Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"

[Peter Nyikos]

In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.

[An exception is the charge of rudeness: the usual talisman for that is "Poor baby."]

Sometimes the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is used in the same way,
as Erik Simson did when he wrote:

Peter, if your conspiracy theories aren't embarrassing to yourself, they
should be.

My reply to that was:

I am never embarrassed by things that read like a figment of your
imagination, nor should I be.

Harshman has cheapened the words "paranoid" and "paranoia" by misusing
them to the point where he might as well cry "Wolf!" every time he
is tempted to use them against me. If you don't want "conspiracy
theories" to suffer the same debasement at your hands, you need to be
specific about what conspiracies I am charged with theorizing about.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1Ez4jDj30Dg/nA-3xdCaKAAJ
Message-ID: <944f4546-6d90-4526...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are "Ancestor" and "Descendent" to Be Banished from Evolutionary Language?!
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:45:22 -0700 (PDT)

In the big outside world, conspiracy theories have a content to which people
refer: "conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy" "CIA conspiracy in 9/11," etc.

To use the term "conspiracy theories" the way Erik did is to simply use it
as a talisman; and it is noteworthy that Erik never got more specific;
in fact he abandoned the theme in his reply to the linked post.

The talisman of "paranoia" is not so easily handled [unless the one wielding
it has the electronic equivalent of a "paper trail" of demonstrable misuses].
My next post will illustrate one way of handling one use of it.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip off-topic rant]

Ask yourself whether this is on-topic for TO. Then ask yourself if you
should be posting that sort of thing to TO. Mind you, I know what your
answer will be, but I try anyway.

[Peter Nyikos]

In the following post by Robert Camp, Mark Isaak had been using
"paranoid ravings" as a talisman to ward off documentation of
dishonesty and flagrant irresponsibility by John Harshman
and insincerity by himself.

__________________ begin included post ________________________

On 4/14/16 3:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 2:22:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/14/16 6:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> [snipping paranoid ravings]
>
> Like Harshman, you use "paranoid" in completely inappropriate ways.

No.

You are paranoid.

No one here can say if you are clinically disordered, but your behavior
in this group reflects all the hallmarks of paranoia,

"Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory, or beliefs of
conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone
is out to get me"). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also
involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations
and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia."


<snip "searing indictment" silliness>

======================== end of post
archived at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/88-9d0VSvG0/91bUXU9ULQAJ
Message-ID: <nepeu1$e9j$1...@dont-email.me>
Subject: Re: Misconceptions about my directed panspermia (DP) hypothesis
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:11:37 -0700

Ironically, the choice of the (unreferenced) quote boomeranged on
Camp, partly because no one had documented false accusations by
me anywhere, partly because it was Harshman and Isaak who had made
documented false accusations against me,

...but mostly because Camp himself had posted not just false,
but wildly false and irrational accusations against me, rebutted here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/k44KWqcmIAAJ
Message-ID: <649a5653-98a6-45f5...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Cambrian and Paleocene Explosions
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:46:10 -0800 (PST)

Without such bumbling by the talisman-wielder, about the only defense
against a post like Camp's is to harp on the fact that he gives
not one iota of a hint of why the accusations of paranoia is true.

In this respect, Camp is following in the footsteps trod many centuries
ago by the Roman historian Livy. See Quote of the Week below.

Peter Nyikos

QUOTE OF THE WEEK


Livy now turns to the other side of Hannibal's character, it
being a natural assumption that no man can be of a piece but that, if
he has good or admirable qualities, these must somehow be counterbalanced
by the bad. Thus: 'These very great qualities of the man were
equalled by monstrous vices: inhuman curelty, a worse than Punic
perfidy, having no regard for truth and none for sanctity; no fear
of the gods, no reverence of an oath, and no religious scruples.'
As will become clear, these major charges cannot be substantiated
and there is no evidence -- even in Livy's own account -- of any
of them. It is as if the historian, having acknowledged Hannibal's
known virtues, suddenly became afraid of his own temerity and had to
neutralise them with a recital of evil traits that would account for
Rome's justifiable hatred of him and, in the eyes of the gods, her
righteous triumph over such a monster.
-- _Hannibal_, by Ernle Bradford, Dorset Press, 1981, p. 37

[Oxyaena]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> In the following post by Robert Camp, Mark Isaak had been using
> "paranoid ravings" as a talisman to ward off documentation of
> dishonesty and flagrant irresponsibility by John Harshman
> and insincerity by himself.

Harshman has some outright silly opinions, such as his preference for
node-based taxa over monophyletic ones, even when I demonstrated
temnospondyls as being tetrapods, he STILL prefers the polyphyletic
Tolweb classification of "terrestrial vertebrates" (see my page on this:
http://thrinaxodon.org/temnospondyli.html).

Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable. Harshman
and Isaak have all the right in the world to accuse you of being a
paranoid conspiracy theorist, your own records point to this, hell, I
remember your paranoid rant about the "Virtual Witch Hunt on
talk.origins", all those years ago. Do I need any further reminders of
your paranoia?

>
> ...but mostly because Camp himself had posted not just false,
> but wildly false and irrational accusations against me, rebutted here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/YK9sf68rWoU/k44KWqcmIAAJ
> Message-ID: <649a5653-98a6-45f5...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: The Cambrian and Paleocene Explosions
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:46:10 -0800 (PST)

You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with niches as
wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
otherwise.

>
> Without such bumbling by the talisman-wielder, about the only defense
> against a post like Camp's is to harp on the fact that he gives
> not one iota of a hint of why the accusations of paranoia is true.
>
> In this respect, Camp is following in the footsteps trod many centuries
> ago by the Roman historian Livy. See Quote of the Week below.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> QUOTE OF THE WEEK
>
>
> Livy now turns to the other side of Hannibal's character, it
> being a natural assumption that no man can be of a piece but that, if
> he has good or admirable qualities, these must somehow be counterbalanced
> by the bad. Thus: 'These very great qualities of the man were
> equalled by monstrous vices: inhuman curelty, a worse than Punic
> perfidy, having no regard for truth and none for sanctity; no fear
> of the gods, no reverence of an oath, and no religious scruples.'
> As will become clear, these major charges cannot be substantiated
> and there is no evidence -- even in Livy's own account -- of any
> of them. It is as if the historian, having acknowledged Hannibal's
> known virtues, suddenly became afraid of his own temerity and had to
> neutralise them with a recital of evil traits that would account for
> Rome's justifiable hatred of him and, in the eyes of the gods, her
> righteous triumph over such a monster.
> -- _Hannibal_, by Ernle Bradford, Dorset Press, 1981, p. 37
>

This is soc.history.antiquity, y'know.

--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

[Oxyaena]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
> to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
> irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.

All of these you show my friend.

>
> [An exception is the charge of rudeness: the usual talisman for that is "Poor baby."]
>
> Sometimes the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is used in the same way,
> as Erik Simson did when he wrote:
>
> Peter, if your conspiracy theories aren't embarrassing to yourself, they
> should be.
>
> My reply to that was:
>
> I am never embarrassed by things that read like a figment of your
> imagination, nor should I be.
>
> Harshman has cheapened the words "paranoid" and "paranoia" by misusing
> them to the point where he might as well cry "Wolf!" every time he
> is tempted to use them against me. If you don't want "conspiracy
> theories" to suffer the same debasement at your hands, you need to be
> specific about what conspiracies I am charged with theorizing about.

Paranoia fits you to a t. Remember "Virtual Witch Hunts on talk.origins"?

>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1Ez4jDj30Dg/nA-3xdCaKAAJ
> Message-ID: <944f4546-6d90-4526...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Are "Ancestor" and "Descendent" to Be Banished from Evolutionary Language?!
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
>
> In the big outside world, conspiracy theories have a content to which people
> refer: "conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy" "CIA conspiracy in 9/11," etc.

Or "conspiracy to persecute Nyikos in talk.origins" etc.

>
> To use the term "conspiracy theories" the way Erik did is to simply use it
> as a talisman; and it is noteworthy that Erik never got more specific;
> in fact he abandoned the theme in his reply to the linked post.

There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories, a bunch of conspiracy
theorists believe that the "establishment" is out to get them. Sort of
like you.

>
> The talisman of "paranoia" is not so easily handled [unless the one wielding
> it has the electronic equivalent of a "paper trail" of demonstrable misuses].
> My next post will illustrate one way of handling one use of it.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[John Harshman]

On 4/15/16 4:56 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> In the following post by Robert Camp, Mark Isaak had been using
>> "paranoid ravings" as a talisman to ward off documentation of
>> dishonesty and flagrant irresponsibility by John Harshman
>> and insincerity by himself.
>
>
> Harshman has some outright silly opinions, such as his preference for
> node-based taxa over monophyletic ones, even when I demonstrated
> temnospondyls as being tetrapods, he STILL prefers the polyphyletic
> Tolweb classification of "terrestrial vertebrates" (see my page on this:
> http://thrinaxodon.org/temnospondyli.html).

1. Node-based taxa are monophyletic, so your claim is confused there.

2. You demonstrated nothing. You made a claim backed up by a couple of
cladograms off the web and no actual support.

3. You have not shown that the Tolweb classification (i.e. the tree) is
polyphyletic. You have in fact presented no character data on any subject.

> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.

Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon posts.

> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with niches as
> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
> otherwise.

We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
of Placentalia are not relevant.

[Oxyaena]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/15/16 4:56 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> In the following post by Robert Camp, Mark Isaak had been using
>>> "paranoid ravings" as a talisman to ward off documentation of
>>> dishonesty and flagrant irresponsibility by John Harshman
>>> and insincerity by himself.
>>
>>
>> Harshman has some outright silly opinions, such as his preference for
>> node-based taxa over monophyletic ones, even when I demonstrated
>> temnospondyls as being tetrapods, he STILL prefers the polyphyletic
>> Tolweb classification of "terrestrial vertebrates" (see my page on this:
>> http://thrinaxodon.org/temnospondyli.html).
>
> 1. Node-based taxa are monophyletic, so your claim is confused there.
>
> 2. You demonstrated nothing. You made a claim backed up by a couple of
> cladograms off the web and no actual support.
>
> 3. You have not shown that the Tolweb classification (i.e. the tree) is
> polyphyletic. You have in fact presented no character data on any subject.

I did, such as the existence of bicuspid teeth in early temnospondyls as
well as the existence of the otic notch in both temnospondyls and
lissamphibians. So therefor, I have shown the Tolweb classification to
be polyphyletic.

>
>
>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>
> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon posts.

Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or Thomas
Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
to at least 3,000.

>
>> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
>> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
>> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with niches as
>> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
>> otherwise.
>
> We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
> of Placentalia are not relevant.
>
>

Or are they? You want me to do Placentalia, okay. The Taeniodonts
evolved in the Cretaceous with Woschalteria, the Primates with
Purgatorius, the ungulates with Protungulatum, and more! The Cimolestans
with Cimolestes, the Ferae with Palaeoryctes? Which one? They all
evolved before the K-T Mass Extinction.

[John Harshman]

On 4/15/16 5:28 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/15/16 4:56 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> In the following post by Robert Camp, Mark Isaak had been using
>>>> "paranoid ravings" as a talisman to ward off documentation of
>>>> dishonesty and flagrant irresponsibility by John Harshman
>>>> and insincerity by himself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Harshman has some outright silly opinions, such as his preference for
>>> node-based taxa over monophyletic ones, even when I demonstrated
>>> temnospondyls as being tetrapods, he STILL prefers the polyphyletic
>>> Tolweb classification of "terrestrial vertebrates" (see my page on this:
>>> http://thrinaxodon.org/temnospondyli.html).
>>
>> 1. Node-based taxa are monophyletic, so your claim is confused there.
>>
>> 2. You demonstrated nothing. You made a claim backed up by a couple of
>> cladograms off the web and no actual support.
>>
>> 3. You have not shown that the Tolweb classification (i.e. the tree) is
>> polyphyletic. You have in fact presented no character data on any
>> subject.
>
> I did, such as the existence of bicuspid teeth in early temnospondyls as
> well as the existence of the otic notch in both temnospondyls and
> lissamphibians. So therefor, I have shown the Tolweb classification to
> be polyphyletic.

Just how old are you? You mentioned two characters with a highly
incomplete survey of their distribution. That shows nothing.

>>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>>
>> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon posts.
>
> Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
> 9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
> Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or Thomas
> Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
> all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
> to at least 3,000.

All of them, I'd say. But especially the ones in which you channel Ed
Conrad.

>>> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
>>> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
>>> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with niches as
>>> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
>> of Placentalia are not relevant.
>>
> Or are they?

They aren't.

> You want me to do Placentalia, okay. The Taeniodonts
> evolved in the Cretaceous with Woschalteria, the Primates with
> Purgatorius, the ungulates with Protungulatum, and more! The Cimolestans
> with Cimolestes, the Ferae with Palaeoryctes? Which one? They all
> evolved before the K-T Mass Extinction.

Those are interesting assertions. I hesitate to ask for your evidence.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:27:00 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [snip off-topic rant]

"rant" is another talisman, one you and the people mentioned in
my second post are in love with.

> Ask yourself whether this is on-topic for TO. Then ask yourself if you
> should be posting that sort of thing to TO.

Ask yourself how hypocritical these two sentences of yours are.

That is, if you have a conscience.

> Mind you, I know what your
> answer will be, but I try anyway.

...because you have a great deal to gain by my NOT posting these
things, and despite the fact that you hypocritically post off-topic
in hundreds of posts, including numerous personal attacks.

You even post off-topic in sci.bio.paleontology from time to time.


Ask Richard Norman whether his rant in the following post to
sci.bio.paleontology (s.b.p) is

1. On topic

2. In violation of the letter of our agreement to put aside
our personal grievances in s.b.p.

3. In violation of the letter of our agreement to put aside
our personal grievances in s.b.p.

___________________ repost_____________________________

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:20:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Harshman's last (Mar 29) post to this thread is discussed here:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1Ez4jDj30Dg/bLN05aMDBwAJ
>> Message-ID: <71231523-64dc-43f2...@googlegroups.com>

>> Subject: Re: Are "Ancestor" and "Descendent" to Be Banished from Evolutionary Language?!

>> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> Newsgroups: talk.origins
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>Correction: it is his next to last (Mar 21) post that is explicitly
>mentioned, but what is said about it also applies to his Mar 29 post.
>
Peter, talking about who posted what when and how long ago is talking
about personalities and posting habits and styles rather than
scientific paleontological content. I thought the latter was the
subject matter to be discussed here.

=========================== end of post
archived in
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.bio.paleontology/AJCmk1-PW3E/28qFKHIDEQAJ
Message-ID: <6hrqfbdo2vgn6vqus...@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Pre-Cambrian and Pre-Paleocene Radiations
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:37:57 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology

Note how I had kept out all hint as to the content of the posts. It
was Norman, who had been absent from the thread up to then,
who unnecessarily imported into s.b.p. the fact that that these posts were
about "personalities and posting habits and styles"
when my language IN THIS S.B.P. POST was completely neutral.

In the following post, I stuck to objective facts as to what
was going on in s.b.p., but Norman went on the attack and
incorrectly wrote:

You are still doing it. Please stop.

I gave him a little reminder in my one-line reply:

Please start posting on topic.

He then disappeared from that thread and never posted there again.
So his record for that thread is unblemished to this day:
2 off-topic posts, 0 on-topic.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:02:00 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
> > to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
> > irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.
>
> All of these you show my friend.

I'd like to see what you think of as evidence.

> >
> > [An exception is the charge of rudeness: the usual talisman for that is "Poor baby."]
> >
> > Sometimes the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is used in the same way,
> > as Erik Simson did when he wrote:
> >
> > Peter, if your conspiracy theories aren't embarrassing to yourself, they
> > should be.
> >
> > My reply to that was:
> >
> > I am never embarrassed by things that read like a figment of your
> > imagination, nor should I be.
> >
> > Harshman has cheapened the words "paranoid" and "paranoia" by misusing
> > them to the point where he might as well cry "Wolf!" every time he
> > is tempted to use them against me. If you don't want "conspiracy
> > theories" to suffer the same debasement at your hands, you need to be
> > specific about what conspiracies I am charged with theorizing about.
>
> Paranoia fits you to a t. Remember "Virtual Witch Hunts on talk.origins"?

A bunch of quotes from actual posts, with only the names replaced by
initials that didn't even come from the actual people.

People were free to draw their own conclusions as to whether
what was depicted was a witch hunt.

Let's see you try to argue that it wasn't one.

And NONE of those people -- not ONE -- were myself!

So where's the paranoia, Good Buddy?

> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1Ez4jDj30Dg/nA-3xdCaKAAJ
> > Message-ID: <944f4546-6d90-4526...@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Are "Ancestor" and "Descendent" to Be Banished from Evolutionary Language?!
> > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > In the big outside world, conspiracy theories have a content to which people
> > refer: "conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy" "CIA conspiracy in 9/11," etc.
>
> Or "conspiracy to persecute Nyikos in talk.origins" etc.

By whom? and what exactly is the "persecution" supposed to be?

> > To use the term "conspiracy theories" the way Erik did is to simply use it
> > as a talisman; and it is noteworthy that Erik never got more specific;
> > in fact he abandoned the theme in his reply to the linked post.
>
> There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories, a bunch of conspiracy
> theorists believe that the "establishment" is out to get them. Sort of
> like you.

I'd like to see what passes for a proof of this last sentence
in your mind.

> >
> > The talisman of "paranoia" is not so easily handled [unless the one wielding
> > it has the electronic equivalent of a "paper trail" of demonstrable misuses].
> > My next post will illustrate one way of handling one use of it.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
>
> --
> "I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
> me." - Cao Cao

That's a sicker idea than any conspiracy theory I've come across.
And that's saying a LOT!

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I`m 900,000 years old. Shit, why the Hell would I tell you how old I am?
You're only peaking my enjoyment of your pitiful inquiries, I recommend
you read Thrinaxodon's manual on how to emulate Thrinaxodon in all the
elements of your life, available for the cheap price of $500!

>
>>>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>>>
>>> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon
>>> posts.
>>
>> Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
>> 9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
>> Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or Thomas
>> Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
>> all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
>> to at least 3,000.
>
> All of them, I'd say. But especially the ones in which you channel Ed
> Conrad.

I've been channeling Conrad for years, but with my own style, as you
yourself admitted back in '14. You think I don't read the replies to my
spam?

>
>>>> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
>>>> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
>>>> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with
>>>> niches as
>>>> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
>>> of Placentalia are not relevant.
>>>
>> Or are they?
>
> They aren't.

Were you there?

>
>> You want me to do Placentalia, okay. The Taeniodonts
>> evolved in the Cretaceous with Woschalteria, the Primates with
>> Purgatorius, the ungulates with Protungulatum, and more! The Cimolestans
>> with Cimolestes, the Ferae with Palaeoryctes? Which one? They all
>> evolved before the K-T Mass Extinction.
>
> Those are interesting assertions. I hesitate to ask for your evidence.
>

I shall bring up my evidence on Judgement Day, for you will have me to
answer to.

[John Harshman]

See, now? That's the sort of thing that suggests you're mentally
unstable. I asked how old you were because if you're a teenager, mental
instability is just normal, and you will grow out of it.

>>>>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>>>>
>>>> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon
>>>> posts.
>>>
>>> Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
>>> 9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
>>> Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or Thomas
>>> Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
>>> all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
>>> to at least 3,000.
>>
>> All of them, I'd say. But especially the ones in which you channel Ed
>> Conrad.
>
> I've been channeling Conrad for years, but with my own style, as you
> yourself admitted back in '14. You think I don't read the replies to my
> spam?

That's hardly a defense.

>>>>> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
>>>>> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
>>>>> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with
>>>>> niches as
>>>>> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters, shows
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
>>>> of Placentalia are not relevant.
>>>>
>>> Or are they?
>>
>> They aren't.
>
> Were you there?

Channeling Ken Ham now?

>>> You want me to do Placentalia, okay. The Taeniodonts
>>> evolved in the Cretaceous with Woschalteria, the Primates with
>>> Purgatorius, the ungulates with Protungulatum, and more! The Cimolestans
>>> with Cimolestes, the Ferae with Palaeoryctes? Which one? They all
>>> evolved before the K-T Mass Extinction.
>>
>> Those are interesting assertions. I hesitate to ask for your evidence.
>>
> I shall bring up my evidence on Judgement Day, for you will have me to
> answer to.

Again with the mental instability.

[Jonathan]

There isn't some grand conspiracy to get anyone
it has to be a conspiracy to get...someone~

[Jonathan]

On 4/15/2016 9:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:


>
> See, now? That's the sort of thing that suggests you're mentally
> unstable. I asked how old you were because if you're a teenager, mental
> instability is just normal, and you will grow out of it.
>

Why would anyone want to? To be just like everyone else
is like blending into a crowd, it's to become invisible.

I would rather exist than be normal.




"Much Madness is divinest Sense
To a discerning Eye
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail
Assent -- and you are sane
Demur -- you're straightway dangerous
And handled with a Chain"




s

[Oxyaena]

I`m older than a teenager, I'll give you that. I'll bring it to around
25-90 years old.

>
>>>>>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon
>>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>> Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
>>>> 9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
>>>> Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or
>>>> Thomas
>>>> Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
>>>> all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
>>>> to at least 3,000.
>>>
>>> All of them, I'd say. But especially the ones in which you channel Ed
>>> Conrad.
>>
>> I've been channeling Conrad for years, but with my own style, as you
>> yourself admitted back in '14. You think I don't read the replies to my
>> spam?
>
> That's hardly a defense.

Neither is asking me "How old are you?" when you "questioned" me about
my post on Temnospondyl phylogeny.

>
>>>>>> You call that a rebuttal? Anyways, the "Paleocene explosion" occurred
>>>>>> far before the Paleocene even began, ever hear of /Castorocauda/? The
>>>>>> existence of /Castorocauda/ and a myriad of other mammals with
>>>>>> niches as
>>>>>> wildly diverse as gliders, piscivores, and even dinosaur eaters,
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were talking about the radiation with Placentalia. Taxa not members
>>>>> of Placentalia are not relevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Or are they?
>>>
>>> They aren't.
>>
>> Were you there?
>
> Channeling Ken Ham now?

I just got a call from God:

Uh hu, uh hu. He's gonna burn in Hell? Yes? Got it.

Hey Harshman, you're gonna burn in Hell, probably for your sin of lust,
your eyes will be wired shut so you can't see.

>
>>>> You want me to do Placentalia, okay. The Taeniodonts
>>>> evolved in the Cretaceous with Woschalteria, the Primates with
>>>> Purgatorius, the ungulates with Protungulatum, and more! The
>>>> Cimolestans
>>>> with Cimolestes, the Ferae with Palaeoryctes? Which one? They all
>>>> evolved before the K-T Mass Extinction.
>>>
>>> Those are interesting assertions. I hesitate to ask for your evidence.
>>>
>> I shall bring up my evidence on Judgement Day, for you will have me to
>> answer to.
>
> Again with the mental instability.
>

It's a joke, dumb ass.

[Oxyaena]

Evidence for Schowalteria (misspelled it):

http://fossilworks.org/?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=56942

Range: 70.6 Ma - 66.043 Ma, in the Maastrichtian of the Latest
Cretaceous. Taxon: Taeniodonta. Fossil Locale: Trochu Formation, Alberta.

>>>
>> I shall bring up my evidence on Judgement Day, for you will have me to
>> answer to.
>
> Again with the mental instability.
>

Bah, so what if I`m mentally unstable, which isn't in the slightest bit
true (I may have a tinge of psychosis, just not enough to be diagnosed).

[John Harshman]

That's unfortunate. It means you probably won't grow out of it and we're
back to "mentally unstable".

>>>>>>> Except when you falsely accuse me of being mentally unstable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please. No mentally stable person would make all those Thrinaxodon
>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which Thrinaxodon post? The ones about the Smithsonian, or Obama, or
>>>>> 9/11, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Leakey, or Talk.Origins, or
>>>>> Alt.Atheism, or Ed Conrad, or Nyikos, or Bob Casanova, or you, or
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> Aquinas, or human origins, or the Devonian? Which one, I have counted
>>>>> all the ones I have done over the years (and counting), they number up
>>>>> to at least 3,000.
>>>>
>>>> All of them, I'd say. But especially the ones in which you channel Ed
>>>> Conrad.
>>>
>>> I've been channeling Conrad for years, but with my own style, as you
>>> yourself admitted back in '14. You think I don't read the replies to my
>>> spam?
>>
>> That's hardly a defense.
>
> Neither is asking me "How old are you?" when you "questioned" me about
> my post on Temnospondyl phylogeny.

Of course. It wasn't intended as a defense.

A mentally unstable joke.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
> to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
> irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.

>[...]

How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
paranoia?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:52:00 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Ask Richard Norman whether his rant in the following post to
> sci.bio.paleontology (s.b.p) is
>
> 1. On topic
>
> 2. In violation of the letter of our agreement to put aside
> our personal grievances in s.b.p.
>
> 3. In violation of the letter of our agreement to put aside
> our personal grievances in s.b.p.

That last bit should read:

3. In violation of the spirit of our agreement to put aside

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
> > to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
> > irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.
> >[...]
>
> How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
> paranoia?

Don't forget to add ", that is, charges made in reply to his/her
documenting irresponsible behavior".

Do you ignore that part of what I wrote because you do not care
whether these charges of irresponsibility hold up under
[virtually nonexistent, in my experience]
scrutiny of the documentation?


How do you think a non-paranoid person, with four people repeatedly
charging him with paranoia or a conspiracy theorist without a shred of
justification, and in reply to the documentation of irresponsibility,
SHOULD react to these charges?

I think I've hit upon a solution, and that is to label such unsupported
charges of "paranoia" and "conspiracy theory" as "talismans," and
to give references to their misuse, like those by Robert Camp and John
Harshman and Erik Simpson.

In Harshman's case, he even slapped on the label of "paranoid" to my
musing whether Hemidactylus had e-mailed him about certain things
that were going on behind his [Harshman's] back, where Hemi was
doing his best to defend Harshman until I gave some documentation.

In such a situation, I would be very glad if someone informed me
that I am being attacked in a thread to which I had not posted,
not just with unsupported insults, but with documented claims
that the "informant" didn't know how to handle.

Yet, by Harshman's screwed-up use of "paranoid", it would be applied
to anyone who mused whether someone had been so helpful to me.

Ironically enough, that exchange wrt Hemi took place right on the
"Witch Hunt" thread that Oxyaena brought up, mistakenly thinking that
what I wrote on that thread had exhibited paranoia. IIRC the Hemi
exchange was Harshman's ONLY attempt to charge me with paranoia
on that thread.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

That is certainly true in all the forums I've participated in.
Some participants are welcomed with open arms, and if they
continue to go along to get along, nobody ever conspires to
"get them."

Correction: there was one exception in talk.abortion back in the
mid-1990's, where one of the leaders of the dominant clique
of abortion rights fanatics caused a student at the University
of Pittsburgh to lose his internet account due to a violation
of some arcane rule.

Several friends conspired to make life hard for this leader
by doing "fuckhead" cascades of the same general pattern
as the pun cascades that you see sometimes in talk.origins.
They seemed to be succeeding, even turning some allies of the
leader against him, but they didn't persist long enough and so
this leader weathered the storm.

In fact, he became even more entrenched and powerful by the time
I returned to talk.origins in 2008.

> it has to be a conspiracy to get...someone~

What are you trying to say with this last bit?

Peter Nyikos

[Bill Rogers]

My experience on T.O. is that if you make on-topic posts, ignore unpleasant responses or personal attacks, and only engage with people talking about the topic, that the unpleasant folks will leave you alone. Or if they don't, you're none the wiser because you're not wasting time engaging with them.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/18/16 9:11 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
>>> to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
>>> irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.
>>> [...]
>>
>> How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
>> paranoia?
>
> Don't forget to add ", that is, charges made in reply to his/her

> documenting irresponsible behavior". [snip]

I did not forget to add anything. My question is:

How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
paranoia?

Please do not make the assumption that that "actual paranoid person"
refers to you. Unless, of course, you are paranoid.

[jillery]

My experience on T.O. is that if one followed all that you suggest
above, then one would indeed not waste any time on T.O., because one
wouldn't be replying to anybody.

And then there are posters who use what you describe above to
rationalize ignoring others, but in fact ignore those others because
their questions are too much trouble to answer and/or their points too
difficult to refute. It's their way of claiming the high ground while
in fact taking a very low and foul-smelling road.

And then there are posters who use the behavior of the above posters
to rationalize not making any point at all. Thus T.O. is a microcosm
of evolution and natural selection.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Peter Nyikos]

Yes, and it is the WAY you write about them that leads one to
suspect mental instability. Let's just start with Dawkins.

The following post has the dubious distinction of being the last
post to sci.bio.systematics that even pretended to be on-topic,
except for one that I did today to celebrate the last really
on topic post you had done there, over half a year earlier.

Subject: DAWKINS FACES LIFE IN PRISON FOR LIFE-LONG SCAM OVER HUMAN ORIGINS
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:04:14 -0500

Thrinassodon
1/12/14
================
>BREAKING NEWS!
================
>
THRINAXODON SPEARHEADED THE ASSAULT ON RICHARD DAWKINS, KNOWN FOR
SUPPRESSION OF VALID RESEARCH OF HUMAN ORIGINS FOR YEARS, JUST TO GET A
BUCK OUT OF BRAINWASHING CHILDREN'S LIVES INTO THE SCAM OF EVOLUTION.
>
Dawkins was charged with OVER 9000! complaints of mind-control, torture,
and pyramid schemes where he got millions of dollars out of the American
populace over the scam of evolution.
>
This is what Dawkins said when he faced the charges, "SHIT! How am I
going to get money now!" Later, his charges were reduced to probation.
He is now broke.
>
According to Thrinaxodon, PHD, an expert on human origins, "The loss of
Dawkins is a great blow to the evolutionist establishment, with no
figurehead the scientific establishement that has been dominating
American politics for 150 years is now falling down under it's own
weight. How are people like AronRa or James Watson going to get money
now? No-one knows."
>
When Dawkins was asked how the scientific establishement was going to
rebuild, he said "I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, we'll have to move on
to another scam. Like the Big Bang."
>
===================================
>
MAN AS OLD AS FROGS!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.bio.paleontology/buAVigqX9Ts
>
TO FIND OUT HOW MAN IS AS OLD AS FROGS, VISIT:
http://thrinaxodon.wordpress.com/faq
--
Thrinaxodon, The Ultimate Defender of USENET

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of post archived at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.bio.systematics/N2ipQiVQ9fI/JNajbvsMEDUJ
Message-ID: <lauata$2du$1...@speranza.aioe.org>

By the way, the next to last such post was also by you, and wrote
about the Smithsonian in similar deathless prose.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:21:50 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/18/16 9:11 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
> >>> to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
> >>> irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
> >> paranoia?
> >
> > Don't forget to add ", that is, charges made in reply to his/her
> > documenting irresponsible behavior". [snip]
>
> I did not forget to add anything.

Then your question is excruciatingly general and has only a very tenuous
connection with the topic of this thread.

And it deserves nothing more than a reply in the same spirit.

> My question is:
>
> How do you think an actual paranoid person would react to charges of
> paranoia?

With some comment that his/her conscience allows him/her to make.

Peter Nyikos