Dave Horn aka Chaver09 aka BeckyLynn Blunt
Nando Ronteltap
(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then Dave Horn. Since Dave
Horn mistakingly sent a post with her email address stating the name
Becky Blunt was for an "entertainment endavour", and since I know for
sure that Dave Horn also posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
under that name when I was discussing with chaver09 but signed with
Dave Horn), and so is not a stranger to posting under pseudonym, and
since they all post alike, the conclusion naturally follows.
Nando
BeckyLynn
separate persons, but we do all know each other.
Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>
>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>Dave Horn.
Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the account but now I post from
it.
>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with her
>email address stating the name Becky Blunt was
>for an "entertainment endavour...",
We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>under that name when I was discussing with
>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is helping us translate
our books and other stories into other languages to widen our market. But
we all use the same computer to send emails and communicate in the
newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very nice). What Dave did was
email you as one last ditch effort to try to reason with you. I thought it
was a noble, if wasted, effort.
>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>conclusion naturally follows.
We all think quite differently, but we are all writers and used to the
nuances of the English language - unlike you. So yes, there is a
connection, but I resent the implication that I cannot think for myself so I
must not exist. I am not surprised you tried this, Nando. It is so much
easier for you to make this sort of accusation than to answer the specific
points I made yesterday.
Isn't it?
Nando Ronteltap
>Good job, Nando...have to hand it to you. You are wrong. We are three
>separate persons, but we do all know each other.
>
>Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>>
>>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>>Dave Horn.
>
>Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the account but now I post from
>it.
>
>>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with her
>>email address stating the name Becky Blunt was
>>for an "entertainment endavour...",
>
>We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
In my experience you do all write alike, particularly chaver and horn.
>>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>>under that name when I was discussing with
>>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
>
>No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is helping us translate
>our books and other stories into other languages to widen our market. But
>we all use the same computer to send emails and communicate in the
>newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very nice). What Dave did was
>email you as one last ditch effort to try to reason with you. I thought it
>was a noble, if wasted, effort.
>
>>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>>conclusion naturally follows.
>
>We all think quite differently, but we are all writers and used to the
>nuances of the English language - unlike you. So yes, there is a
>connection, but I resent the implication that I cannot think for myself so I
>must not exist. I am not surprised you tried this, Nando. It is so much
>easier for you to make this sort of accusation than to answer the specific
>points I made yesterday.
>
>Isn't it?
The specific points you made yesterday, was about me needing to get a
life, and that my use of the word encroaching was indicative of
delusion to the point of paranoia. You then went on about how science
was a path to enlightenment and progress and how my paranoid
anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would be left to nothingness.
This you consider argument.
Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation between science
and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
progress.
Nando
BeckyLynn
>"BeckyLynn" <becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Good job, Nando...have to hand it to you. You
>>are wrong. We are three separate persons, but we
>>do all know each other.
>>
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>>>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>>>Dave Horn.
>>
>>Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the
>>account but now I post from it.
>>
>>>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with her
>>>email address stating the name Becky Blunt was
>>>for an "entertainment endavour...",
>>
>>We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
>
>In my experience you do all write alike, particularly
>chaver and horn.
I could draw similar conclusions about the writing styles of several USENET
posters. It certainly doesn't mean that they are the same person. It could
mean that they have common backgrounds, education, etc.
We have since all gotten a nice, healthy laugh out of this, though.
>>>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>>>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>>>under that name when I was discussing with
>>>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
>>
>>No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is
>>helping us translate our books and other stories into
>>other languages to widen our market. But we all use
>>the same computer to send emails and communicate
>>in the newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very
>>nice). What Dave did was email you as one last ditch
>>effort to try to reason with you. I thought it was a noble,
>>if wasted, effort.
Nando let this go by. This isn't surprising.
>>>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>>>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>>>conclusion naturally follows.
>>
>>We all think quite differently, but we are all writers
>>and used to the nuances of the English language -
>>unlike you. So yes, there is a connection, but I resent
>>the implication that I cannot think for myself so I
>>must not exist. I am not surprised you tried this,
>>Nando. It is so much easier for you to make this sort
>>of accusation than to answer the specific points I made
>>yesterday.
>>
>>Isn't it?
>
>The specific points you made yesterday, was about
>me needing to get a life...
No. I made that comment and provided evidence why as a side issue. My
primary point was that science does not have an unhealthy influence on a
person unless they allow it.
>...and that my use of the word encroaching was
>indicative of delusion to the point of paranoia.
No. I said you were delusional to the point of paranoia but what I also
said was that you were using the word "encroach" because of it's more
sinister implications. The point there was that it serves your sophistic
and rhetorical purpose far better to do that.
>You then went on about how science was a path
>to enlightenment and progress and how my
>paranoid anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would
>be left to nothingness.
I did say that. That was the conclusion to the point, not the point itself.
>This you consider argument.
And you had nothing intelligent to say in response. Whether you consider it
"argument" or not is of no consequence to me. You're viewed as what I am
told is a "net.loon." Why should I waste any more time with you if that's
all you're going to do?
>Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation
>between science and personal beliefs as a meaningful
>issue, real historians write about the issue.
I see you flatter yourself by implying that you are a "real intellectual"
and a "real historian" while implying that I am neither of these things.
That's fine. I make no claim to being a "real" anything except a real
person. Your claims about the "interrelation between science and personal
beliefs" is a BoogyMan of your own creation and has been dealt with by other
participants far more patient than I, as has your claims, regurgipostings,
and whinings about what "real historians" have said.
My position is that I have seen enough to know you are wrong. But you just
prattle on and repeat the same nonsense. Then you complain childishly when
someone disagrees with you.
You are a net.loon. Why should I waste any more time with you?
Get a life.
>You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
>my argument does not consist of mindless
>cheerleading for science and progress.
No one did any "mindless cheerleading" and no one demands that of you. And
this is certainly not the reason I responded or made the comments that I
did. I see that once again you have to decide the motive of the other. You
are wrong.
I will have nothing more to say to you until you grow up. Feel free to let
us know when that happens. But don't wait too long. You're already boring.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation between science
>and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
>about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
>my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
>progress.
>
>Nando
except few say that scientific theories can be falsified based on how
one feels about them. your idea is bizarre
>
Nando Ronteltap
Never said that. You put up inane strawman, as should be self-evident.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Good job, Nando...have to hand it to you. You are wrong. We are three
>separate persons, but we do all know each other.
>
>Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>>
>>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>>Dave Horn.
>
>Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the account but now I post from
>it.
>
>>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with her
>>email address stating the name Becky Blunt was
>>for an "entertainment endavour...",
>
>We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
In my experience you do all write alike, particularly chaver and horn.
>>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>>under that name when I was discussing with
>>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
>
>No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is helping us translate
>our books and other stories into other languages to widen our market. But
>we all use the same computer to send emails and communicate in the
>newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very nice). What Dave did was
>email you as one last ditch effort to try to reason with you. I thought it
>was a noble, if wasted, effort.
>
>>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>>conclusion naturally follows.
>
>We all think quite differently, but we are all writers and used to the
>nuances of the English language - unlike you. So yes, there is a
>connection, but I resent the implication that I cannot think for myself so I
>must not exist. I am not surprised you tried this, Nando. It is so much
>easier for you to make this sort of accusation than to answer the specific
>points I made yesterday.
>
>Isn't it?
The specific points you made yesterday, was about me needing to get a
life, and that my use of the word encroaching was indicative of
delusion to the point of paranoia. You then went on about how science
was a path to enlightenment and progress and how my paranoid
anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would be left to nothingness.
This you consider argument.
Boikat
>
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> >On 22 Sep 1999 19:27:20 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
> >>about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
> >>my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
> >>progress.
> >>
> >>Nando
> >
> >one feels about them. your idea is bizarre
>
> Never said that. You put up inane strawman, as should be self-evident.
>
I don't think he said that's what you said. It
appears to me he was simply pointing out an
omission on your part.
Boikat
> Nando
Peter Nyikos
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> >On 22 Sep 1999 19:27:20 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation between science
>> >>and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
>> >>about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
>> >>my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
>> >>progress.
Or of cheerleading people one is either a friend of
or a net.friend of, or a sock
puppet of. That is the style of Horn, "chaver09", and "BeckyLynn".
All three trivialize issues because they have apparently decided
that it is better to vote for people on their side than to try to actually
support them with reasoned detailed argument.
So "chaver09" votes for whoever happens to be posting with
From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
in the headers, and "BeckyLynn" voted for whoever happened
to be posting with
From: yojim...@my-deja.com
in the headers, and "yojimbo5618" voted right back for BeckyLynn
with a thread title that claimed a post of hers (which, not
coincidentally, sang his
hosannahs with glittering generalities and no specifics) deserved
a reply.
Of course, I had already reprimanded "yojimbo" for pretending
to think that I either answer all posts within three days
or not at all, despite the fact that he is well acquainted
with his posting habits. But that deterred him not at all
from jumping the gun with his big vote of confidence for
BeckyLynn.
As for Horn, he has plenty of people lined up voting for him.
That is why he is one of the TWO people in the following
select company:
ANTI-CREATIONIST CANNON FODDER
These are anti-creationists who have a hard time holding up their ends of
discussions and debates, and who are pampered and propped up
by more capable regulars. The propping up can take on
many forms, like: (1) nominations for Post of the Year,
etc. on the basis of trivial witticisms; (2) subjects of
"Out of the Mouths of Babes" type points, like "See, even __________
can see through your pseudoscientific BS"; (3) major assists
that turn a minor comment into what looks like a deep insight
into evolution, or the ways of creationists, etc. [To name
just three of many possibilities.]
Current membership: Chris Colby Dave Horn
Prime Candidates: George Acton Henry Barwood Elmer Bataitis
Mark Isaak
People who have pampered and propped up Dave Horn include
Wesley Elsberry, Brandon Gorte, "Splifford", Elmer Bataitis, and (most
fulsomely) Chris Ford, who broke off lurking
to post an incredibly formulaic and transparently dishonest
article as a gigantic smokescreen for Dave.
>> >>Nando
>> >
>> >except few say that scientific theories can be falsified based on how
>> >one feels about them. your idea is bizarre
>>
>> Never said that. You put up inane strawman, as should be self-evident.
>>
>I don't think he said that's what you said. It
>appears to me he was simply pointing out an
>omission on your part.
>Boikat
Spoken like a sock puppet for "wf3h", who belongs to another,
superficially similar company:
ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a handicap
to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an asset.
The other currently active member is Henry Barwood. There are
a number of Prime Candidates, including Dave Horn.
>> Nando
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>"BeckyLynn" <becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Good job, Nando...have to hand it to you. You are wrong. We are three
>>separate persons, but we do all know each other.
And how!
Not only that, but "BeckyLynn"'s first post on "Howdy, Beckylynn"
looks like most of it was ghost-written by Dave Horn. The
style is so strongly Hornish, Nando, it has to be seen to
be appreciated. Here's an url for it:
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=528383435
To take just one of innumerable points of similarity: right in
that first post, BeckyLynn was already making noises about
possibly leaving the newsgroup very soon, or possibly
getting bored with my posts very soon. Horn
came at me on two separate occasions in the past two years for
a couple of weeks with an avalanche of posts, almost as many
as I was putting out everywhere in response to everyone, then
abruptly broke off and claimed he was no longer interested in me,
basically ignoring me for half a year or more at a stretch, though
occasionally making very nasty potshots about me in response
to third parties.
I am taking BeckyLynn's warning as a sign that Horn is
only able to go on ghost-writing responses for her for
a couple of weeks. This fits right in with my suspicion
that Horn is a manic-depressive who does flurries of posts
while he is in a manic mood, then cuts and runs when he
feels a depressive mood coming on.
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>>>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>>>Dave Horn.
Well done, Nando. You may not be right on the money,
but you have the next best thing already admitted to
by the person who posts under the name "BeckyLynn".
I wonder--how typical is it for PackFollowers
to post under Southern-belle-type names? First
"Sherilyn" and then "Louann" Miller
and now "BeckyLynn". Louann is definitely not a Southern
belle type and neither is "BeckyLynn". As for "Sherilyn",
he isn't even a woman: he is a man whose real
name is Tony Sidaway. I wonder which of the other two are.
>>Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the account but now I post from
>>it.
Of course, that does not preclude a hefty fraction of the
articles being ghost-written by Horn.
>>>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with her
>>>email address stating the name Becky Blunt was
>>>for an "entertainment endavour...",
>>
>>We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
And I do believe "BeckyLynn" is also for an entertainment
endeavour, for right here on talk.origins.
>In my experience you do all write alike, particularly chaver and horn.
Yes, Chaver and Horn are the only two people that I
can think of who have posted the idiocy that
the best way to get me riled up is to ignore me.
As I've pointed out to Horn several times, I'd be very
happy if he ignored me while I painstakingly document what
a thoroughly despicable person he is. Horn is so self-centered,
he can't imagine a person doing such things for the good
of the newsgroup, not even against me.
>>>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>>>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>>>under that name when I was discussing with
>>>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
>>
>>No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is helping us translate
>>our books and other stories into other languages to widen our market. But
>>we all use the same computer to send emails and communicate in the
>>newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very nice). What Dave did was
>>email you as one last ditch effort to try to reason with you.
Nando, do you really think Dave was trying to REASON with you?
That would greatly surprise me.
I thought it
>>was a noble, if wasted, effort.
Dave is tone-deaf to the concept of noble behavior where
opponents of his are concerned.
>>>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>>>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>>>conclusion naturally follows.
>>
>>We all think quite differently,
If that is true, then it is almost impossible for large parts
of the post whose url I gave NOT to have been ghost-written
by Horn.
>> but we are all writers and used to the
>>nuances of the English language - unlike you.
Note the cheap shot put-down, so typical of Horn.
>> So yes, there is a
>>connection, but I resent the implication that I cannot think for myself so I
>>must not exist.
Juvenile.
>> I am not surprised you tried this, Nando. It is so much
>>easier for you to make this sort of accusation than to answer the specific
>>points I made yesterday.
Typical Hornism.
>>Isn't it?
>The specific points you made yesterday, was about me needing to get a
>life, and that my use of the word encroaching was indicative of
>delusion to the point of paranoia.
It is typical of Horn to demand responses to such insults. And
the insults themselves have a strongly Hornian ring to them.
>You then went on about how science
>was a path to enlightenment and progress and how my paranoid
>anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would be left to nothingness.
>This you consider argument.
Yes, Horn also expects one to refute such idiotic generalities.
When you ask for specifics, he whines that he already gave them.
>Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation between science
>and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
>about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
>my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
>progress.
Well put. It was almost comical to see how those two idiots,
Boikat and "wf3h" tried to deal with it.
I wonder why so many names get attached to people willing to
vote for Horn or his allies. I listed six in my first followup
to "BeckyLynn"s post whose url I gave above. They had all compromised
their integrity to cast votes of confidence in Horn. That is,
unless one or more were Horn posting under a pseudonym, in which case
they had blasted their integrity to smithereens long before.
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> >> >On 22 Sep 1999 19:27:20 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>and personal beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians write
> >> >>about the issue. You just trivialize the issue and insult me because
> >> >>my argument does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
> >> >>progress.
>
>
> >> >>Nando
> >> >
> >> >except few say that scientific theories can be falsified based on how
> >> >one feels about them. your idea is bizarre
> >>
> >> Never said that. You put up inane strawman, as should be self-evident.
> >>
>
> >I don't think he said that's what you said. It
> >appears to me he was simply pointing out an
> >omission on your part.
>
> >Boikat
>
> Spoken like a sock puppet for "wf3h", who belongs to another,
> superficially similar company:
Bite me. Besides, it was my understanding that a
"sock puppet" meant using an additional name,
other than the one normally used, as an 'invented
other party', that acted as a "yes man". If
that's what you mean, then you are very, very
wrong. If that is not what a "sock puppet is,
pleas enlighten me.
> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>
> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a handicap
> to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an asset.
>
> The other currently active member is Henry Barwood. There are
> a number of Prime Candidates, including Dave Horn.
Ooooh! Does this mean I'm on one of your 'lists".
Good! Now maybe they will officially admit me to
to U of E! The expense of shipping a keg a week
to the dean's offi... er, the chemistry lab, was
killing me!
Boikat
>
Boikat
If it's simply a matter of "chiming in to
support", then doesn't that make you appear to be
a "sock puppet" for Nando?
Boikat
BeckyLynn
Peter Nyikos wrote in message <1999092317...@milo.math.sc.edu>...
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>>
>>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>> >On 22 Sep 1999 19:27:20 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Real intellectuals see the issue of the
>>> >>interrelation between science and personal
>>> >>beliefs as a meaningful issue, real historians
>>> >>write about the issue. You just trivialize the
>>> >>issue and insult me because my argument
>>> >>does not consist of mindless cheerleading
>>> >>for science and progress.
>
>Or of cheerleading people one is either a friend of
>or a net.friend of, or a sock puppet of. That is the
>style of Horn, "chaver09", and "BeckyLynn".
Mr. Nyikos is a liar.
All of the parties he attacks in the statement he makes above have made
substantive, non-cheerleading articles in the past. He ignores them, "can't
fine them," or trivializes them because of his hate.
>All three trivialize issues because they have
>apparently...
Mr. Nyikos likes to refer to the use of "apparently" as a "weasel word." He
is free to explain to me why it is not a "weasel word" when he does it.
>...decided that it is better to vote for people on
>their side than to try to actually support them with
>reasoned detailed argument.
"Reasoned detailed argument" is an alien concept to Mr. Nyikos, as a perusal
of his more recent articles will illustrate.
>So "chaver09" votes for whoever happens to be
>posting with
>
> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
Paranoid rant.
>in the headers, and "BeckyLynn" voted for whoever
>happened to be posting with
>
> From: yojim...@my-deja.com
If agreeing with someone means "voting" for them, well, so be it. I still
find it interesting that Mr. Nyikos decided that since he couldn't tell who
Yojimbo was, that somehow invalidated the questions and statements made.
I still believe that Mr. Nyikos used this as an excuse to refuse to answer
questions and statements he knew he couldn't answer, anyway. The reader
must decide for herself if that makes Mr. Nyikos a coward, a liar, or a
fraud.
I have made up my mind...at least for now.
>in the headers, and "yojimbo5618" voted right back
>for BeckyLynn with a thread title that claimed a post
>of hers (which, not coincidentally, sang his hosannahs
>with glittering generalities and no specifics) deserved
>a reply.
So Mr. Nyikos *has* seen my challenge to him. Interesting that he has
chosen to ignore it (as well as the commentary that he needs to lighten up)
in favor of attacks on my discussions with others such as Pagano.
>Of course, I had already reprimanded "yojimbo"
>for pretending to think that I either answer all posts
>within three days or not at all, despite the fact that he
>is well acquainted with his posting habits.
Mr. Nyikos is a hypocrite. He has frequently chided others for not
answering within arbitrary time periods (or not at all) as it suits him.
>But that deterred him not at all from jumping the
>gun with his big vote of confidence for BeckyLynn.
I can't help but notice that Mr. Nyikos is failing completely to show that
my challenge was invalid or unreasonable. Basically, I asked Mr. Nyikos to
explain a couple of things without his usual evasion, obfuscation,
name-calling, juvenile virtiol, literary flourishes and the other sorts of
things that characterize his articles in this newsgroup.
Apparently, this is a challenge that is beyond the abilities of Mr. Nyikos
to meet.
>As for Horn, he has plenty of people lined up voting
>for him.
Really? Who? As far as I can see from reading the history, one of the
reasons that Dave cited for dropping the conversation (such as it was) was
that no one cared. That was supported by the participation of others in the
discussion.
>That is why he is one of the TWO people in the
>following select company:
>
> ANTI-CREATIONIST CANNON FODDER
Here we go. Another one of the self-important Mr. Nyikos's lists.
>These are anti-creationists who have a hard time
>holding up their ends of discussions and debates, and
>who are pampered and propped up by more capable
>regulars. The propping up can take on many forms,
>like: (1) nominations for Post of the Year, etc. on the
>basis of trivial witticisms; (2) subjects of "Out of the
>Mouths of Babes" type points, like "See, even __________
>can see through your pseudoscientific BS"; (3) major
>assists that turn a minor comment into what looks like a
>deep insight into evolution, or the ways of creationists,
>etc. [To name just three of many possibilities.]
Not surprisingly, Mr. Nyikos again speaks from ignorance. I have read
through a large part of Dave's archives. He has been very detailed and
specific in answering creationists in the past almost right up to the time
when he decided that he no longer had time for it. Mr. Nyikos ignored what
was in the newsgroups to add Dave to this silly list.
>Current membership: Chris Colby Dave Horn
>
>Prime Candidates: George Acton Henry Barwood
>Elmer Bataitis Mark Isaak
>
>People who have pampered and propped up Dave
>Horn include Wesley Elsberry, Brandon Gorte,
>"Splifford", Elmer Bataitis, and (most fulsomely) Chris
>Ford...
"Foster." Mr. Nyikos still can't get this right over a year later.
>...who broke off lurking to post an incredibly formulaic
>and transparently dishonest article as a gigantic
>smokescreen for Dave.
What Mr. Nyikos seems completely incapable of doing is showing *why* it was
"transparently dishonest."
>>> >>Nando
>>> >
>>> >except few say that scientific theories can
>>> >be falsified based on how one feels about them.
>>> >your idea is bizarre
>>>
>>>Never said that. You put up inane strawman, as
>>>should be self-evident.
>>>
>
>>I don't think he said that's what you said. It
>>appears to me he was simply pointing out an
>>omission on your part.
>
>>Boikat
>
>Spoken like a sock puppet for "wf3h", who belongs
>to another, superficially similar company:
>
> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
Oh...brother...<yawn>
(Whoops...another Hornism...)
>These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to
>be more of a handicap to the anti-creationist faction
>in talk.origins than an asset.
>
>The other currently active member is Henry Barwood.
>There are a number of Prime Candidates, including
>Dave Horn.
Dave has asked me to pass on that if he thought this were worthy of his
consideration, he'd issue an acceptance speech.
BeckyLynn
Peter Nyikos wrote in message <1999092318...@milo.math.sc.edu>...
>[posted and e-mailed]
>
>Nando Ronteltap <nr...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>"BeckyLynn" <becky...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Good job, Nando...have to hand it to you.
>>>You are wrong. We are three separate persons,
>>>but we do all know each other.
>
>And how!
Interestingly enough, Nando put this all together before the self-important
genuis that is Mr. Nyikos did. Nando's conclusion was wrong, though, and
since I know Dave personally, I can say that if he were to create different
personalities to post here, he would be smarter than to do it from the same
provider or do it from an email address that has already been associated
with him.
Of course, Nando and Mr. Nyikos would never believe anything like that or
that a person can be smarter than they think, but I sense that very few
people in this newsgroup really care about this silliness or what Nando and
Mr. Nyikos think.
>Not only that, but "BeckyLynn"'s first post on
>"Howdy, Beckylynn" looks like most of it was
>ghost-written by Dave Horn.
Well, it wasn't. But Mr. Nyikos has already been sent scampering by me and
because we can't have that - especially from a woman - Mr. Nyikos needs to
come up with all kinds of bizarre theories instead of actually answering
what he presumes to answer.
>The style is so strongly Hornish, Nando, it has to be
>seen to be appreciated. Here's an url for it:
>
>http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=528383435
I have already pointed out that Mr. Nyikos has seen the entire article and
inexplicably ceased his response to it, while deciding to respond *about* me
(and Dave) in articles to others. In this, Mr. Nyikos shows is pettiness.
>To take just one of innumerable points of similarity:
>right in that first post, BeckyLynn was already making
>noises about possibly leaving the newsgroup very
>soon, or possibly getting bored with my posts very
>soon.
This couldn't *possibly* be because Mr. Nyikos is boring...could it?
>Horn came at me on two separate occasions in
>the past two years for a couple of weeks with an
>avalanche of posts...
[Snip remainder - already answered in another response.]
>I am taking BeckyLynn's warning as a sign that Horn is
>only able to go on ghost-writing responses for her for
>a couple of weeks.
Mr. Nyikos is wrong and again I feel that this is because I am already
sending him fleeing and he needs to find an excuse.
>This fits right in with my suspicion that Horn is a
>manic-depressive who does flurries of posts
>while he is in a manic mood, then cuts and runs
>when he feels a depressive mood coming on.
If this were true, then Mr. Nyikos would be a far bigger jerk than anyone
would think. Bipolar patients often have little control over their mood
swings. But it's not true. I know. Mr. Nyikos does not. It serves his
rhetorical purpose to categorize his opposition in this way in addition to
his strange little lists.
Dave did quite a number to Mr. Nyikos when he was bothering to respond to
him. That Mr. Nyikos feels the need to keep repeating the same nonsense
(and even lies) about those exchanges says more about Mr. Nyikos than it
does about Dave. I'm not proud of much that Dave did in that exchange and I
have said so to him and in this newsgroup already. But Mr. Nyikos has far
less to be proud of.
>>>Nando Ronteltap wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>I should state here that I suspect BeckyLynn
>>>>(becky...@email.msn.com) is none other then
>>>>Dave Horn.
>
>Well done, Nando. You may not be right on the money,
>but you have the next best thing already admitted to
>by the person who posts under the name "BeckyLynn".
>
>I wonder--how typical is it for PackFollowers
>to post under Southern-belle-type names? First
>"Sherilyn" and then "Louann" Miller and now
>"BeckyLynn". Louann is definitely not a Southern
>belle type and neither is "BeckyLynn".
Born and raised in Georgia. My parents still live in the Atlanta area.
However, I admit that I am not a "belle." Nor would I want to be. It seems
to much like "airhead."
Ah, but Mr. Nyikos will not confine this attack to me...
>As for "Sherilyn" he isn't even a woman: he is a
>man whose real name is Tony Sidaway.
Which is relevant to the discussions in this newsgroup for what reason?
Mr. Nyikos has taken his lumps on this issue before. Why he doesn't learn
from that mystifies me only a little.
>I wonder which of the other two are.
So instead of dealing with us directly, Mr. Nyikos now wants to imply that
either LouAnn or me or both of us have a problem with out sexual identity?
Of what relevance is this, anyway? I can tell you this. I am considered to
be quite pretty and if I ever was approached by someone like Mr. Nyikos, I
would not even talk to him. Yes, that's rather shallow, but I admit that I
can be that way sometimes.
>>>Dave is my friend and partner. He set up the
>>>account but now I post from it.
>
>Of course, that does not preclude a hefty fraction of the
>articles being ghost-written by Horn.
By itself, no, it doesn't. But Dave is far too busy to deal with the
silliness in this newsgroup.
To be fair, he warned me when I said I wanted to play that I would quickly
get disappointed. He was right.
>>>>Since Dave Horn mistakingly sent a post with
>>>>her email address stating the name Becky Blunt
>>>>was for an "entertainment endavour...",
>>>
>>>We are writing childrens' books and stories together.
>
>And I do believe "BeckyLynn" is also for an entertainment
>endeavour, for right here on talk.origins.
I don't mind being entertaining and I certainly don't mind getting along
with many of the other persons here. I am not interested in Mr. Nyikos's
petty jealousies.
>>In my experience you do all write alike, particularly
>>chaver and horn.
Both Dave and Chaver (Bob) have doctorates and write like they have
doctorates. I am trying to get them to write more like they are *people*.
>Yes, Chaver and Horn are the only two people that I
>can think of who have posted the idiocy that
>the best way to get me riled up is to ignore me.
Both were able to prove this, as well. I think that Mr. Nyikos's continued
rantings at both Dave and Bob show that he is quite annoyed (riled) and
obsessed with them.
>As I've pointed out to Horn several times, I'd be very
>happy if he ignored me while I painstakingly document
>what a thoroughly despicable person he is.
Mr. Nyikos had that chance this last spring and summer and did put his
"documentation" into the newsgroup while Dave was recuperating. I read that
and it said nothing that proved anything other than "what a thoroughly
despicable person" Mr. Nyikos can be.
>Horn is so self-centered, he can't imagine a person
>doing such things for the good of the newsgroup, not
>even against me.
Notice all the "me" talk from Mr. Nyikos? Or that Mr. Nyikos claims that
what he does has some altruistic purpose? Is it any wonder that many of us
view Mr. Nyikos as having a colossal (and unjustified) ego?
Mr. Nyikos does what he does to vent his hate and for no other reason.
>>>>...and since I know for sure that Dave Horn also
>>>>posts under the name chaver09 (he emailed me
>>>>under that name when I was discussing with
>>>>chaver09 but signed with Dave Horn)...
>>>
>>>No. We still have that. Chaver is a linguist who is
>>>helping us translate our books and other stories into
>>>other languages to widen our market. But we all use
>>>the same computer to send emails and communicate
>>>in the newsgroups (it's one Dave built recently - very nice).
>>>What Dave did was email you as one last ditch effort
>>>to try to reason with you.
>
>Nando, do you really think Dave was trying to REASON
>with you? That would greatly surprise me.
Neither Nando nor Mr. Nyikos are thought of as being particularly reasonable
by many in this newsgroup - including me. Their unreasonableness is shown
almost every day. I, for one, don't really care if Nando or Mr. Nyikos
believes someone else was trying to reason with Nando. I doubt if anyone
else would either.
>>I thought it was a noble, if wasted, effort.
>
>Dave is tone-deaf to the concept of noble behavior
>where opponents of his are concerned.
Mr. Nyikos is wrong. He wouldn't know. He just hates.
>>>>...and so is not a stranger to posting under
>>>>pseudonym, and since they all post alike, the
>>>>conclusion naturally follows.
>>>
>>>We all think quite differently,
>
>If that is true, then it is almost impossible for large parts
>of the post whose url I gave NOT to have been ghost-written
>by Horn.
Whether Mr. Nyikos choses to believe this or not is of no consequence to me.
What appears under the name "BeckyLynn" was *entirely* written by me and
expresses my thoughts and opinions. That I am writing or learning to write
under Dave's tutelage may show through in style, but these are my words.
>>> but we are all writers and used to the
>>>nuances of the English language - unlike you.
>
>Note the cheap shot put-down, so typical of Horn.
Mr. Nyikos is typically ignorant when he makes this comment. It is not a
cheap shot, but an observation of Nando's peculiarities as noted by many of
us in this newsgroup.
>>>So yes, there is a connection, but I resent the
>>>implication that I cannot think for myself so I
>>>must not exist.
>
>Juvenile.
Mr. Nyikos simply cannot handle that a woman can handle herself as well as a
man in this newsgroup. Nando tried to dismiss me as being what is called a
"sock puppet" for Dave while ignoring my specific points. That way he could
blow me off. Mr. Nyikos has tried the same thing.
I would also believe that many find Mr. Nyikos's claims to my being
"juvenile" hypocritical. There are few more juvenile in their style of
argumentation.
>>> I am not surprised you tried this, Nando. It is so
>>> much easier for you to make this sort of accusation
>>> than to answer the specific points I made yesterday.
>
>Typical Hornism.
And it is typical Nyikosism to seem to imply that there is no use in asking
people to answer for specific claims that they have made rather than venture
off into irrelevancies.
>>>Isn't it?
>
>>The specific points you made yesterday, was
>>about me needing to get a life, and that my
>>use of the word encroaching was indicative of
>>delusion to the point of paranoia.
My answer to this was:
"No. I made that comment and provided evidence why as a side issue. My
primary point was that science does not have an unhealthy influence on a
person unless they allow it."
Which Mr. Nyikos would rather not address. Instead, he wants to carry on an
offtopic personality war.
>It is typical of Horn to demand responses to such
>insults. And the insults themselves have a strongly
>Hornian ring to them.
I supported these "insults" with my observations. Mr. Nyikos would prefer
not to deal with that.
>>You then went on about how science was a path
>>to enlightenment and progress and how my paranoid
>>anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would be left to
>>nothingness. This you consider argument.
My response to this was:
"I did say that. That was the conclusion to the point, not the point
itself. And you had nothing intelligent to say in response. Whether you
consider it "argument" or not is of no consequence to me. You're viewed as
what I am told is a "net.loon." Why should I waste any more time with you
if that's all you're going to do?"
Nando dismissed everything topical I had to say and wanted to carry on his
little net.whine. I was not interested and withdrew my participation, as is
my right.
What does Mr. Nyikos have to say about this?
>Yes, Horn also expects one to refute such idiotic
>generalities. When you ask for specifics, he whines
>that he already gave them.
It is my view that the real whiner through all of this is the paranoid,
hateful, friendless Mr. Nyikos, who spends so much time in this newsgroup
backpedalling, spin-doctoring, and spewing his hate that he seems more an
object of pity than derision.
>>Real intellectuals see the issue of the interrelation
>>between science and personal beliefs as a meaningful
>>issue, real historians write about the issue. You just
>>trivialize the issue and insult me because my argument
>>does not consist of mindless cheerleading for science and
>>progress.
>
>Well put.
Actually, it wasn't, because it was wrong. It's not surprising to see Mr.
Nyikos cheerlead for Nando, but it is rare to see two paranoids get along so
well.
>It was almost comical to see how those two idiots,
>Boikat and "wf3h" tried to deal with it.
Of course, Mr. Nyikos will not detail how it was these "two idiots" failed
to deal with the issue reasonably.
And let's watch Mr. Nyikos get caught up in his hate again:
>I wonder why so many names get attached to people
>willing to vote for Horn or his allies. I listed six in my
>first followup to "BeckyLynn"s post whose url I gave above.
>They had all compromised their integrity to cast votes of
>confidence in Horn. That is, unless one or more were
>Horn posting under a pseudonym, in which case
>they had blasted their integrity to smithereens long before.
Of those involved in this discussion, it is clear to me that Nando has a
serious problem with credibility and Mr. Nyikos is behind him by a length.
I would tend to doubt that anyone really cares what two delusional paranoids
such as Nando and Mr. Nyikos think of the integrity of others. I know I
don't.
This ends all I have to say about Mr. Nyikos and his replies to Nando. Mr.
Nyikos is free to return to those issues directly in conflict between him
and me, or he can continue to procrastinate and hide behind responses to
others. Either way, he's losing.
Nando Ronteltap
>>>The specific points you made yesterday, was
>>>about me needing to get a life, and that my
>>>use of the word encroaching was indicative of
>>>delusion to the point of paranoia.
>
>My answer to this was:
>
>"No. I made that comment and provided evidence why as a side issue. My
>primary point was that science does not have an unhealthy influence on a
>person unless they allow it."
Which is why they need to check science encroaching on personal
beliefs and visaversa.
>Which Mr. Nyikos would rather not address. Instead, he wants to carry on an
>offtopic personality war.
You've got to be kidding me.
<snip>
>>>You then went on about how science was a path
>>>to enlightenment and progress and how my paranoid
>>>anti-intellectual anti-science ranting would be left to
>>>nothingness. This you consider argument.
>
>My response to this was:
>
>"I did say that. That was the conclusion to the point, not the point
>itself. And you had nothing intelligent to say in response. Whether you
>consider it "argument" or not is of no consequence to me. You're viewed as
>what I am told is a "net.loon." Why should I waste any more time with you
>if that's all you're going to do?"
>
>Nando dismissed everything topical I had to say and wanted to carry on his
>little net.whine. I was not interested and withdrew my participation, as is
>my right.
That you consider what you write topical argument is beyond me.
Nando