious bad manners and off-the-wall
behavior. Moreover, the attendant publicity can do even more harm to
reputation than the initial defamation. If a Republican marriage is not in
order, and a visit to Uganda out of the question, could all of us simply ignore
this impudent rascal's postings until he returns to talk.origins or wherever
else he chooses to waste his and our time?
nyi...@math.sc.edu
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>Well spotted, Martin.
>Peter Nyikos is truly a triumph of the grotesque in mind and body --
>He looks like an alopecic warthog stung by bees.
The usual thing people say about that photo
is that I look like Don Knotts.
Of course, that's in newsgroups with a generally higher class of
clientele than tiglath; newsgroups like talk.abortion
and talk.origins.
Of course, it doesn't take much to be higher class than
tiglath.
>If you don't believe me check http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/
For the longest time, I have avoided doing anything about that website,
which was set up many years ago with no input from me, because
I hate doing anything that smacks of self-advertisement.
People who accuse me of being conceited, having a big ego,
etc. are just saying in a roundabout way that they don't
like me. Nothing more, nothing less.
>He seems to have written some 77 papers: 5 about maths and 72
>snoozers.
>http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/publications_nyikos.html
No, the other 72 are about math, except for two which are
about medicine:
(with H. Champion, W. Sacco, W. Long, H. Smith, R. A. Cowley, W. Gill)
``Indications for early haemodialysis in multiple trauma", _The
Lancet_,
June 8, 1974.
(with H.R. Chamption, Weinstein, W. Long, W. Sacco, R. A. Cowley, W.
Gill)
``Serum osmolality in seriously injured patients", Md. Medical J.
March 1978, 62-65.
I think I will finally succumb
and put the bibliographical information about it and the other 70 in,
because that does provide some service to the profession.
I'd post the whole 72 here, except that I'm afraid that
would count as cruelty to shrimps, or whatever. ;-)
Additional flaming by tiglath and others deleted.
Some of it reminded me of one thing: in all the time covered by
Deja.com, only two posts by Hines feature the word "lavender",
and in neither of them was it written by him. Anyone want to bet how
often "retired attorney" [read: Brooklyn Bridge salesman]
Gryphon801 has used the word to accuse Hines of being obsessed
with lavender underwear?
And HE talks about defamation?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
nyi...@math.sc.edu
sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:00:45 +0000, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>>Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out.
I
>>now have no job.
>Oh, no! I'm very sorry to hear that.
As am I, very much so. But after all, I did write some complimentary
things about Renia, and nothing really negative at all,
in the short article that announced the award.
And if she had played it cool below, she
could have convinced ANYONE that she was actually shooting
for the award and hadn't meant a single word she wrote
in the post. That it was all a spoof, done to see
how I would react.
And the beauty of it is, she could STILL say that, and
I would believe it. Why not? She could just be laying
the joke on extra thick for me below.
I'm afraid I can't speak for others, though. Hines,
were he not unaccountably absent, might think Renia
would just trying to weasel out of the hiding that's
coming to her, were Renia to take that route.
[No Hines posts since Nov 28. Could he be having
ISP problems?]
>> You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
>>a) far too stupid to go out to work
>>b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
Respondents uniformly act as though they didn't know
what "simulation" meant. Are they ALL trying for the
December award?
Renia's plaint would make a nice little start on the December award,
were Martin Reboul not already off and running and leading the
pack. Renia has some catching up to do if she wants a repeat award.
>Please consider the source, Renia; Peter shouldn't be able to convince
>you that grass is green unless you wanted to be convinced,
...because I am unpopular in this newsgroup, whereas
if I were as popular as Gans, I could tell Renia the
moon is made of green cheese and Renia would at worst ignore it,
at best play along with it.
> and that's
>a claim that has the virtue of being true. (No, I don't think that
>he's mad, precisely; but he's undoubtedly humorless, vindictive,
>petty, and conceited.)
Mad? Vindictive? Perish the thought. I even *like* Renia. That's
one reason I decided to tone down the award title from
"Simulator" to "Simulation".
Conceited? Brian couldn't be basing that on anything
he's seen from me on Usenet. Maybe the fact that I
made a much-celebrated breakthrough on the Normal Moore
Space Problem causes him to simply assume that I MUST
be conceited. But then, I haven't even bothered
to put anything about that--or anything else--in those
websites that tiglath is more concerned about than
I ever was.
Humorless? Brian Scott knows all about the T.G.I.F.
threads on talk.origins that I set up. Even
participated in some.
They were based on puns, lots of them. Brian knew that
very well when I asked him a trick question, "Do you
agree that the pun is the lowest form of humor?"
Note, I didn't say "agree with me". I actually meant,
"agree with that ubiquitous factoid."
I think he sensed the trap and avoided it.
Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
I see Nell is participating in this thread after mostly
sticking to talk.origins since August. The same old
Nell, never trying to justify her insults.
tiglath
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:90midv$54d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <90ma2b$7au$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
> For the longest time, I have avoided doing anything about that website,
> which was set up many years ago with no input from me, because
> I hate doing anything that smacks of self-advertisement.
Too late for excuses and for passing the buck. Who would allow himself to
present such a slovenly face to the world through his profession but someone
with equally slovenly habits of thought and behavior. Your untidy website
reflects on you and on how often you change your underwear.
Peter Nyikos
>Jon Meltzer (reaching for the coffee) wrote:
>: I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
>: were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
Jon seems to be shooting for the December award, writing
"intellectual standards" rather than "standards of Patrician-like
decorum in a newsgroup with a barrack-Emperor like milieu."
>Good question. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an acceptable
>answer.
Wolf knows the drill. In contexts like these,
the Gans fans NEVER try to justify their comments. It's
strictly popular vote, all the way.
Contrast that with the following virtual .sig:
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
THE SPLIT PERSONALITY OF PAUL GANS
From: "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who has less integrity: Hines or ...
Date: 17 Nov 2000 17:26:53 -0500
Message-ID: <JgiR5.24$QL3...@typhoon.nyu.edu>
Less than three hours later, Gans wrote the following to shm alone:
Purposeful
crossposting, especially to groups such as soc.history.what-if,
is not only against usenet policy, but is grounds for complaint
to one's ISP.
--http://x60.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=694859980
posted 17 Nov 2000 19:57:16
Perhaps he wasn't purposefully crossposting, but can one say
the same for his loyal ally to whom he was following up? Here
is the attribution line from the first post referenced above:
In soc.history.medieval p.t. pfister <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Has Gans ever reminded "yojimbo" about the fictitious Usenet
policy?
Peter Nyikos
>nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>>Here is a cleaned-up version of my reply to the post which
>>won the award for the the best simulation of an IQ under 50
>>during the month of November. By the way, if anyone can
>>find a post more richly deserving of the award, I am open
>>to changing the recipient.
>[...]
>Peter, just award it to me
Sorry, old bat. You have a shot for the December award,
of course. But this post of yours doesn't come close
to trying.
> and leave other folks out of
>it. I can add it to my collection.
>You did not understand something that was posted.
As usual, Gans does not say what that alleged
something was.
He can't. If he tried, his little game would
be over in a flash, unless he really wants
to try for that December award.
[remainder of Gansian GIGO deleted]
Peter Nyikos
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:57:08 -0500, Jon Meltzer
><jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
>>were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
>The ability to produce decent research,
No, here it is either excellent research and decent teaching and service,
or decent research and excellent teaching and service; and in
either case, signs of durability in these areas at these levels.
Maybe at Cleveland State, standards are different. After
all, it isn't the cross-town Case Western Reserve University.
> which does not guarantee (or,
>I hasten to add, preclude) good sense or good manners.
Or honesty or integrity, of which I have a very high
degree and you have little if any: witness your
perpetration of Gans's hoax about "Hines accused
Gans of plagiarism" in talk.origins.
The winds of that windbag Gans allegation had already
died down here, but you wanted to given them new life.
So far, I've only gone for the organ-grinder Gans
on the thread you polluted thereby:
http://x61.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=699641160
But you'll get your turn before long, never fear.
>Brian M. Scott
And, when it comes to bad manners, how could my award
compete with your stealth post last April, in which
you posted some flames about me to this newsgroup and
only this newsgroup, at a time I had made maybe
four posts altogether, and perhaps all by crosspost?
You even said that I wasn't likely to post here except
by accident.
When I made the mistake of pointing out that you made
six copies of that post, you seized on that little
detail and protested that you were the victim of
a misbehaving ISP. That was only one of two followups you
ever did to me following up to you in shm.
Like Wolf, you know the drill.
Peter Nyikos
Humorless? Brian Scott knows all about the T.G.I.F.
threads on talk.origins that I set up. Even
participated in some.
They were based on puns, lots of them. Brian knew that
very well when I asked him a trick question, "Do you
agree that the pun is the lowest form of humor?"
Note, I didn't say "agree with me". I actually meant,
"agree with that ubiquitous factoid."
I think he sensed the trap and avoided it.
Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
I see Nell is participating in this thread after mostly
sticking to talk.origins since August. I'll have
to see just what she's saying...
Ta, ta, all.
Peter Nyikos
>Just to rub your unshapely nose in it Peter, [...]
*Yawn*
Fresh material is needed for the December award, Martin. You
did better with your first post to this thread.
Now, if you are trying for a "Pat James look-alike of
the Month" award, go ahead and repost what I snipped,
and I'll certainly consider establishing such an award.
Of course, "look-alike" is metaphorical. "act-alike"
would be more precise, but I don't want to get pedantic.
Peter Nyikos
> [...] One would think that even in
>an outpost of civilization like South Carolina one would know how to
>address a lady.
Not only that, but we are sufficiently familiar with
the nuances of contemporaty civilization to know that
one is risking trouble when calling a feminist "a lady".
[Not that Renia is necessarily a feminist...I don't
know enough about her yet to tell.]
Brian Scott and I know a feminist mathematician, who
shall here remain nameless, but I think he'll have
no trouble guessing who she is once I relate the
following anecdote.
I was a guest speaker at her university and we went
to the cafeteria for lunch together. I opened the
door for her and she said, "You don't have to do that."
But she said it was OK as soon as I told her, "By the way,
I open doors for men too."
Brian might still remember--we general topologists opened
doors for each other all over the place, still do.
Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:90jtlj$1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In years past, I have given out a number of
>> "Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month" awards in
>> other newsgroups, but I've decided to make a minor
>> modification to the title lest people get the impression that
>> the person was uniformly simulating a low IQ all through the
>> month.
>>
>> That is not, IMO, the case with the winner,
>> who often seemed quite intelligent in November.
[...]
>Peter Nyikos you are a piece of shit.
>It would give me great pleasure pushing you into a corner and going to
>town on you. An intellectual and ethical pygmie like you deserves no
>respect or quarter. You are unfunny, uneducated, and no matter how
>much maths you know, you remain a lousy human being. I suggest a
>long vacation in Uganda.
Your flames are cute, Tiglath, but you are flaming
thin air as long as you don't back up your flames
with evidence.
Besides, Martin Reboul will probably be the first
to tell me that it is obvious that you are joking.
He told me you were obviously joking about that "testicles" bit
that you did on Hines.
Renia would like for us to forget about that, perhaps because
she was fooled by you into actually asking for
an apology from Hines for what he said.
Then again, maybe she was just playing along with
your joke. One can never tell with Renia...
At least I can't. Maybe somebody here, with more
experience than me, can tell us ALL for sure where
the truth lies on that "testicles" tempest in
a teapot.
Peter Nyikos
>David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote:
>> Sadly (I must get a life!) I have actually read it all the way through
>> and, although I sort of understand it, the post actually does not make
>> any sense at all.
>> David D.
>Aha! You passed the reading comprehension test with
>flying colors.
Gans looks to be competing with David for
the December award.
>All that comes through is ">"'s nested seven deep,
>personal pique, ranting, and tone. The tone is nasty,
>insulting, and ego-ridden.
"ego-ridden" is net.barbarianspeak for "I don't like
the guy who wrote it."
Paul, if you really think what I said was bad, you ought
to see what I mercifully snipped of Renia's words in the two posts
to which I responded.
But of course, you know even *that* wasn't nearly as bad
as what you wrote in those memorable posts on the virgin
Mary, flaming me right and left over issues I never disagreed
with you about in the first place.
And even that wasn't nearly as bad as your ranting and
raving over the "conspiracy" that you found under
a bed of Salutations...
Space provided below for people to accuse me of IKYABWAI:
Space provided for Renia and Martin to explain that
I am not posting the usual urls to back up
what I say, because they have
been ridiculing me no end for posting urls
to back up what I say:
Peter Nyikos
>And while in Uganda, please expose yourself to the Ebola virus and AIDS.
Don't y'all just *love* the way Gryphon801 has been
getting in tune with the holiday spirit?
Peter Nyikos
>A polite way of saying that there is every indication that Peter
>Nyikos has a small penis -- a tragedy of magnitude that makes him vent
>his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
>indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not.
Tiglath is trolling, as usual. There are a good many
people whom I have treated as the decent people they
apparently are: Read, Milman, Gregory, Mircea, DLMartinec...
Of course, the fact that Tiglath has been at odds with
many if not most of these people may have something
to do with the fact that he has banished them from
his universe. ;-)
Gryphon801
Dr. Nyikos, I do have more degrees than you. Nor would I ever address a lady
as you have seen fit to do, to your disgrace.
Frank Martin
"Gryphon801" <gryph...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001206180639...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
c.c.sb...@42.killspam.us.com
> The usual thing people say about that photo
> is that I look like Don Knotts.
> Of course, that's in newsgroups with a generally higher class of
> clientele than tiglath; newsgroups like talk.abortion
> and talk.origins.
Talk.abortion and talk.origins?? Higher class?? The only bigger cesspit
on usenet than talk.abortion is alt.conspiracy!! This group has a far
better signal-to-noise ratio than the two combined, if one does not factor
in the spewage from yourself and DSH.
David C. Pugh
tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
> It would give me great pleasure pushing you into a corner and going
to
> town on you. An intellectual and ethical pygmie like you deserves
no
> respect or quarter. You are unfunny, uneducated, and no matter how
> much maths you know, you remain a lousy human being. I suggest a
> long vacation in Uganda.
>
And what have the Ugandans done to you to deserve such a fate? :-)
David
Nell P. Wright
nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
> In article <3a2dbfab...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
wrote:
>
> Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
> faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
> them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
Nope. We're just familiar enough with your CYA, slippery, under-handed,
carefully-worded style to see through it. ("But I didn't actually *say*
what it *looks* like I said" <spoken in incredulous,wide-eyed
innocence>)
>
> I see Nell is participating in this thread after mostly
> sticking to talk.origins since August.
Awww...shucks...I didn't know you cared...
> The same old
> Nell, never trying to justify her insults.
What insults?
Nell P. Wright
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
Peter Nyikos
>Lavender underwear or otherwise, I suppose it could stand washing.
Hines's? Why do you have such a fetish about
associating lavendar underwear with him, anyway?
> And yes,
>Dr. Nyikos, I do have more degrees than you.
All the greater disgrace, then, to behave like you do
in this newsgroup.
And why the formality? Why do you suddenly address
a person you have been uniformly treating like dirt
"Dr. Nyikos"? Peter or Peter or Nyikos is fine with me.
> Nor would I ever address a lady
>as you have seen fit to do,
Careful--she may be enough of a feminist to object
to being called "a lady".
>to your disgrace.
Are you objecting to my calling her "Renia" instead of
"Ms. PSimmonds"?
By the way, is she Russian, or Greek, to be using a
first initial of P in her address? :-)
Matthew Harley
tiglath wrote:
>
> Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
> you pogues assign probabilities.
>
> 1......13.
14. The bear got him this time?
Matt Harley
Gryphon801
it. Knowing nothing about my sexual habits, he assumed something disgusting
just for fun. I shall never let him forget it. And if, as "Salutations"
indicates, you are in league with him, please do not be surprised if
occasional references come up when responding to your more eccentric posts.
"Birds of a feather...", you know.
King Carrot
> >>I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
> >>were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
> >The ability to produce decent research,
> No, here it is either excellent research and decent teaching and
service,
> or decent research and excellent teaching and service; and in
> either case, signs of durability in these areas at these levels.
> Maybe at Cleveland State, standards are different. After
> all, it isn't the cross-town Case Western Reserve University.
This lovely display of Nykosian humility is of course
accompanied by Nykosian reserve.
Not only must he recoil at the suggestion of "decent research" as
opposed to higher praises, he must in turn lower others to make
his position seem even higher.
Can you believe this turkey both denies his egotism and thinks
he has a sense of humor?
> > which does not guarantee (or,
> >I hasten to add, preclude) good sense or good manners.
> Or honesty or integrity, of which I have a very high
> degree and you have little if any: witness your
> perpetration of Gans's hoax about "Hines accused
> Gans of plagiarism" in talk.origins.
Same song, second verse. Sounds like "girls are dandy made
of candy, boys are rotten made of cotton." Seems to fit
the level of emotional maturity.
Paul J. Gans
[...]
> But of course, you know even *that* wasn't nearly as bad
> as what you wrote in those memorable posts on the virgin
> Mary, flaming me right and left over issues I never disagreed
> with you about in the first place.
[...]
I'd love to see a post from you where you indicated that
you never disagreed with me in the first place.
I'll not trouble the good folks here for their recollections.
They have them and will judge this accordingly. But I
labored under the impression that you demanded sources
for my statements, and when they were given, you disparaged
both the sources and the authors thereof.
After all, if you were not disagreeing, what were all those
posts of yours about?
I gather that you have since discovered that you were wrong
in your opinion: that what I said was common knowlege among
students of western Catholicism was in fact common knowlege.
So now your view is that you were never in disagreement with
what I wrote.
That's fine Peter. It will get you in trouble with Hines
when he gets back, but hey...
In fact, as time goes on, you might even come to understand
what I said about crossbows, ballistae, and Hastings. But
I'm not holding my breath.
----- Paul J. Gans
MARTIN REBOUL
Matthew Harley wrote....
Hmmmmm.....what IS he actually doing behind that bear? That smile - shudder - I
don't think I really want to know.......
Paul J. Gans
>>And while in Uganda, please expose yourself to the Ebola virus and AIDS.
> Don't y'all just *love* the way Gryphon801 has been
> getting in tune with the holiday spirit?
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Explain holiday spirit to Renia, to whom you owe an
apology.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> tiglath (tig...@usa.net) wrote:
> : Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
> : you pogues assign probabilities.
> I'd just like to say this - the resident kook of comp.unix.admin,
> a certain "Rev. Don Kool", has also gone missing. While his writing
> style is considerably different from Dispencer, they're both cut from
> the same cloth.
> Perhaps there is a net.kooks convention somewhere that they have
> both gone to?
Is it fair to note that "Roger le Fleur" has also gone missing?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Matthew Harley wrote....
>>
>>
>> tiglath wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
>> > you pogues assign probabilities.
>> >
>> > 1......13.
>>
>> 14. The bear got him this time?
> Hmmmmm.....what IS he actually doing behind that bear? That smile - shudder - I
> don't think I really want to know.......
Is that *him* behind the bear? I thought he was the one
lying down in the foreground...
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <90mj0d$5jh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>> In article <3a2dbfab...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>> > On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:00:45 +0000, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
>> >wrote:
>> Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
>> faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
>> them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
Probably because he barely remembers some such title.
>Nope. We're just familiar enough with your CYA, slippery, under-handed,
>carefully-worded style to see through it. ("But I didn't actually *say*
>what it *looks* like I said" <spoken in incredulous,wide-eyed
>innocence>)
Well, that too.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
> nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[...]
>> Maybe at Cleveland State, standards are different. After
>> all, it isn't the cross-town Case Western Reserve University.
Interesting notion of Cleveland geography there. CSU is downtown, a
mile east of the centre of town on Euclid Ave., and CWRU is just
another 2-3 miles east, still a few miles from even the inner suburbs.
(And I can't quite resist noting that the chairman of the CWRU math
dept. from 1982 to 1991 was previously on the faculty at CSU for
several years.)
[...]
Brian M. Scott
nyi...@math.sc.edu
c.c.sb...@42.killspam.us.com wrote:
> In article <90midv$54d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>
> > The usual thing people say about that photo
> > is that I look like Don Knotts.
>
> > Of course, that's in newsgroups with a generally higher class of
> > clientele than tiglath; newsgroups like talk.abortion
> > and talk.origins.
Note, I said "tiglath" and NOT "soc.history.medieval".
You apparently missed the point:
>Talk.abortion and talk.origins?? Higher class??
I said "generally". There are a few oddball cases in both
newsgroups who even tiglath look high class in comparison,
but they are few and far between. Even "pfister" and Groves
and Nell and King Carrot come across as being not quite
so low class as tiglath. Pat James is almost the only
exception, but then he also posts to s.h.m. frequently.
> The only bigger cesspit
>on usenet than talk.abortion is alt.conspiracy!! This group has a far
>better signal-to-noise ratio than the two combined,
Does it? I've noticed a much better ratio in threads
with sc...@home.com on talk.origins, inspiring me to
raise the ratio still more, like I did today. Which
threads do you look at over there?
> if one does not factor
>in the spewage from yourself and DSH.
In case you haven't noticed, I am contributing far less
to the low s-t-n ratio on this thread than the people
who are dumping on me, and at the time you posted
this I had contributed a grand total of four posts.
Also, have a look at
at all the 100% noise people are dumping on the
Bayeux tapestry thread, and the 100% noise they
contributed to the Salutations... thread, with absolutely
no contribution to me and only the initial post from DSH.
Gans, for instance, is probably doing it to deflect
attention from the way I caught him in an outright
falsehood when he wrote:
I've backed off of nothing.
...in reference to two or three categorical, unequivocal
statements that he would dearly love to unsay, by
all available evidence:
I can't speak for Hastings. No _ballistae_ are mentioned in
the sources and that's all we have to go on.
He stoutly avers that he was only referring to "engines",
but he has also ruled out crossbows where William of Poitiers
is concerned, claiming only "the Carmen" mentions them:
Sources differ. That means that some are wrong.
No other source mentions crossbows. Which source is right.
and:
WoP doesn't know about crossbows. Which source is wrong?
He now admits he doesn't know what WoP had in mind with
*balistis*, but his monumental ego, which his allies
regularly project onto me, does not allow him
to either retract his earlier statements or even
admit that he has backed off them.
As for DSH, he hasn't even posted since Nov 28. Did
the other post I did yesterday from Deja.com also
escape your notice?
Or were you just waiting until it became safe to
respond on that sub-thread? Meaning, one
of the experienced Gans fans picked out exactly
which detail to respond to and to ignore the rest?
> Ravan
>--
>Ravan Asteris rasteris / at \ rahul / dot \ net
>(squish "/ and \" to make symbols like "&")
>http://www.rahul.net/rasteris/
I see you are another person who,
unlike me, is not averse to self-advertisement.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
David Debono
>"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>
>>David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote:
>>> Sadly (I must get a life!) I have actually read it all the way through
>>> and, although I sort of understand it, the post actually does not make
>>> any sense at all.
>
>>> David D.
>
>>Aha! You passed the reading comprehension test with
>>flying colors.
>
>Gans looks to be competing with David for
>the December award.
The name is Debono if you want to at least attemp to be consistent!
nyi...@math.sc.edu
> > In article <90ma2b$7au$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
> > For the longest time, I have avoided doing anything about that
website,
> > which was set up many years ago with no input from me, because
> > I hate doing anything that smacks of self-advertisement.
>
>Too late for excuses and for passing the buck.
It's YOU who are too late with this petty net.barbrism.
I've said the same thing about the same
website for years. Check Deja.com using
the keyword "self-advertisement".
> Who would allow himself to
>present such a slovenly face to the world
Get a sense of proportion, Suriol. Einstein, for instance,
generally looked a lot more slovenly than I did in that
picture.
By the way, how is it that you have decided to take
the unprecedented step of actually following up
to a post which I do in followup to you? Has
Gryphon801's fixation on underwear finally gotten
to you? I refer to your parting shot below:
> through his profession but someone
>with equally slovenly habits of thought and behavior. Your untidy
website
>reflects on you and on how often you change your underwear.
I bet I change it oftener than you did the last
time you were in Barcelona. When was that, anyway?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Matthew Harley
MARTIN REBOUL wrote:
> Matthew Harley wrote....
> >
> >
> > tiglath wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
> > > you pogues assign probabilities.
> > >
> > > 1......13.
> >
> > 14. The bear got him this time?
>
> Hmmmmm.....what IS he actually doing behind that bear? That smile - shudder - I
> don't think I really want to know.......
Funny, I was going to say something similar but demurred so as not to frighten the
horses!
Matt Harlet
Phyllis Gilmore
>
> >Talk.abortion and talk.origins?? Higher class??
>
> I said "generally". There are a few oddball cases in both
> newsgroups who even tiglath look high class in comparison,
> but they are few and far between.
I wouldn't even bother to go looking for intelligent conversation on
either group. Why? I have yet to meet a person who is genuinely
capable of divorcing intellect from emotion in discussing either topic.
It's rather annoying to see flaws in both--or, rather, all--sides of an
argument, and it's incredibly boring to see the same arguments trotted
out that were trotted out 20 or 30 years ago.
I'll keep my actual opinions to myself. They are, of course, wildly off
topic in this newsgroup.
Phyllis
Phyllis Gilmore
>
> It's YOU who are too late with this petty net.barbrism.
> I've said the same thing about the same
> website for years. Check Deja.com using
> the keyword "self-advertisement".
Heavens, he was just beating your buddy Hines to it. You probably
missed his nagging someone else for much the same thing.
Updating Web files is quite simple. The only way to present a view of
yourself that is accurate--self-advertisement in that particular context
not being inappropriate--is to do it yourself and to keep it up to date.
You are, after all, selling your knowledge to make your living.
Advertising pays.
Phyllis
Nell P. Wright
>In article <3a3007f9...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:54:16 GMT, Nell P. Wright
>> <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <90mj0d$5jh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>> >> In article <3a2dbfab...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>> >> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:00:45 +0000, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>
>...about my craftily worded question back in August,
>"Do you agree that the pun is the lowest form of humor?"
>
>> >> Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
>> >> faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
>> >> them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
Uh, Peter...I hate to burst your bubble, but...I didn't reply to that
post (or that remark) at all. BTW, I saw a few of those TGIF threads.
They were...painful.
>
>They featured puns galore by me.
>
>> Probably because he barely remembers some such title.
>
>But you do remember the punning around. You participated in
>one of the last of those threads, when I did a pun
>on the name of Wolfram Dachs, saying that he didn't
>seem to be a "refractory" person, nor did he "badger" me
>as much as most of the people responding to me in
>those days did.
>
>In German, "Wolfram" means "tungsten". As for Dachs, well,
>what animal was a dachshund bred to hunt?
>
>> >Nope. We're just familiar enough with your CYA, slippery,
>under-handed,
>> >carefully-worded style to see through it.
>
>Nell is lying. She flamed me because she thought
>I really did think puns were a low form of humor,
>and so did Gans. Check August in Deja.com.
I'm lying? I *flamed* you? Sheesh...see above. You better check deja
yourself.
>
>> > ("But I didn't actually *say*
>> >what it *looks* like I said" <spoken in incredulous,wide-eyed
>> >innocence>)
>
>Nell is off in la-la land. This was one of those very, very
>rare occasions where I threw people a curve, and
>Nell and Gans both were suckered into flaming me
>for being (so they thought) so humor-impaired
>as to have no appreciation for puns.
Well, you got one bit right, anyway, I do think you're humor-impaired.
I never commented on your appreciation or lack thereof of puns,
though. But don't worry, I'm sure I would have if I'd thought of it.
>
>> Well, that too.
>
>Brian, like Nell, is making a wild stab in the dark.
>Evidently both of them are hoping that some time
>in the past, I protested that I hadn't set any
>such trap and that I was merely misunderstood. But
>in fact, the post from which Nell deleted most of
>my account just now is the first post since August
>where this topic was mentioned. And I made no pretentions
>there.
Actually, I was commenting on your posting style in general...and in
specific, relating to your initial post on this thread and your
replies to the response you got.
Nell P. Wright
tiglath
"MARTIN REBOUL" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:IQTX5.1638$lw2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Matthew Harley wrote....
> >
> >
> > tiglath wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
> > > you pogues assign probabilities.
> > >
> > > 1......13.
> >
> > 14. The bear got him this time?
>
> Hmmmmm.....what IS he actually doing behind that bear? That smile -
shudder - I
> don't think I really want to know.......
>
This reminds me...
This salesman walks into a country pub, sits at the bar, sullen, looking
into space. A local approaches and asks "What's wrong?" "Not good,"
replies the salesman, "I sell tractors and this month I haven't sold a
single one." "That's nothing," the local says, "I am a farmer and this
morning I was milking Daisy the cow. As I started milking her she kicked me
with the hind leg. It hurt like hell. I got up and tied her leg to the
stall. Just as I sat down to milk her again she kicked me with her other
leg. Right in the shin. I went around and tied her other leg to the
bench. Thinking I was safe I started milking her again, but she swung her
tail around and whipped me right in the forehead. I was mad. I got a
piece of rope and tied her tail to the rafters. Now, good man, if you can
convince my wife I was gonna milk that cow, I'll buy a tractor from you."
tiglath
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:90mj0d$5jh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [No Hines posts since Nov 28. Could he be having
> ISP problems?]
No.
Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
you pogues assign probabilities.
1. He sank.
2. Triple By-Pass.
3. Lightning Strike.
4. Arrested (finally).
5. Murdered.
6. Test (to see how much we really miss him).
7. Electrocuted (adding RAM to firewall while soaking feet).
8. New job with Allstate (commission, no salary).
9. Mangled fingers (crab bite)
10. Exhaustion (volunteer counting tour in Florida).
11. Medical complications (facelift, lipo)
12 Convalescence (face down, surgical removal of giant coleopteran
from large intestine).
13. Hit by locomotive (playing hop-scotch on rail track drunk).
tiglath
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3a2dabb9...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:57:08 -0500, Jon Meltzer
> <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I had thought that intellectual standards at American universities
> >were low, but this is pathetic. How did this man ever get tenure?
>
(or,
> I hasten to add, preclude) good sense or good manners.
>
Refreshing exception to "dog doesn't eat dog" rule.
Phyllis Gilmore
> In article <3A2D9DCD...@cwcom.net>, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
> writes
> >Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
> >now
> >have no job. You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
> >a) far too stupid to go out to work
> >b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
>
Renia, I'm sorry about the job, but if they dump on you, it's usually a
good thing to get moving. (It is, however, much more satisfying if you
have obtained the next job first. It's particularly effective on the
old employer if the new job is an improvement.)
Either at work or here, you don't really need to suffer fools.
Especially not a certain fool in SC.
Phyllis
Dave Hinz
: Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
: you pogues assign probabilities.
I'd just like to say this - the resident kook of comp.unix.admin,
a certain "Rev. Don Kool", has also gone missing. While his writing
style is considerably different from Dispencer, they're both cut from
the same cloth.
Perhaps there is a net.kooks convention somewhere that they have
both gone to?
Dave Hizn
Nell P. Wright
dh...@earth.execpc.com (Dave Hinz) wrote:
> tiglath (tig...@usa.net) wrote:
>
> : Here are a few choices for the silence of the unsinkable Mr. Hines;
> : you pogues assign probabilities.
>
> I'd just like to say this - the resident kook of comp.unix.admin,
> a certain "Rev. Don Kool", has also gone missing.
Really? Now *there's* some good news. I stopped reading c.u.a. because I
got so tired of wading through all his Gary Burnore garbage...
> While his writing
> style is considerably different from Dispencer, they're both cut from
> the same cloth.
They sure are...
>
> Perhaps there is a net.kooks convention somewhere that they have
> both gone to?
Now if only Peter would join them...
Nell P. Wright
>
> Dave Hizn
nyi...@math.sc.edu
sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:54:16 GMT, Nell P. Wright
> <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <90mj0d$5jh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
> >> In article <3a2dbfab...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> >> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:00:45 +0000, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
> >> >wrote:
...about my craftily worded question back in August,
"Do you agree that the pun is the lowest form of humor?"
> >> Paul Gans and Nell P. Wright fell for it, though. And Brian,
> >> faithful Gans lackey that he is, didn't tell
> >> them about the T.G.I.F. threads in talk.origins.
They featured puns galore by me.
> Probably because he barely remembers some such title.
But you do remember the punning around. You participated in
one of the last of those threads, when I did a pun
on the name of Wolfram Dachs, saying that he didn't
seem to be a "refractory" person, nor did he "badger" me
as much as most of the people responding to me in
those days did.
In German, "Wolfram" means "tungsten". As for Dachs, well,
what animal was a dachshund bred to hunt?
> >Nope. We're just familiar enough with your CYA, slippery,
under-handed,
> >carefully-worded style to see through it.
Nell is lying. She flamed me because she thought
I really did think puns were a low form of humor,
and so did Gans. Check August in Deja.com.
> > ("But I didn't actually *say*
> >what it *looks* like I said" <spoken in incredulous,wide-eyed
> >innocence>)
Nell is off in la-la land. This was one of those very, very
rare occasions where I threw people a curve, and
Nell and Gans both were suckered into flaming me
for being (so they thought) so humor-impaired
as to have no appreciation for puns.
> Well, that too.
Brian, like Nell, is making a wild stab in the dark.
Evidently both of them are hoping that some time
in the past, I protested that I hadn't set any
such trap and that I was merely misunderstood. But
in fact, the post from which Nell deleted most of
my account just now is the first post since August
where this topic was mentioned. And I made no pretentions
there.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
nyi...@math.sc.edu
who show that "tiglath" had it exactly backwards
when he wrote that "Peter...vent[s]
his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not."
In fact, it is a large number of people here who attack
me indiscriminately, whether I have offended them or
not. Phyllis Gilmore, whom I have only responded to
once, with an explanation of where a quote came from,
is one example.
As for David Pugh, I don't recall ever following up to
him at all, yet he joins in the feeding frenzy in this
thread:
In article <cIHX5.1965$9B.5...@news1.oke.nextra.no>,
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> > It would give me great pleasure pushing you into a corner and going
> to
> > town on you. An intellectual and ethical pygmie like you deserves
> no
> > respect or quarter. You are unfunny, uneducated, and no matter how
> > much maths you know, you remain a lousy human being. I suggest a
> > long vacation in Uganda.
> >
>
> And what have the Ugandans done to you to deserve such a fate? :-)
>
> David
What have *I* done to deserve this treatment at your
hands, David?
nyi...@math.sc.edu
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > gryph...@aol.com (Gryphon801) writes:
>
> >>And while in Uganda, please expose yourself to the Ebola virus and
AIDS.
>
> > Don't y'all just *love* the way Gryphon801 has been
> > getting in tune with the holiday spirit?
>
>
> apology.
No, you owe her an apology for misleading her into
thinking that I'm an ogre who deserves to be insulted
gratuitously day in and day out.
Renia started hitting me with insults way back when
I was patiently discussing a purely on-topic question
of pursuits of beaten enemies in the night. Instead
of voicing disagreement with me, she hit me with
one insult after another, and I bore them all
with great patience.
Contrast that with the way your toadies hit on
Mari-Sue Gregory for daring to say she thought
you and Hines "equally silly". Then look at the
bilge your ally Gryphon801 posts about treating "a lady".
Did he lift a finger in Mari-Sue's aid? Hah! I was
the only person gallant enough to expose the dirty
debating tricks people were using against her.
It was in the holiday spirit that I went so easy on
someone who has been posting gratuitous
insults of me for months, while I only started
giving back as good as I got less than two weeks ago,
in the thread where the posts
for this award were taken. And I could have been
infinitely harder on her than I was. You are taking
cynical advantage of the fact that your toadies censored
almost everything I wrote in the posts that started
this thread, and the posts I did via Deja.com yesterday. You are
trying, by your vicious attacks
on me, to create the impression that I posted something
utterly different from what I actually posted.
But then, you are Paul Gans. Such behavior is
completely normal for you.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer--
Peter Nyikos
his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not."
People like Phyllis, whom I never said an unkind
word to, are very numerous in this newsgroup.
Phyllis Gilmore <gil...@rand.org> writes:
>> In article <3A2D9DCD...@cwcom.net>, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
>> writes
>> >Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
>> >now
>> >have no job. You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
>> >a) far too stupid to go out to work
>> >b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
If Renia is sincere, she has completely misunderstood
what I have posted in this thread, beginning with
the word "simulation".
I've commented on that already: If she had played it cool instead of
posting what she did here, she
could have convinced ANYONE that she was actually shooting
for the award and hadn't meant a single word she wrote
in the award-winning post. That it was all a spoof, done to see
how I would react.
>Renia, I'm sorry about the job, but if they dump on you, it's usually a
>good thing to get moving. (It is, however, much more satisfying if you
>have obtained the next job first. It's particularly effective on the
>old employer if the new job is an improvement.)
Of course. I do hope Renia finds a new one soon.
>Either at work or here, you don't really need to suffer fools.
>Especially not a certain fool in SC.
Fools are easy to suffer; it is knaves I find it very
hard to put up with.
You, Phyllis, are confusing my failure to suffer knaves
gladly with something even worse than failure to
suffer fools gladly.
You are perhaps under the mistaken impression that I gratuitously
insult people like Renia, where the truth is that *she*
gratuitously insulted me for months while I said nothing
nasty to or about her until the very end of November, and that only
in two posts, neither of which is actually in this thread.
But wait...if you still have me killfiled, all this will
probably never be seen by you, and the people who keep
attacking me on this thread will make sure of that by
keeping very little hint of it in their replies.
Esse Quam Videri
Dum Spiro Spero
MARTIN REBOUL
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote
> The usual thing people say about that photo
> is that I look like Don Knotts.
Wasn't he once wicket keeper for Hampshire?
> Of course, that's in newsgroups with a generally higher class of
> clientele than tiglath; newsgroups like talk.abortion
> and talk.origins.
Ooooh! You sure do know how to hit below the belt Peteypoos! That wasn't very
nice - you may damage poor Tiglath's confidence badly with such unkind words.
You must understand that the likes of us would never dare to match our wits with
the awesome intelligences that dominate such classy and intellectual NG's as
'talk.abortion' and 'talk.origins'! Down 'ere we had a vote and decide you were
a dead ringer for Gollum.
> Of course, it doesn't take much to be higher class than
> tiglath.
Peter! How rude.....
> >If you don't believe me check http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/
(If you want a good laugh!)
> For the longest time, I have avoided doing anything about that website,
> which was set up many years ago with no input from me, because
> I hate doing anything that smacks of self-advertisement.
>
> People who accuse me of being conceited, having a big ego,
> etc. are just saying in a roundabout way that they don't
> like me. Nothing more, nothing less.
That isn't correct, and I won't have that! You have absolutely no reason to have
a big ego for one thing. And I certainly don't like you just because you are the
silly, rude, confused and conceited pratt which you are. Some of your character
traits are actually quite appealing even so - for instance your stubborn
stupidity, which coupled with othe faults makes you such a laughing stock. Not
to laugh with of course, to laugh at. That could even be seen as generosity on
your part by some.....
> >He seems to have written some 77 papers: 5 about maths and 72
> >snoozers.
>
> >http://www.math.sc.edu/people/nyikos/publications_nyikos.html
>
> No, the other 72 are about math, except for two which are
> about medicine:
Had to be arithmetic really - what other subject warrants 72 papers entitled
"zzzzzzzz"? (See Website!)
> (with H. Champion, W. Sacco, W. Long, H. Smith, R. A. Cowley, W. Gill)
> ``Indications for early haemodialysis in multiple trauma", _The
> Lancet_,
> June 8, 1974
> (with H.R. Chamption, Weinstein, W. Long, W. Sacco, R. A. Cowley, W.
> Gill)
> ``Serum osmolality in seriously injured patients", Md. Medical J.
> March 1978, 62-65.
>
> I think I will finally succumb
> and put the bibliographical information about it and the other 70 in,
> because that does provide some service to the profession.
>
> I'd post the whole 72 here, except that I'm afraid that
> would count as cruelty to shrimps, or whatever. ;-)
Do you all see what I mean? Who could call this man conceited, I ask you!
> Some of it reminded me of one thing: in all the time covered by
> Deja.com, only two posts by Hines feature the word "lavender",
> and in neither of them was it written by him. Anyone want to bet how
> often "retired attorney" [read: Brooklyn Bridge salesman]
> Gryphon801 has used the word to accuse Hines of being obsessed
> with lavender underwear?
>
> And HE talks about defamation? (pout, pout, pout, sticks out chin and
sulks.....)
I'm still waiting - what IS your IQ Pete?
cheers
Martin
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>[...]
>> But of course, you know even *that* wasn't nearly as bad
>> as what you wrote in those memorable posts on the virgin
>> Mary, flaming me right and left over issues I never disagreed
>> with you about in the first place.
>[...]
Now Gans does a low-IQ simulation, confusing "issues"
with "Gans", as in "Comrade Gans is always right":
>I'd love to see a post from you where you indicated that
>you never disagreed with me in the first place.
The issues on which I never disagreed with you were
that Southern was a very competent historian, and
that attitudes of people towards Mary changed
during the middle ages.
You kept pretending those were the issues, when
the main issue on which we disagreed was what
I am convinced was a momentary lapse by Southern:
according to the views which were generally prevalent
the lack of relics of the Virgin (whose body had been
carried straight to heaven) was an obstacle to an
independent intervention in these miraculous happenings.
--_The Making of the Middle Ages_, p. 247
>I'll not trouble the good folks here for their recollections.
...because they left that issue of disagreement
to be a strictly one-on-one between us. You are banking
on nobody else having paid close attention to
what that issue was.
>They have them and will judge this accordingly. But I
>labored under the impression that you demanded sources
>for my statements,
The only statement about Mary for which I kept
demanding sources was the one by Southern.
> and when they were given,
You never gave one corroborating that singular statement
by Southern, despite repeated challenges.
Your sources were only for the two claims that we
never disagreed on.
Of course, you pretended for all
you were worth that those were the points of disagreement.
You kept pretending thru a whole sequence of posts
that those were the things we disagreed on, while
doing a broken record routine on Southern's singular
claim being common knowledge:
http://x55.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=689724729
http://x55.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=690734359
http://x55.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=690966659
>After all, if you were not disagreeing, what were all those
>posts of yours about?
See above, Comrade Napoleon-Gans.
>I gather that you have since discovered that you were wrong
>in your opinion: that what I said was common knowlege among
>students of western Catholicism was in fact common knowlege.
What shameless obfuscation!
You very belatedly shifted your use of the term
"common knowledge" to something we never disagreed
on, after having used it umpteen times to refer
to Southern's statement quoted above, which you never supported
with any evidence at all.
You wrote the book on obfuscation, Gans. Nobody
I've ever encountered on Usenet is as flagrant
in laying it on as you are. Even
the notorious James Keegan of talk.abortion
wasn't this flagrant about it.
If you don't know much about Keegan, your old ally
"MoE", a.k.a. Chris Carrell, can fill you in, along
with David Iain Greig.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
MARTIN REBOUL
nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote.....
>
> ...about my craftily worded question back in August,
> "Do you agree that the pun is the lowest form of humor?"
> They featured puns galore by me.
What a witty wacky 'laugh a minute' fellow you are Peter, under that drab,
stolid, crusty, humourless shell! As any fule kno, sarcasm is the lowest form of
wit. Wit = humour? Or is one a subset of the other? How would you know anyway?
Paul J. Gans
You won't offend me. I'll say it: I had web pages
up that had not been updated in MONTHS. I still have
such web pages.
Hines gave me an enormous hard time about it. Implied all
sorts of things.
I was crushed. Absolutely crushed. I went right out and
updated some of those pages. And I'm sure he took credit
for it.
The subject of those web pages has nothing to do with anything,
of course....
By the way, in a very slightly more serious mode, do any of
you recall when Hines was claiming that I'd been relieved
of teaching honors classes because of complaints from the
students? How come he never repeated those complaints once
it became clear that I was teaching an honors course again?
<grin> <grin>
And, oh yes, Peter: you need not bother yourself about
these ad hominem attacks on Hines. We all understand that
what he wrote back then did not mean what we read it to
mean. Just as saying that I took material posted by others
and published it as my own is not an accusation of plagiarism.
----- Paul J. Gans
Renia
> gryph...@aol.com (Gryphon801) writes:
>
> >Lavender underwear or otherwise, I suppose it could stand washing.
>
> Hines's? Why do you have such a fetish about
> associating lavendar underwear with him, anyway?
Because DSH accused Gryphon of wearing lavender underwear, which, of
course, as you know, is a euphamism for calling him/her an homosexual.
> > And yes,
> >Dr. Nyikos, I do have more degrees than you.
>
> All the greater disgrace, then, to behave like you do
> in this newsgroup.
>
> And why the formality? Why do you suddenly address
> a person you have been uniformly treating like dirt
> "Dr. Nyikos"? Peter or Peter or Nyikos is fine with me.
>
> > Nor would I ever address a lady
> >as you have seen fit to do,
>
> Careful--she may be enough of a feminist to object
> to being called "a lady".
You have said this in several of these posts. No, I do not object to
being called a "lady", whether I am a feminist or not. As, in real life,
I generally behave like a lady, then I generally expect to be treated as
one, and I usually am. Only the people who have met me will know whether
or not my behaviour is "ladylike". We could now go into definitions of
"what is a lady?", but simply, here, and in real life, it boils down to
respect. If one treats others with respect, then that respect is usually
returned.
> >to your disgrace.
>
> Are you objecting to my calling her "Renia" instead of
> "Ms. PSimmonds"?
I would not attempt to read Gryphon's mind, as you tend to do with
certain people, but I shouldn't think in the least that s/he has even
noticed how you style me, or others, here. S/he merely comments, as do
we all, on your attitude to me, and to others. A matter of respect, as I
said, above.
> By the way, is she Russian, or Greek, to be using a
> first initial of P in her address? :-)
P is for Peter. This is my husband's email account. I use my own account
for other matters. Not that it is any business of yours. I do not see
why having an initial and a surname together in an email address even
begins to imply that someone is of a particular nationality. That makes
for rather a strange logic. (And I am of Polish extraction.)
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
What is there to disclaim?
Renia
Renia
> In article <7RTX5.14$Ph4...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > > gryph...@aol.com (Gryphon801) writes:
> >
> > >>And while in Uganda, please expose yourself to the Ebola virus and
> AIDS.
> >
> > > Don't y'all just *love* the way Gryphon801 has been
> > > getting in tune with the holiday spirit?
> >
> > > Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> >
> > Explain holiday spirit to Renia, to whom you owe an
> > apology.
>
> No, you owe her an apology for misleading her into
> thinking that I'm an ogre who deserves to be insulted
> gratuitously day in and day out.
No-one mislead me into believing that you are such a person. You did that
all by yourself. Not that I think you are an ogre. Far from it. You are
not at all frightening. You may be exceedingly clever, but you are
dangerously illogical.
> Renia started hitting me with insults way back when
> I was patiently discussing a purely on-topic question
> of pursuits of beaten enemies in the night. Instead
> of voicing disagreement with me, she hit me with
> one insult after another, and I bore them all
> with great patience.
I did not insult you. That is your perception. It is quite possible that
the way you perceive people's posts here, is quite different to the way
others perceive them. If others can see certain posts as amusing, or take
them with a pinch of salt, or ignore them, or realise that they are part
of a long-standing debate, or have a long history, then it is your problem
if you cannot see them in the same light. My initial reaction to you, like
many others, was to ignore you. Which is how it should have stayed.
However, (and this is from memory) you did barge in here, in the middle of
such a long-standing debate, pulling people's posts to pieces for no
apparent reason, with much interjection of URLs which you seemed to expect
everyone to wade through. It was this constant barrage of URLs to which I
objected.
> Contrast that with the way your toadies hit on
> Mari-Sue Gregory for daring to say she thought
> you and Hines "equally silly". Then look at the
> bilge your ally Gryphon801 posts about treating "a lady".
> Did he lift a finger in Mari-Sue's aid? Hah! I was
> the only person gallant enough to expose the dirty
> debating tricks people were using against her.
You have a long memory, possibly much longer than that of many people's on
here. I imagine that there are many such posts which you will continute to
trawl up for months after they have disappeared of people's newsreaders,
and for months after people have forgotten them. People are here to
generally discuss medieval history, and sometimes take part in a bit of
banter, such as the debate as to what sort of hand-grenades were available
at Hastings.
> It was in the holiday spirit that I went so easy on
> someone who has been posting gratuitous
> insults of me for months, while I only started
> giving back as good as I got less than two weeks ago,
This is rubbish. From the moment you stepped into this newsgroup, you have
done nothing but regurgitate other people's messages, declaring what you
see wrong with them, and moaning why people do not respond to you. This, I
am afraid, gets very tedious. I meant it when I said I fell asleep reading
one of your posts.
> in the thread where the posts
> for this award were taken. And I could have been
> infinitely harder on her than I was. You are taking
> cynical advantage of the fact that your toadies censored
> almost everything I wrote in the posts that started
> this thread, and the posts I did via Deja.com yesterday. You are
> trying, by your vicious attacks
> on me, to create the impression that I posted something
> utterly different from what I actually posted.
As you do with everybody else's posts, Peter.
> But then, you are Paul Gans. Such behavior is
> completely normal for you.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer--
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Renia
Renia
> Tiglath got it backwards, as usual. He wrote: "Peter...vent[s]
> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of s.h.m.,
> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not."
>
> People like Phyllis, whom I never said an unkind
> word to, are very numerous in this newsgroup.
>
> Phyllis Gilmore <gil...@rand.org> writes:
>
> >> In article <3A2D9DCD...@cwcom.net>, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net>
> >> writes
> >> >Today, I was shat upon from a great height, at work. So I walked out. I
> >> >now
> >> >have no job. You have suceeded, Mr Nyikos, in convincing me, that I am
> >> >a) far too stupid to go out to work
> >> >b) far too stupid to take part in a newsgroup.
>
> If Renia is sincere, she has completely misunderstood
> what I have posted in this thread, beginning with
> the word "simulation".
The alternative meaning for "Below-50-IQ simulation of the month" award is "The
acting like an idiot" award. I do have the mensa-level capacity to
understanding that you did not actually think or state that I possess an IQ of
less than 50, but that I simulated the behaviour of a person of such a
low-level IQ.
> I've commented on that already: If she had played it cool
Now, why should I play it cool? (Rhetorical question.)
> instead of
> posting what she did here, she
> could have convinced ANYONE that she was actually shooting
> for the award
I would not "shoot" for such an award, particularly as I did not know that such
an award was forthcoming.
> and hadn't meant a single word she wrote
> in the award-winning post.
Which post you misunderstood and misconstrued because of your illogical
perceptions.
> That it was all a spoof, done to see
> how I would react.
I have no interest in seeing how you react. I have no interest in you.
> >Renia, I'm sorry about the job, but if they dump on you, it's usually a
> >good thing to get moving. (It is, however, much more satisfying if you
> >have obtained the next job first. It's particularly effective on the
> >old employer if the new job is an improvement.)
>
> Of course. I do hope Renia finds a new one soon.
I have negotiated to keep working for the same company, but as someone else
here said, it is time to move on.
> >Either at work or here, you don't really need to suffer fools.
>
> >Especially not a certain fool in SC.
>
> Fools are easy to suffer; it is knaves I find it very
> hard to put up with.
>
> You, Phyllis, are confusing my failure to suffer knaves
> gladly with something even worse than failure to
> suffer fools gladly.
You cannot put words into Phyllis's mouth. She was talking of fools, not
knaves. Whether you can tolerate fools better than knaves, has nothing to do
with how Phyllis or anyone else thinks of it. You cannot do what you usually
do, and rephrase what other people think or say, according to how you think
they should have said or phrased it. This is part of your illogical perception
problem. Phyllis said "you don't really need to suffer fools...", to which you
responded "You, Phyllis, are confusing my failure to suffer knaves gladly with
something even worse than failure to suffer fools gladly", which does not
follow. Phyllis is telling ME, Renia, not to suffer fools, which has nothing to
do with what you think of the matter. What you have tagged on to, however, is
the phrase "Especially not a certain fool in SC", which you don't like, because
it refers to you. So you declare that "fools are easy to suffer", meaning that
fools are just fine, particularly if you (Nyikos) are one. But, remember,
Phyllis wasn't talking to you. She was talking to me. So she could not possibly
be "confusing my (your) failure to suffer knaves gladly with something even
worse than failure to suffer fools gladly", unless of course, you are implying
something else. That is to say, unless you are replying to her apparent
objection to your giving me this award, and the only way you could be making
that link, is if you are trying to say that I am a "knave".
> You are perhaps under the mistaken impression that I gratuitously
> insult people like Renia, where the truth is that *she*
> gratuitously insulted me for months
Months. You have only been here a few weeks, and as I said above, I rarely, if
ever responded to you at first.
> while I said nothing
> nasty to or about her until the very end of November, and that only
> in two posts, neither of which is actually in this thread.
Doesn't matter what thread any of the posts are in, for this discussion. No,
Peter, you are not nasty. But you certainly seem to live in ignorance of the
effect you have on people. Your twisted posts are nit-pickingly boring and
unncessary. Hopefully, for your sake, your social interaction in *real life* is
far more attuned to the feelings of others.
> But wait...if you still have me killfiled, all this will
> probably never be seen by you,
It is now.
> and the people who keep
> attacking me
This is not an attack. It is a reply.
> on this thread will make sure of that by
> keeping very little hint of it in their replies.
>
> Esse Quam Videri
>
> Dum Spiro Spero
Ah! How pleasant. Some Latin to keep us going for a while.
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Renia
MARTIN REBOUL
Phyllis Gilmore wrote.......
> Updating Web files is quite simple. The only way to present a view of
> yourself that is accurate--self-advertisement in that particular context
> not being inappropriate--is to do it yourself and to keep it up to date.
Perish the thought of presenting an accurate view of myself! That's the beauty
of the keytboard and monitor - formidable weapons for defence and attack!
Paul J. Gans
>>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>>[...]
>>> But of course, you know even *that* wasn't nearly as bad
>>> as what you wrote in those memorable posts on the virgin
>>> Mary, flaming me right and left over issues I never disagreed
>>> with you about in the first place.
>>[...]
> Now Gans does a low-IQ simulation, confusing "issues"
> with "Gans", as in "Comrade Gans is always right":
>>I'd love to see a post from you where you indicated that
>>you never disagreed with me in the first place.
> The issues on which I never disagreed with you were
> that Southern was a very competent historian, and
> that attitudes of people towards Mary changed
> during the middle ages.
> You kept pretending those were the issues, when
> the main issue on which we disagreed was what
> I am convinced was a momentary lapse by Southern:
No Peter, you lie. I posted that bit by Southern
because YOU denied that there was any such change
in attitude toward Mary. You cited evidence from
an early synood to support your position. You
*demanded* evidence from me. So I fed you a very
small sliver.
After which you were rather rude to Sir Richard.
I can only assume that somebody has clued you in since
then.
[...]
----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Nyikos
obfuscation by Gans.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>In fact, as time goes on, you might even come to understand
>what I said about crossbows, ballistae, and Hastings. But
>I'm not holding my breath.
I understand what you said perfectly, it is only
the things you leave out while pretending to talk
about them that bother me. As I told
someone else earlier today, the viciousness of your
attacks on me on this thread is probably explained by
your desire to deflect attention from the fact that
I've caught you in a bare-faced lie:
I've backed off of nothing.
...in reference to two or three categorical, unequivocal
statements that he would dearly love to unsay, by
all available evidence:
I can't speak for Hastings. No _ballistae_ are mentioned in
the sources and that's all we have to go on.
I'll take your word that you were only referring to "engines",
but you also ruled out crossbows where William of Poitiers
is concerned, claiming only "the Carmen" mentions them:
Sources differ. That means that some are wrong.
No other source mentions crossbows. Which source is right.
and:
WoP doesn't know about crossbows. Which source is wrong?
You now admit you don't know what WoP had in mind with
*balistis*, but your monumental ego, which you
and your toadies and other allies
regularly project onto me, does not allow you
to either retract your earlier unequivocal statements or even
admit that you have backed off them.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
MARTIN REBOUL
nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote.......
> You are taking
> cynical advantage of the fact that your toadies censored
> almost everything I wrote in the posts that started
> this thread, and the posts I did via Deja.com yesterday. You are
> trying, by your vicious attacks
> on me, to create the impression that I posted something
> utterly different from what I actually posted.
Sorry to have to repeat this yet again, but I never have received an answer from
you on this Peter. Let me refresh your jaded memory..........
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote ..........
> That is not, IMO, the case with the winner,
> who often seemed quite intelligent in November.
> In fact, for a long time, I thought the award
> would go either to Captain Wolf or Martin Reboul.
> The latter even tried hard for the award, simulating
> incomprehension of the word "Simulator" and writing
> about himself things like,
>
> How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
I'm very glad indeed you've brought this up - you couldn't possibly have fallen
into a trap through your deliciously satisfying stupidity and hypocrisy, if I
had actually bothered to set one! In fact, for one who seems as obsessed with IQ
ratings and intelligence levels as DSH is with bottoms, your foolishness
astounds me.............no need for traps at all, just stand back and watch you
trip over your own feet!
How many times have we all heard you bleat, whinge and whine about your remarks
being taken out of context, and your 'carefully crafted arguments and flawless
logic' (sorry, sarcasm.....a weakness of mine) being destroyed by snipping,
clipping and editing? You accuse people of lying (a very nasty word in my book)
for doing such things. So let's have a look at the line you quoted above......
"How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,"
I wrote it, true. But who was the boy in question......? Not me, but a character
named Internet-Barbarian major. That is besides the point however. The actual
meaning of those words, taken out of context, hardly compares with the
implication of the sentence it was snipped from :-
"How the Hell did this boy, with a suspected IQ of well under 50,
manage to make such a fool out of him (Professor Nyikos) every sodding
time...?!?!?"
How very VERY appropriate! As for the meaning of ".....simulating
incomprehension of the word "Simulator"...", I'm afraid I really am completely
baffled, but I expect I'm not the only one.
I think a little test is called for here to labour the point properly.........
Can you make a sentence out of these words:-
OWN WITH PETARD HIS HOIST
Haven't you worked it out yet? I'll have to make them even easier I think......
MARTIN REBOUL
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:90p9od$cf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ooooh! Pout pout simper pout sulk rage! All you had to do is behave in the way
you have done Peter. Look back through your postigs and think about it -
honestly (one of your favourite words). Ask yourself. If you can't figure it
out, I'll tell you next time.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <90p6lu$a1u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>> >Talk.abortion and talk.origins?? Higher class??
>> I said "generally". There are a few oddball cases in both
>> newsgroups who even tiglath look high class in comparison,
>> but they are few and far between.
>I wouldn't even bother to go looking for intelligent conversation on
>either group. Why? I have yet to meet a person who is genuinely
>capable of divorcing intellect from emotion in discussing either topic.
In all seriousness, there are a few in talk.origins who at least come
very close; all of them are also extremely intelligent and
well-informed. (There are many more of the other sort, of course.)
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Paul J. Gans
> <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:90p9od$cf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Ooooh! Pout pout simper pout sulk rage! All you had to do is behave in the way
> you have done Peter. Look back through your postigs and think about it -
> honestly (one of your favourite words). Ask yourself. If you can't figure it
> out, I'll tell you next time.
As I've said before, he honestly can't. I suspect, as I've
also said before, that early on Peter was forced to rely
on his own mind to lead him. It served him well in math
and possibly in life too.
Sadly, he developed an over-dependence on his own analysis
of things. At some point he gave up what we call "reality
checks". It is really rather upsetting to read a post from
a grown man sadly bemoaning the fact that nobody seems to
like him very much. He'll never look to his own behavior
since in *his* mind his behavior is quite decent.
I don't know if there is a psychological term for this
loss of "reality check". One of the clues that most
folks here picked up on right away was his defence of
Mr. Hines. Mr. Hines is considered a pain in the rear
on a modest number of newsgroups, alt.talk.english,
alt.english.talk, talk.origins, soc.history.medieval,
and with one or two defenders, soc.genealogy.medieval.
Most folks, knowing this, would exercise a bit of
caution thinking that such a large and disparate
group of folks could not *all* be wrong. Not Peter.
He looked at several Hines posts and, finding nothing
wrong with them (in his mind, at least) proceeded to
decide that we were all picking on him without
evidence. And then Peter wonders why folks think
*him* strange.
Self-reliance is wonderful, as is being clever. But
both can get out of hand -- as most of us have long
since learned in life.
So yes. I twit Peter. I've been doing it for four
or more years. He has followed me here from talk.origins
and I apologize for that, though it was not by my
choice. I shouldn't twit Peter. It is not nice
of me. But I'm human and it is so simple: all one
has to do is affect a certain kind of mock sincerity
and he'll bite every time.
The result is sad. I end up defending him. He really
does not think he insulted Renia. He really does think
that Hines did not accuse me of plagiarism. That's the
sad part. If he was putting it on, he'd be an easier
target. But he's not.
----- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
><nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote
>> The usual thing people say about that photo
>> is that I look like Don Knotts.
>Wasn't he once wicket keeper for Hampshire?
Hmph. Sure you don't mean Alan Knott, formerly wicketkeeper for Kent
and England?
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Wolf
: On 8 Dec 2000 05:39:14 GMT, capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.org
: (Wolf) wrote:
: [...]
:>Even Josh Geller is higher class than you and I
:>dislike him intensely.
: You have excellent taste, assuming that he's the queer duck who
: occasionally wanders into sci.archaeology, usually (IIRC) from one
: soc.culture.native or the like.
Only if he has the habit of saying "Shut up and go away." alot.
: [...]
:>: Anyone want to bet how
:>: often "retired attorney" [read: Brooklyn Bridge salesman]
:>: Gryphon801 has used the word to accuse Hines of being obsessed
:>: with lavender underwear?
:>Just like Mathmatics Professor should be read as math teacher?
: Hey, I'll take it: I consider my occupation to be 'teacher'.
<G>And you quite probably do a 4377 of a better job of it than either DSH
did or PN does.
: [...]
: Brian M. Scott
Have a good one Brian.
Wolf
Bard
--
Dolor ad tempus est.
Sanatur vulni.
Cicatrices amantur a scortillis.
http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm
tiglath
Dave Hinz <dh...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3a2fcc62$0$78104$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Perhaps the Gods of Olympus and Parnasus got off their duffs and
decided to weed the idiots out of this world.
Phyllis Gilmore
> In fact, it is a large number of people here who attack
> me indiscriminately, whether I have offended them or
> not. Phyllis Gilmore, whom I have only responded to
> once, with an explanation of where a quote came from,
> is one example.
Peter, it is indeed a great pity that you see me as attacking
"indiscriminantly." That you have only responded to me once is actually
quite interesting. I've been trying to decide if you were actively
ignoring me or didn't understand what I've been trying to tell you.
I suspect that some combination of both is true. So let me explain my
involvement.
This is a wildly public forum, which I've been reading off and on for a
couple of years. I've been reading long enough to learn to respect and
even like some people you have felt the need to attack. Simple
disagreement would not have upset me. I have argued with some of them
myself (most recently with Tiglath in a largely OT thread).
What offends me, Peter, is your complete inability to understand the
basics of rhetoric and argument--in a way that often falls into
nonsensical abusiveness. You seem incapable of carrying on a logical
argument outside your field of expertise. In your failure to recognize
this, you descend into childishness. Your debating skills are even more
poorly developed than your social skills.
The IQ award you invented is a patent example. It should be clear that
most of us understood what Renia was about, regardless of how well or
poorly she might have worded it. You clearly did not. As a result,
your poorly calculated insult came off looking like the sneering of a
playground bully-wannabe. In short, you hurt both Renia and yourself.
Back when I was studying math, I generally got at least some credit for
what I did correctly, even if the answer was off a tad because of poor
arithmetic. If one of your students supplies a numerical result of 6055
instead of 6054, despite performing all previous steps of the
calculation perfectly, do you call him a liar? Do you tell him he's
nearly as stupid as dirt? What if he chances upon the right result, but
his methods are wrong? Do you applaud the answer and ignore the flawed
math?
It would be well for you to ponder the fact that the social sciences,
history, language, and literature lack the neat black-and-white of
mathematics. Indeed, I would further suggest that some of the topics
you consider so topic outside this particular forum fall into the same
general category. There is often single "right" answer. The language
used to discuss these should often be couched in terms of probability
and possibility, not certainty. And in some areas, the wise and logical
mind cannot and should not come to a "conclusion" at all but should heed
the "insufficient data" message flashing in the mind's computer.
Now, go and take your blood pressure medicine.
Phyllis
tiglath
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:90pbkk$12...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
> Tiglath got it backwards, as usual. He wrote: "Peter...vent[s]
> his Promethean indignation with the universe on the people of
s.h.m.,
> indiscriminately, whether they have offended him or not."
Full professor doesn't know yet that a quotation (the text between
double quote characters) must be exactly the same as that written by
the person being quoted. Deletions and additions to the quotation are
surrounded by brackets. You would think that someone who claims to
have published 77 papers would either know that or would have
discovered it from his copy editor. Doing otherwise is misquoting.
A sin way above typos. This is part of the sloppiness now
characteristic of this poster. Not a surprise from someone who
owns up to an unkempt piece of garbage as Mr. Nyikos web page -- his
professional calling card to the world.
tiglath
Phyllis Gilmore <gil...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:gilmore-C19EC9.11163108122000@News...
[...]
> What offends me, Peter, is your complete inability to
> understand the basics of rhetoric and argument--in a
> way that often falls into nonsensical abusiveness.
> You seem incapable of carrying on a logical
> argument outside your field of expertise. In your failure
> to recognize this, you descend into childishness.
> Your debating skills are even more
> poorly developed than your social skills.
[...]
Bravo.