chez watt nom August sesame street simplified

[Lawyer Daggett]

Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem

> For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
> of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
> first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."

[John Harshman]

Doesn't seem all that che wattish.

[Lawyer Daggett]

.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.

[erik simpson]

It's just Peter doing one of his chants. Nothing new there.

[John Harshman]

It's not that I don't find the claim ironic and self-refuting. It's just
that I don't find it at all interesting or amusing. Not even the irony
is enough to make it worth preservation.

[erik simpson]

Agreed. Peter has simply become boring; everything he says is stuff
we've heard before.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Removing the identification of the poster didn’t matter as it was trademark
stuff.

[Dexter]

----------------------------------

Is this one of Peter's other nyms?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Found this elsewhere on t.o.:

[begin]“For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track of

how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist first, a
propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."

You may comfort yourself, though, that two or three people in a mutual "see
no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with you are even worse
reasoners than yourself.

Then there is jillery, who found a way to duck questions in a way that
SIMULATES being a worse reasoner than you are. Her last reply to me on this
very thread exemplifies it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there is someone to whom I have been replying on the
thread "Taking the Possibility of an Afterlife Seriously" with whom it is
FAR easier to have a reasoned conversation than with you. In my next post
to that thread, I will try to have one with another participant.”[end]

"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" sounds like a familiar refrain.

[jillery]

It's yet another example of self-parody.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
> > > it's not just a memory problem
> > >
> > >> For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
> > >> of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
> > >> first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
> > >
> > Doesn't seem all that che wattish.

Of course it isn't. You, Daggett, are weaponizing Chez Watt
in a sneaky way: you use it to rip my statement out of the
context which justifies this reminder of the character
deficiencies of your hero.

> I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
> "support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
> accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
> self-nullifying,

Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."

> in as much as the number of times someone is accused
> of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.

It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.

> It is, in fact, a
> very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
> double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.

Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM

Inquiring minds want to know.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in
general. And when you accuse me of poor reasoning, it's incumbent on you
to explain exactly what's wrong with my reasoning.

Also, you shouldn't be claiming, much less crowing about, a slapdown or
any other victory, because it just makes you look insecure, in need of
self-validation and in fear that others might not agree.

Finally, it would be btter if you didn't speculate on other people's
motives for actions, especially when it requires the assumption that
they agree with your self-congratulation (above).

Take that as potentially helpful advice, not as an attack.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 20:02:40 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

>> Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07?PM

>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
>that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in
>general. And when you accuse me of poor reasoning, it's incumbent on you
>to explain exactly what's wrong with my reasoning.
>
>Also, you shouldn't be claiming, much less crowing about, a slapdown or
>any other victory, because it just makes you look insecure, in need of
>self-validation and in fear that others might not agree.
>
>Finally, it would be btter if you didn't speculate on other people's
>motives for actions, especially when it requires the assumption that
>they agree with your self-congratulation (above).
>
>Take that as potentially helpful advice, not as an attack.

The above is good advice to counter trolling generally, regardless of
who does it to whom.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It would also leave people blind to the fact that your reasoning abilities
are far below what is expected of a Ph.D. -- much less one from
one of the most prestigious university in the world. And they seem
to be getting worse instead of better. A prime example is in a whole
series of posts in sci.bio.paleontology in which you are even now involved.

It began with an abysmally stupid comment by you, an ornithologist, of all things:

"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."

When I called you out on this, you could easily have said something
like the following, with no loss of face:

"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."

But your hubris would not let you do that, and a mockery of reasoning by you ensued:

______________________________ excerpt from reply to you, preceded by an earlier comment by me ____________

> > "It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
> >
> > So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
> > now that you have eliminated their beaks?

> You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
> clear.

There is no other way to read the comment, liar.

>(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)

Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having
that word go like water off a duck's back.]


> As I said,

You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.

> all birds have
> beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
> beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
> early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
> birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer
> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did
> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
>
> (It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
> might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their
> noses.)

>
> So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?

Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.

===================== end of excerpt =======================
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/bdabLv4VBQAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 18, 2023, 9:50:39 PM

In your reply to the above post, you tried to bail out with a two-liner, in a way that you have done many times
during the last dozen years -- except that this time you preceded your typical spiel with an outright lie:

"Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see
there's no point in talking to you." [documented in post linked below]

This was another mockery of reasoning: you "saw" nothing of the sort, as I immediately showed
you by giving a slightly different wording of what you might have written to save face:

"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark."


I also wrote something about your typical bail-out spiel.

"You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me."

--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/i3T5HqSCAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 23, 2023, 3:53:26 PM

And indeed, you've tried to lord it over me right here, all through the post to which this is the first
of several replies.


TO BE CONTINUED

[John Harshman]

I can only repeat: the very best parody is self parody.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You are following the recent talk.origins fad of using the concept of "self parody"
in a totally inappropriate way:

> I can only repeat: the very best parody is self parody.

Now, if you weren't addicted to mindlessly using the words
"self-parody," you would *immediately* have recognized that the real self-parody here is yours:

"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."

--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/pcvzP5UTBAAJ
[also quoted from above]

It's perfect: you have a Ph.D in ornithology of extant birds,
from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

If you can't see why this is a perfect example of self-parody,
then you are either (1) more deficient in reason than even I thought you were, or
(2) you are already suffering amnesia over what I suggested to you way up there,
as a graceful way of extricating yourself from your self-parody:

"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I don't think you understand what self-parody is. But you really should
start taking my advice, the advice you ignored considerably above. Do
you a world of good.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Do you have the minimal backbone to tell me what YOU mean
by the term?

By the way, do you have any idea what jillery means by it?
She was the first one I saw using it.

Me, I take the term literally: parodying the usual things
for which one is known. You are known for being an expert in
ornithology, but your faux pas is a MAD Magazine style
parody on that status.

>But you really should
> start taking my advice, the advice you ignored considerably above. Do

> [me, John Harshman, and the others posting to this thread besides you]
a world of good.

Fixed what you wrote to make it sincere, in brackets.

By the way, you might have thought you were off the hook on the
sci.bio.paleontology thread where this all started, but you aren't.
In the following post I did about an hour ago, I included some inoffensive things
so you won't be starved for on-topic material, but then I went on to show
in detail how your *hubris* led to your downfall:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/loRVCR-wAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged


TO BE CONTINUED


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I've been very busy with on-topic discussions and debates on OOL and evolution
(origin of life, a.k.a. abiogenesis) but I've decided that this, the last day of August,
is as good a time as any to resume the string of replies to this Harshman post.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> >>>> Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
> >>>> it's not just a memory problem
> >>>>
> >>>>> For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
> >>>>> of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
> >>>>> first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
> >>>>
> >>> Doesn't seem all that che wattish.

<snip for focus>

> >> I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
> >> "support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
> >> accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
> >> self-nullifying,
> >
> > Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
> > has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."

> >> in as much as the number of times someone is accused
> >> of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
> >
> > It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
> > had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
> >
> >
> > > It is, in fact, a
> >> very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
> >> double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
> >
> > Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
> > to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
> > post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
> > Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
> > Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM
> >
> > Inquiring minds want to know.

<snip of paragraph dealt with in earlier replies, to get to a Daggett-serving display of pop psychology>

> Also, you shouldn't be claiming, much less crowing about, a slapdown or
> any other victory, because it just makes you look insecure, in need of
> self-validation and in fear that others might not agree.

Daggett knows what he wrote, and he has been availing himself of his
right to remain silent ever since I wrote that August 8 reply to him, both here
and on the original thread.

Below, I show what he is remaining silent about. I suggest you start with
the part that has only one or no attribution marks in the left margin,
and go back to the older text if you are curious about the overall context.


On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Replying to a post Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:26:02 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > On 8/2/23 10:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > > > > peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:10:39 AM UTC-4, Ron.Dean wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 7/12/23 7:59 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > This is my second reply to this post. The concluding reply will come
> > > > either tomorrow or early next week.
> >
> > > Rather than wait, I'm taking this opportunity to announce this here.
> > > If you ever pull this crap on me again, chopping up a post and replying
> > > to it in multiple parts, I won't respond. It's an obnoxious behavior laden
> > > with self-glorification on your part. So when you feel the need to spew
> > > your nonsense and be assured I won't bother to debunk it, go ahead and
> > > split up your response into multiple parts. But understand that just about
> > > nobody else does what you do, and you'll be discrediting yourself.
> >
> > This is highly reminiscent of the post for which I nominated you for July Chez Watt:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/BzTo5u_f6t4/m/04o4TlgdBQAJ
> >
> > Almost exactly the same length, with simulated exasperation [compare:
> > "That is an absolutely horrible analogy."], and a last sentence that
> > is almost as farfetched as the last one there.
> >
> > However, I will not nominate it for an August Chez Watt, and I hope no one
> > else does either. I don't want to risk it being taken literally by more people than have already done so.
> > I have been an educator all my adult life, and to literally do as you say would be turning my back on my essential nature.
> >
> > You do understand, don't you?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos, The Outlier
> >
> > PS That nickname is inspired by Mark Isaak's correction of an earlier
> > derogatory word that he had used. It fits your last sentence like a glove.

> As it's become a topic of sorts, your response here is delusional.

Nonsense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
while making my very serious point abundantly clear in that long line ending
in the words "essential nature."


> I wasn't joking. You amazingly did recognize a prior post where I
> did make a joke about auto-repair. It was an obvious joke, and you
> seemed so proud to have recognized that.

Mistaken/insincere "seemed so proud" put-down noted.
It took Ernest Major's encouragement to give me the courage
to actually nominate your post. Even so, it was almost
a day before I hit upon a Category that didn't detract from the
brilliant surrealism of your post.


> But it seems like you
> didn't quite grasp the joke.

Wishful thinking noted.

>
> And then there are a suite of posts where people criticize you
> and you defensively assert they must be joking,

"people" includes many, like yourself and Harshman,
who fit the description that I told Harshman about:

`One of several reasons why I describe you as being "The most cunningly dishonest person in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology" is that your comments run the entire spectrum from obvious jokes to shameless lies, with a gradualism that Darwin had hoped for evolution to follow.'
--https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/7SnK33k4AgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis


Don't get your hopes up for beating Harshman for that superlative, even within t.o.
There are other reasons he deserves it, and you don't come within a country mile
of fulfilling all of them.


> and further, if
> they don't explicitly deny they were joking that you win. Then,
> you play at more "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetorical games
> that seem to make you feel very clever.

You may think of talk.origins as a game, but I don't.
I treat it as a game (as in the OP) when I think there
is a chance of peaceful coexistence on the thread.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't wish for
peaceful coexistence. A sincere thanks to you for relieving
me of the burden of a one-sided striving for it with you.


> It's pathetic.

...glass houses...stones.


> Mostly, I feel like avoiding calling you on it because it seems
> like picking on the emotionally disturbed. I'm very sincere here.

You are gaslighting here, hence indulging in an antithesis of sincerity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

You tried to gaslight me in the same way on the subject of a song
you proudly displayed some words of, but I showed you just
how wrong you were about that.


> I often wonder if I should avoid all responses to you on mental
> health grounds.

More gaslighting, unsupported by any resemblance of
reason or sincerity.


> But you persist, in your abusive way. And you do
> so under the color of your stature as an academic. It's wrong.
>
> I'm at a loss about how to deal with your poison. But you've been
> ramping it up lately. You are not well. Seek help.

You are getting to sound like a one-trick pony.

I'd accuse you of libel, but that's more seriousness than a twit
like you deserves.


Peter Nyikos

________________________________end of post linked above__________________

If you have had the stamina and fortitude to read this all the way to
the end, you may have noticed that Daggett's behavior is a caricature
of various farces in which you have indulged over the years.

You once told me that you found the clashes between me and jillery
painful to read. I think it is because you recognized a caricature of
your behavior in jillery's. But even jillery wasn't as aggressive back then
as Daggett was above. [I deleted nothing from what he had written,
as you can verify by going one post upstream from mine on that "no cigar" thread.]


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Lawyer Daggett's claim is almost pure polemic, and the "reasoning" is
unadulterated sophistry, but the two of you are like two Facebook "friends."

If you were to tell Daggett anything like what I told him about his sophistry,
you would run the risk of Daggett doing something like "unfriending" you,
and that is something you want to avoid at all costs, isn't it?

I'm referring to what I told Daggett in direct reply to him, here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/dRckuOc8BgAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 17, 2023, 9:30:07 PM


Lawyer Daggett has been very mindful of the old adage,
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-man-who-is-his-own-lawyer-has-a-fool-for-a-client.html#google_vignette

So he has availed himself to his right to be silent immediately
after your reply here, and let you and John Harshman
conduct his defense for him. But after I did the post
I've linked above, you've let John do all the talking.


However, John wasn't sufficiently mindful of the adage himself,
because he tried to defend himself before he got around, two
paragraphs later, to the defense of Daggett. He couldn't resist
countering what Daggett posted as his August chez watt nomination,
knowing that it applied to him. As a result, he eventually found he had bitten off
more than he could chew, starting with my reply to his "defense" of himself:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/i_yQFoc4AAAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 24, 2023, 3:45:13 PM

John cunningly changed his tactics, using a couple of polemical tricks
to misdirect people from the graphic evidence I had included in the post
I've linked just now, but after two successive attempts, with me answering both, he fell silent.


It was then that I tackled his paragraph "defending" Daggett that
he should have put first, and that has become the last post to this
thread as of this writing.


Peter Nyikos

PS Since I'm alluding to successive posts along this thread, except for one by jillery,
you can save yourself some time by just scrolling down -- but I do believe
you would rather ignore all the posts I've talked about and wait to see whether
anyone will begin a defense of either John or his client.

[erik simpson]

I'm not interested in your problems. There's much more interesting things to talk about in spb.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

If you keep demanding in your needy way, I might respond, but so far,
you're doing a far better job of demonstrating that you're an asshole
than any words of mine could accomplish. Buy a mirror.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> I'm not interested in [Daggett's] problems.

Fixed it for you. Like I said, you and he are like Facebook friends.
At least you can't claim that my talk about Facebook was "Nothing new here."

> There's much more interesting things to talk about in spb.

Yes, you made that clear in an interesting variety of posts over there in the past month and a half.
This was how I handled a challenge by you in one of the more recent ones:


______________________________ excerpt, names added in brackets_________________


> Mario is a badly-educated man with a hyperactive imagination. He is a fountain of
> misinformation.

Premature insult noted. It's obvious that you don't believe anything
he wrote that appears above. You wrote this before you saw
how he indirectly showed that most of what he wrote is misleading.


> Can't you see that? in addition, I'd like to call your attention to your
> own fountain of insults. Can't you see that's what you're doing?

I have been telling the inconvenient truth about you and John Harshman
who calls this inconvenient truth "insults," as you are doing now.

Of course, neither you nor he call "Glenn is best ignored," told by you to a newcomer
to sci.bio.paleontology (Sight reader), an insult. Harshman dishonestly
calls such comments by you and he "observations." That's because "best ignored" is written from his POV:
he has been shown up by Glenn a number of times and wants people not to know about it.

Glenn can be very unpleasant at times, but I've seen no real evidence of
either dishonesty or hypocrisy by him, whereas you and John live
by double standards that cause you to say things like the above, sprinkled
occasionally by dishonest, insincere allegations.

I hope John reads what I am writing to you. He bellyached about being talked about here
in reply to me yesterday, after having talked plenty in Mario's other s.b.p. thread,

"Re: How birds emerged"


> I can't believe you're
> as unpleasant in real life,

As I've said in talk.origins, there is only one person whom
I've encountered in real life that is worse than you and John
(and over half a dozen other talk.origins regulars that I could name):
a man high on drugs who hit me in the eye so hard that I've
had floaters in that eye ever since. And all I did to deserve
it was to tell him that the bus door would open all the way if he would push it.

He had kept yelling to the driver, "Let me off, let me off"
when the driver had already done all he could from his seat:
stop the bus at the regular stop, then push a button which part-way opened the door,
and caused a green light to appear above it, indicating it was safe to get off.


> since you have a family and a job.

Again, as I said in talk.origins, you and John are about three
standard deviations away from the worst of my colleagues
and immediate family. But cheer up: there are three regulars
in talk.origins who are about an extra standard deviation
away from responsible adult behavior.


> "Give ir a break".

John would love it if you and he could go on misleading
others about Glenn and me. Y'all's comments here about
Mario I can understand, and I don't accuse you of
knowingly misleading others about him.

=========================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/yAG4lzBgQCw/m/SyOFEk9zAAAJ
Re: Megafauna in La Brea tar bits was burned to death
Aug 23, 2023, 11:12:28 AM

If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.


Peter Nyikos

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

[Massive snip]

>
> If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
> that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
> in lieu of on-topic comments.
>

It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies.
and some snipping.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:26:28 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
>"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22?PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

>> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> > > > > > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>[Massive snip]
>>
>> If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
>> that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
>> in lieu of on-topic comments.
>>
>
>It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies.
>and some snipping.

It would also help if a particular poster would give up his irritating
habit of trying to drag in here personal disagreements from other
newsgroups.

[jillery]

You have posted about a way to help you avoid seeing examples of posts
that annoy you. IIRC it's called something like shill tiles... thrill
files... krill piles...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes. There is not nearly enough snipping. Many posters never snip anything.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Thank you.

>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
> in England until 1987.
>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:30:23 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
> "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> [Massive snip]
> >
> > If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
> > that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
> > in lieu of on-topic comments.

By the way, Erik has a knack for making on-topic replies that are counterproductive.
You can see that from a reply I did to him on August 17 on an ongoing thread in s.b.p.,
"Big Eocene Whale."

> It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies.
> and some snipping.

So when do I get to see you comment on on-topic posts?

I've been very busy of late, and only able to keep up with threads where
I've done a lot of on-topic posting. So I may have missed out on some
on-topic discussion by you. If I have, please document one or more such posts
in reply to this one.

You are dreaming the impossible dream where talk.origins is concerned,
because there is too much animosity for too many reasons involving
too many people. You got a tiny sample of it in reply to this post of yours,
directed at me, and then the "director" in turn got a slightly negative response
from a third party.


Over in sci.bio.paleontology you might have a chance of making a change if you
put your mind to it, because there are a lot fewer participants.

In fact, three of us were able, from mid-2015 to early 2018, to maintain a gentlemanly agreement
to treat sbp like an embassy where we would behave like the best of ambassadors.
.
This entailed doing mostly on-topic discussion and putting
all grievances from talk.origins behind us. We were:
Erik Simpson, John Harshman, and myself, with me
having made the suggestion for the agreement.

We were joined within a year by Richard Norman, and he was
someone all three of us respected. Hostilities in talk.origins
between Erik and John on the one hand and myself on the other
continued unabated, and I had an occasional tiff with Richard,
but on the whole the two of us got along in both newsgroups.

Alas, Richard disappeared without a trace in early 2017,
and with the "glue" holding the agreement together,
it started to come unraveled in several ways.
Erik had become tired of behaving like "Mr. Nice Guy"
and, to make a long story short, he instigated a break
in our agreement which resulted in all the old hostilities,
and some new ones, coming to the detriment of s.b.p.


So good luck in trying to make some positive changes over there.

However, if you try to be fair about it, you may soon learn that Erik and John
behave according to the old formula: "Can resist anything except temptation."


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> Over in sci.bio.paleontology you might have a chance of making a change if you
> put your mind to it, because there are a lot fewer participants.
>
> In fact, three of us were able, from mid-2015 to early 2018, to maintain
> a gentlemanly agreement
> to treat sbp like an embassy where we would behave like the best of ambassadors.
> .
> This entailed doing mostly on-topic discussion and putting
> all grievances from talk.origins behind us. We were:
> Erik Simpson, John Harshman, and myself, with me
> having made the suggestion for the agreement.
>

You know, come to think of it, I think I had heard about this before…the
embassy thing, the participants, the time period. Uncanny.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Yes, I did an OP in talk.origins a while back, possibly while this
"oasis of civilization" lasted, called "A Tale of Two Newsgroups."
However, I got the date when it began wrong: I somehow thought
it was all the way back in 2013, but I subsequently found out differently,
by going back over old threads.

That was when GG was in its next to last version, and I could
search these things out easily. Alas, that search engine has been broken
for over a year, with one brief interlude. It simply functions like
any old online search, except that it does NOT search Usenet
posts or threads. Yet that is supposed to be its *real* purpose.

For instance, the only way I found out about a POTM
by "deadrat" is that the Talk.Origins Archive kept track of POTMs
back then, and search engines are very much aware of that archive.

But now, I have no idea of whether the Archive is maintained by anyone.
I'd love for it to grow again, but I have no idea how to help it to do so.


Peter Nyikos

PS I really miss "deadrat." He was one of the more levelheaded
adults of talk.origins, like Richard Norman was.

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:


>PS I really miss "deadrat."

Rather ironic, since you have trolled others for their use of
"anonymous" nics.