By Their Fruits March 2013

Ron O

unread,

Mar 2, 2013, 11:12:05 AM3/2/13

to

The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the
issue. Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. I hope
that he was just joking around. Several posters got banned (Nando,
Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). Kalkidas and Pagano havenï¿½t
posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID
supporter still posting. It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
creationist scam is getting so little support. About the only time
you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt
to get the clueless vote. As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only
one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.

The usual disclaimers go with this list. It is only meant to be a
resource where you can use Google to ï¿½view profileï¿½ and gain access to
as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. If you
want to know what the list is about, just Googleï¿½By their fruitsï¿½ and
you can look up the Biblical meaning. It is something that most of
the posters on this list should understand. I do not claim that all
the posters fit into a single category. They are a very diverse
group. As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
the last rendition of this thread. Nando was a follower of the Koran
and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. Just being a creationist does not
get you on this list. It is what these posters do because they are
creationists that get them on this list. If you want to argue about
it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been
put forward.

An example of creationists that would not make the list:
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous
ones:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en

Glenn:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en

Ray:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en

Nyikos:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en

I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this
argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. Did anyone else
know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
the Bible?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en

Hal Womack (typical post and run?):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f0f1b97ff4b4369d?hl=en

Ed Conrad may still be lurking and posting even though he was banned
years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6b15ca871c93491?hl=en

Dale:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/459d33cd368b35e8?hl=en

Prawnster got the boot:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c8ad07bf370e8f8?hl=en

Debra:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8a1d3ebcb9d93a7b?hl=en

Dav:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a42b6085522d0b3b?hl=en

Kalkidas hasnï¿½t posted much recently this came from the old thread
that Dav resurrected:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e4c075fa3b4526cc?hl=en

Kiddush post and run:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97979ea7fe9579e9?hl=en

curtjester1:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cdd6aa1152513616?hl=en

Quark E got banned:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en

Quark also posted as Chemist:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en

Robert another post and run:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/59d4deb7b7159c1e?hl=en

Sean Pitman did not post, but someone resurrected an old thread from
2002. People should note that there was a time when some of the guys
on this list did actually try to argue some point:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78e3fab14ba660f9?hl=en

R Dean (his profile is corrupted and canï¿½t be accessed):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c07d37625088f9b1?hl=en

If I missed anyone add them to the list. I only go back through a
couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.

Ron Okimoto

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 3, 2013, 5:19:29 PM3/3/13

to

On Mar 2, 8:12ï¿½am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> issue. ï¿½Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. ï¿½I hope
> that he was just joking around. ï¿½Several posters got banned (Nando,
> Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). ï¿½Kalkidas and Pagano havenï¿½t

> posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID

> supporter still posting. ï¿½It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> creationist scam is getting so little support. ï¿½About the only time

> you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt

> to get the clueless vote. ï¿½As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only

> one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>

> The usual disclaimers go with this list. ï¿½It is only meant to be a

> resource where you can use Google to ï¿½view profileï¿½ and gain access to

> as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. ï¿½If you

> want to know what the list is about, just Googleï¿½By their fruitsï¿½ and

> you can look up the Biblical meaning. ï¿½It is something that most of
> the posters on this list should understand. ï¿½I do not claim that all
> the posters fit into a single category. ï¿½They are a very diverse
> group. ï¿½As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> the last rendition of this thread. ï¿½Nando was a follower of the Koran
> and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. ï¿½Just being a creationist does not
> get you on this list. ï¿½It is what these posters do because they are
> creationists that get them on this list. ï¿½If you want to argue about

> it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been
> put forward.
>
> An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
> Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous
> ones:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en
>
> Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en
>
> Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this

> argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. ï¿½Did anyone else

> know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
> the Bible?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en

Not only that, Peter now claims to be a Christian! My arguments have
forced him to change his stated bias. But lets not lose track of the
truth: Peter accepts evolution and of course human evolution from a
deep time ape ancestor. So he remains an Atheist.

Ray

> 2002. ï¿½People should note that there was a time when some of the guys

> on this list did actually try to argue some point:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78e3fab14ba660f9?hl=en
>
> R Dean (his profile is corrupted and canï¿½t be accessed):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c07d37625088f9b1?hl=en
>

> If I missed anyone add them to the list. ï¿½I only go back through a

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 3, 2013, 5:43:10 PM3/3/13

to

On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the
> issue. Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. I hope
> that he was just joking around. Several posters got banned (Nando,
> Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)).

[....]

> Quark E got banned:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en
>
> Quark also posted as Chemist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en

[....]

> If I missed anyone add them to the list. I only go back through a
> couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
> Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.

And since his return to Talk.Origins Peter Nyikos has now shown his
true colors. He is the author of many topics that have no relevance to
newsgroup topic, and he initiates and instigates countless thread
derailments, and he attracts people who don't care about our topic,
like the abortion debate, and he is now using Talk.Origins as a chat
line with Paul Gans and his clique. Neither does Peter defend his
claims concerning Directed Panspermia in any straighforward manner,
and has provided intellectual aid and comfort for Holocaust deniers
like Matt Giwer.

I submit and therefore request that Peter be officially censured and
given a warning for behavior that jeopardizes the health of this
newsgroup.

Ray

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 1:32:44 AM3/4/13

to

T.O. doesn't "officially censure" people. Sheesh.

Mitchell Coffey

alias Ernest Major

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 4:22:31 AM3/4/13

to

On 03/03/2013 22:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Not only that, Peter now claims to be a Christian! My arguments have
> forced him to change his stated bias. But lets not lose track of the
> truth: Peter accepts evolution and of course human evolution from a
> deep time ape ancestor. So he remains an Atheist.
>
> Ray

Peter claimed to be a Christian shortly after his return to the group,
and I expect that he made the same claim during his previous
participation; it is not, as you imply, a new claim. His acceptance of
evolution and the common ancestry of humans with other organisms does
not make him an atheist never mind an Atheist.

--
alias Ernest Major

Ron O

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 7:18:04 AM3/4/13

to

On Mar 4, 3:22 am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
wrote:

Ray is likely confused because of Nyikos' constant denial about being
a creationist even though he has admitted that he goes to church to
worship the intelligent designer of his immortal soul, and Ray is sort
of confused about who is a "real" Christian.

Ron Okimoto

Ron O

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 7:42:12 AM3/4/13

to

Why did you post this to this thread and to me? If you think that you
have a legitimate complaint, you should post the complaint in the
threads where you think that these things are happening. Nyikos
hasn't even posted to this thread, yet.

Ron Okimoto

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 2:09:41 PM3/4/13

to

On Mar 4, 4:42嚙窮m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:43嚙緘m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:12嚙窮m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> > > issue. 嚙磕ilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. 嚙瘢 hope
> > > that he was just joking around. 嚙磅everal posters got banned (Nando,

> > > Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)).
>
> > [....]
>
> > > Quark E got banned:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en
>
> > > Quark also posted as Chemist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en
>
> > [....]
>

> > > If I missed anyone add them to the list. 嚙瘢 only go back through a

> > > couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
> > > Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.
>
> > And since his return to Talk.Origins Peter Nyikos has now shown his
> > true colors. He is the author of many topics that have no relevance to
> > newsgroup topic, and he initiates and instigates countless thread
> > derailments, and he attracts people who don't care about our topic,
> > like the abortion debate, and he is now using Talk.Origins as a chat
> > line with Paul Gans and his clique. Neither does Peter defend his
> > claims concerning Directed Panspermia in any straighforward manner,
> > and has provided intellectual aid and comfort for Holocaust deniers
> > like Matt Giwer.
>
> > I submit and therefore request that Peter be officially censured and
> > given a warning for behavior that jeopardizes the health of this
> > newsgroup.
>
> > Ray
>

> Why did you post this to this thread and to me? 嚙瘢f you think that you

> have a legitimate complaint, you should post the complaint in the

> threads where you think that these things are happening. 嚙瞇yikos

> hasn't even posted to this thread, yet.
>
> Ron Okimoto

You don't seriously expect Ray to post anything that actually makes
sense do you?

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 2:13:15 PM3/4/13

to

I thought Ray was quite clear about who is a "real" Christian, namely
anyone who agrees with him about everything. He may believe he is the
only real Christian currently alive (I think he used to include Gene
Scott).

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 3:17:47 PM3/4/13

to

I posted the message "Attention DIG...." (see subject title line). And
I included context of Wilkins resigning and recent bannings by DIG
because said context is relevant to my request for Moderator action.

> If you think that you
> have a legitimate complaint, you should post the complaint in the
> threads where you think that these things are happening. �Nyikos
> hasn't even posted to this thread, yet.

Well, I chose here for the reasons stated. Peter is using Talk.Origins
as a playground for off-topic clowning, and token lip service to on-
topic subjects. I think DIG should give him an official warning
despite the fact that his "crimes" are no less than the people who you
mentioned as having already been banned.

And look at Paul Gans and his clique; the amount of off-topic chat
line nonsense being posted by Gans and his pathetic lap dogs is
certainly much worse than the "crimes" of those who have been banned
lately. Both Gans and Nyikos possess small minds----that's why they
clutter the newsgroup with off-topic nonsense instead of defending or
opposing on-topic subjects.

Posting at Talk.Origins is down because of people like Nyikos and
Gans. We don't give a sh*t about the abortion debate, politics, or
what Gans thinks about crime rates or the Oscars. We care about topic
(Origins) and nothing else. Freaking ridiculous. John Wilkins, more or
less, quit due to lack of interest (read his blog and current
resignation topic). Again, it's the Nyikos's and Gans's who are
responsible.

DIG: Please give both Nyikos and Gans a warning.

In any case, Thanks.

Ray

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 7:36:55 PM3/4/13

to

You just may have cut the Gordian knot by lumping Gans and Nyikos like
that. Wow. I'm impressed. I must have been a sleeping lap dog as I
missed Gans' predictions on the Oscars. Was he spot on?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 1:22:55 AM3/5/13

to

Please don't lie about the motivations of my friend John Wilkins.

Mitchell

Ron O

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 7:15:32 AM3/5/13

to

On Mar 2, 10:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

SNIP:

I noticed that two regulars weren't on the list, but I recall seeing
their posts.

Backspace did post in Feb.:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcfd07e17f0ffb92?hl=en

NashTon is still around, but hasn't posted since Jan.:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5f8a3dfcabd8ea5?hl=en

Ron Okimoto

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 8:06:48 AM3/5/13

to

Meanwhile, in the "do they have a reflection in the mirror or are
they uniquely immune to observing it" category, we have fermenting
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d026428da49c1ee5
demonstrating that ripe fruitiness is fascinating in all its
manifestations.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 2:53:42 PM3/5/13

to

On Mar 4, 10:22�ｿｽpm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/4/2013 3:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 4:42 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 4:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> >>>> issue. �ｿｽWilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. �ｿｽI hope
> >>>> that he was just joking around. �ｿｽSeveral posters got banned (Nando,

> >>>> Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)).
>
> >>> [....]
>
> >>>> Quark E got banned:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en
>
> >>>> Quark also posted as Chemist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en
>
> >>> [....]
>

> >>>> If I missed anyone add them to the list. �ｿｽI only go back through a

> >>>> couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
> >>>> Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.
>
> >>> And since his return to Talk.Origins Peter Nyikos has now shown his
> >>> true colors. He is the author of many topics that have no relevance to
> >>> newsgroup topic, and he initiates and instigates countless thread
> >>> derailments, and he attracts people who don't care about our topic,
> >>> like the abortion debate, and he is now using Talk.Origins as a chat
> >>> line with Paul Gans and his clique. Neither does Peter defend his
> >>> claims concerning Directed Panspermia in any straighforward manner,
> >>> and has provided intellectual aid and comfort for Holocaust deniers
> >>> like Matt Giwer.
>
> >>> I submit and therefore request that Peter be officially censured and
> >>> given a warning for behavior that jeopardizes the health of this
> >>> newsgroup.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Why did you post this to this thread and to me?
>
> > I posted the message "Attention DIG...." (see subject title line). And
> > I included context of Wilkins resigning and recent bannings by DIG
> > because said context is relevant to my request for Moderator action.
>
> >> If you think that you
> >> have a legitimate complaint, you should post the complaint in the

> >> threads where you think that these things are happening. �ｿｽNyikos

> >> hasn't even posted to this thread, yet.
>
> > Well, I chose here for the reasons stated. Peter is using Talk.Origins
> > as a playground for off-topic clowning, and token lip service to on-
> > topic subjects. I think DIG should give him an official warning
> > despite the fact that his "crimes" are no less than the people who you
> > mentioned as having already been banned.
>
> > And look at Paul Gans and his clique; the amount of off-topic chat
> > line nonsense being posted by Gans and his pathetic lap dogs is
> > certainly much worse than the "crimes" of those who have been banned
> > lately. Both Gans and Nyikos possess small minds----that's why they
> > clutter the newsgroup with off-topic nonsense instead of defending or
> > opposing on-topic subjects.
>
> > Posting at Talk.Origins is down because of people like Nyikos and
> > Gans. We don't give a sh*t about the abortion debate, politics, or
> > what Gans thinks about crime rates or the Oscars. We care about topic
> > (Origins) and nothing else. Freaking ridiculous. John Wilkins, more or
> > less, quit due to lack of interest (read his blog and current
> > resignation topic). Again, it's the Nyikos's and Gans's who are
> > responsible.
>
> > DIG: Please give both Nyikos and Gans a warning.
>
> > In any case, Thanks.
>
> Please don't lie about the motivations of my friend John Wilkins.
>

> Mitchell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A spurious charge.

You owe me an apology for this late night post.

Ray

Rolf

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 4:54:47 PM3/5/13

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:7307d73f-1e5e-4df3...@kn5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

WTF?

Rolf

jillery

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 7:04:29 PM3/5/13

to

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:54:47 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's exactly how I felt.

Michael Siemon

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 7:48:54 PM3/5/13

to

In article <eu1dj89i4uju7d4ha...@4ax.com>,

Ray is feeling bad about not being the (current) focus of vituperation...

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 9:36:17 PM3/5/13

to

Isn't it about time for Pagano to come out from his extended seclusion?

Michael Siemon

unread,

Mar 5, 2013, 10:03:15 PM3/5/13

to

In article <UeGdneucs9U5NqvM...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Siemon wrote:

...

> >>>> I submit and therefore request that Peter be officially censured and
> >>>> given a warning for behavior that jeopardizes the health of this
> >>>> newsgroup.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> WTF?
> >>
> >>
> >> That's exactly how I felt.
> >
> > Ray is feeling bad about not being the (current) focus of vituperation...
>
> Isn't it about time for Pagano to come out from his extended seclusion?

Avaunt!

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Mar 6, 2013, 2:05:03 AM3/6/13

to

I find that unlikely. "Universal loathing," OK, but knows what
"vituperation" means? I think not.

Mitchell

Ron O

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 7:14:41 PM3/7/13

to

On Mar 5, 7:06�am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 10:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > SNIP:
>
> > I noticed that two regulars weren't on the list, but I recall seeing
> > their posts.
>
> > Backspace did post in Feb.:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcfd07e17f0ffb92?hl=en
>
> > NashTon is still around, but hasn't posted since Jan.:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5f8a3dfcabd8ea5?hl=en
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Meanwhile, in the "do they have a reflection in the mirror or are

> they uniquely immune to observing it" category, we have fermentinghttps://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d026428da49c1ee5

> demonstrating that ripe fruitiness is fascinating in all its
> manifestations.

It sure is. What are you going to do for an encore? Trying to talk
sense to Nyikos is always a good one.

Ron Okimoto

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 7:30:47 PM3/7/13

to

I just did. It was a horribly long winded exposition.
The TL;DR version is that talk.origins requires a sense of humor.
People who come here on crusades expecting to accomplish
profound things are deeply confused. They can be identified
by their tendency to invent lists or become obsessed with
terms like "bait and switch" or "rube".

And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.

Frank J

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 9:00:27 PM3/7/13

to

On 3 Mar, 17:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> > issue. Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. I hope
> > that he was just joking around. Several posters got banned (Nando,
> > Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). Kalkidas and Pagano haven’t

> > posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID

> > supporter still posting. It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> > creationist scam is getting so little support. About the only time

> > you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> > dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt

> > to get the clueless vote. As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only

> > one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> > Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>

> > The usual disclaimers go with this list. It is only meant to be a
> > resource where you can use Google to “view profile” and gain access to
> > as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. If you
> > want to know what the list is about, just Google”By their fruits” and
> > you can look up the Biblical meaning. It is something that most of
> > the posters on this list should understand. I do not claim that all
> > the posters fit into a single category. They are a very diverse
> > group. As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> > the last rendition of this thread. Nando was a follower of the Koran
> > and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. Just being a creationist does not
> > get you on this list. It is what these posters do because they are
> > creationists that get them on this list. If you want to argue about

> > it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been
> > put forward.
>
> > An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
> > Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous
> > ones:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en
>
> > Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en
>
> > Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this

> > argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. Did anyone else

> > know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
> > the Bible?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en
>
> Not only that, Peter now claims to be a Christian!

That can't be. Everyone knows that you're the only Christian. ;-)

> My arguments have
> forced him to change his stated bias. But lets not lose track of the
> truth: Peter accepts evolution and of course human evolution from a
> deep time ape ancestor. So he remains an Atheist.

How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human
evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
not an atheist.

Splain.

>
> Ray
>
>
>
> > Hal Womack (typical post and run?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f0f1b97ff4b4369d?hl=en
>
> > Ed Conrad may still be lurking and posting even though he was banned
> > years ago:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6b15ca871c93491?hl=en
>
> > Dale:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/459d33cd368b35e8?hl=en
>
> > Prawnster got the boot:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c8ad07bf370e8f8?hl=en
>
> > Debra:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8a1d3ebcb9d93a7b?hl=en
>
> > Dav:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a42b6085522d0b3b?hl=en
>

> > Kalkidas hasn’t posted much recently this came from the old thread

> > that Dav resurrected:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e4c075fa3b4526cc?hl=en
>
> > Kiddush post and run:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97979ea7fe9579e9?hl=en
>
> > curtjester1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cdd6aa1152513616?hl=en
>
> > Quark E got banned:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en
>
> > Quark also posted as Chemist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en
>
> > Robert another post and run:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/59d4deb7b7159c1e?hl=en
>
> > Sean Pitman did not post, but someone resurrected an old thread from

> > 2002. People should note that there was a time when some of the guys

> > on this list did actually try to argue some point:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78e3fab14ba660f9?hl=en
>

> > R Dean (his profile is corrupted and can’t be accessed):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c07d37625088f9b1?hl=en
>
> > If I missed anyone add them to the list. I only go back through a

> > couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
> > Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.
>

> > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 9:18:15 PM3/7/13

to

On Mar 7, 6:00ï¿½pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 3 Mar, 17:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:12ï¿½am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> > > issue. ï¿½Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. ï¿½I hope
> > > that he was just joking around. ï¿½Several posters got banned (Nando,

> > > Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). ï¿½Kalkidas and Pagano havenï¿½t

> > > posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID

> > > supporter still posting. ï¿½It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> > > creationist scam is getting so little support. ï¿½About the only time

> > > you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> > > dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt

> > > to get the clueless vote. ï¿½As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only

> > > one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> > > Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>

> > > The usual disclaimers go with this list. ï¿½It is only meant to be a
> > > resource where you can use Google to ï¿½view profileï¿½ and gain access to
> > > as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. ï¿½If you
> > > want to know what the list is about, just Googleï¿½By their fruitsï¿½ and
> > > you can look up the Biblical meaning. ï¿½It is something that most of
> > > the posters on this list should understand. ï¿½I do not claim that all
> > > the posters fit into a single category. ï¿½They are a very diverse
> > > group. ï¿½As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> > > the last rendition of this thread. ï¿½Nando was a follower of the Koran
> > > and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. ï¿½Just being a creationist does not
> > > get you on this list. ï¿½It is what these posters do because they are
> > > creationists that get them on this list. ï¿½If you want to argue about

> > > it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been
> > > put forward.
>
> > > An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
> > > Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous
> > > ones:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en
>
> > > Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en
>
> > > Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > > Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > > I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this

> > > argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. ï¿½Did anyone else

> > > know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
> > > the Bible?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en
>
> > Not only that, Peter now claims to be a Christian!
>
> That can't be. Everyone knows that you're the only Christian. ;-)
>
> > My arguments have
> > forced him to change his stated bias. But lets not lose track of the
> > truth: Peter accepts evolution and of course human evolution from a
> > deep time ape ancestor. So he remains an Atheist.
>

> How? ï¿½Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human

> evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
> not an atheist.
>
> Splain.

Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter.

Ray

Ron O

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:15:06 PM3/7/13

to

You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do. When Nyikos gets
in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is, and he has
enough sense to run for weeks or months at a time before coming back
for more. Really, there are months when I don't deal with Nyikos at
all, and I like it that way. Can you say that there has been a 3
month span where you have not posted to Nyikos in the last year and a
half? Nyikos may keep bleeting about me, but I'm not involved in most
of those episodes. Nyikos' insane bleeting and whinning likely give
you and Harshman some weird sense that Nyikos and I are always at each
other, but all you have to do is check out the facts and ask yourself
why you post to the asshole. When Nyikos posts to me I deal with him.
There isn't much else that you can do with a jerk like that. We just
have different ways of dealing with the problem. Yours doesn't work
for Nyikos does it? Do I pester you about your stupid behavior?
Trying to reason with Nyikos the way that you do is stupid whether you
want to admit it or not.

Why pester me? I don't pester you.

As for "bait and switch" and "rube" the truth is just the truth.
Live with it. Lying to yourself about it does no good. If I am wrong
in application, prove it. You would only be the second one to try and
would be joining Nyikos in that category, so go for it. Isn't it sad
when reality hits you in the face. Really, why should I have to put
up with this type of nonsense from you? From your last sentence you
know that you already fell into the pit, and I didn't invite you in,
you did it all yourself.

Don't get huffy and bent out of shape because it is just a fact that
you are the one that has been pestering me. Just review what you have
done in your last few posts to me. Why should I have to put up with
that from you?

Ron Okimoto

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:20:43 PM3/7/13

to

On Mar 8, 1:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 6:30 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
> that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do. When Nyikos gets
> in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is,

If I had to identify the two posters to talk.origins most likely
to claim grand victory over their adversaries ....

Ron O

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:46:47 PM3/7/13

to

You are doing a good job. When are you going to declare victory? Are
you just going to putz around or come clean about your own attitude?
Who was being the pest? What was your reason for being a pest? Did I
care about your opinion? Do you even understand what you are doing?

Ron Okimoto

Frank J

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 10:11:29 AM3/8/13

to

Nice try, but so do about half of the people that you accuse of being
an atheist, such as Ken Miller. If you since changed your mind and no
longer consider him, Francis Collins, etc., "atheists" feel free to
admit it here. If you don't, then it's more obvious than ever that you
refuse to admit your real critierion for atheist, which has nothing to
do with one's "intelligent causation" and everything to do with their
opinion of the 99+% of scientists who accept evolution. IOW anyone who
defends them is an "atheist" and everyone who whines about them is
not.

You can try to pull that bait-and-switch, but everyone can see it by
your "fruits."

>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -

Frank J

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 10:17:19 AM3/8/13

to

Darn, if this keeps up, soon you'll be the only creationist here. ;-)

You may have noticed that I too have been scarce on all these boards.
Mainly because I'm tired of the troll-feeding. But I'm even getting
tired of blogs like the Curmudgeon's, which doesn't allow trolls.
There my problem is with the constant whining about what "creationists
believe" instead of calmly exposing the *mutually contradictory scams*
that perps peddle and rubes fall for.

Greg Guarino

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 10:33:55 AM3/8/13

to

On 3/8/2013 10:11 AM, Frank J wrote:
>> How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human

>> > >evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
>> > >not an atheist.
>>
>> > >Splain.
>>
>>Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter.

For a black/white kind of thinker like yourself, you leave a lot of
ambiguity in what you write. If Peter considers himself a Christian,
whether or not you agree, he must accept *some* kind of Intelligent
causation; including at minimum the "causation" of the existence of our
physical reality.

Or, to make a simpler observation, no one who believes in God is an atheist.

You never specify what "level" of material causation is acceptable for a
Christian, or even what level you yourself accept. I used to think you
meant that God shepherds the trajectory of every subatomic particle, but
now it seems that you accept some unintelligent causation. That God
created gravity, but thereafter gravity directs the motions of planets
(and the hammer toward my big toe) is in accord with your beliefs, I think.

But where is the line exactly? I have asked you before if you accept the
commonly-accepted biological means of reproduction; to wit, that
chemical and biological processes produce a litter of rabbits from sperm
and egg. I'm never sure if I've gotten the final answer from you.
Because that is all of the "material causation" that is necessary
(although not by itself sufficient) for one to accept evolution.

Ron O

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 8:27:59 AM3/9/13

to

On Mar 2, 10:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

NashTon just posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d2d6d317c6178547?hl=en

Another regular poster that hasn't been around much lately.

Ron Okimoto

Frank J

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 9:36:07 AM3/9/13

to

What does "around" mean anyway?

In 2007 I asked for a simple proposal to state and test an alternate
hypothesis *on its own merits*, without dragging in the same old long-
refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." To make it easy I restricted it
to *human* origins. To date I received zero proposals, which means
that serious evolution-deniers have not been around at least since
then, and probably much longer.

What these wannabe DI fellows do is throw out whatever nonsense about
"Darwinism" they can, and see who takes the bait - by correcting their
claims (never mind that it has been done ~1000x), or whining about
"lying for Jesus." Lost in all that feeding are the occasional simple
questions - usually by TomS or me - about their alternate "theories."
I have ~12 years of data that dramatically show that, when you ask
them simple questions (e.g. "how old is life"?) instead of taking the
bait, they disappear real fast.

Frank J

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 10:40:05 AM3/9/13

to

On 9 Mar, 08:27, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

Looks like we got another (if not nymshifted) "have you considered
Islam?" post-n-run trolls.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 5:29:46 PM3/9/13

to

On Mar 8, 7:33 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 10:11 AM, Frank J wrote:
>
> >> How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human
> >> > >evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
> >> > >not an atheist.
>
> >> > >Splain.
>

> >>"Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter" (Ray Martinez).

>
> For a black/white kind of thinker like yourself, you leave a lot of
> ambiguity in what you write. If Peter considers himself a Christian,
> whether or not you agree, he must accept *some* kind of Intelligent
> causation; including at minimum the "causation" of the existence of our
> physical reality.

Peter doesn't accept any Intelligent or supernatural causation----
that's the first and primary indication that he's not a Christian. A
good second indication is his admission that there is less than one
percent chance that the God of the Bible exists. Not to mention the
fact that he has no trouble accepting pro-Atheism assumptions
(Naturalism/Materialism) concerning reality and evidence
interpretation, and advocates space aliens as responsible for
biological First Cause on Earth, not the Father of Christ. In view of
these four indicative facts one must conclude that Peter is not a
Christian, but an Atheist.

And don't forget "Christians" Dana Tweedy and Michael Siemon do not
accept any Intelligent causation either.

> Or, to make a simpler observation, no one who believes in God is an atheist.

Show me any evidence that Peter believes in God? Until you do he
remains an Atheist.

> You never specify what "level" of material causation is acceptable for a

> Christian [?], or even what level you yourself accept [?].

Material causation (also known as Materialism) presupposes the non-
existence of immaterial entities and reality (that's why it is
needed). So the answer is none (to both questions).

> I used to think you
> meant that God shepherds the trajectory of every subatomic particle, but
> now it seems that you accept some unintelligent causation. That God
> created gravity, but thereafter gravity directs the motions of planets
> (and the hammer toward my big toe) is in accord with your beliefs, I think.
>
> But where is the line exactly?

The main **claims** of Victorian Creationism are actually quite
simple. First, natural reality, past and present, was and is created.
"Created" or "creation" always means "supernatural or Intelligent
power acting in reality or nature causing existence." Whatever is
seen, therefore, reflects Intelligent design. Second, appearance of
design is seen in every aspect of natural reality (except, for
example, Paley's stone). Third, **each** species, past and present,
owes its existence in nature to an act of independent creation. These
acts occur periodically in real time.

So there is no line; it's all or nothing. Either Supernaturalism or
Materialism is completely true or completely false.

> I have asked you before if you accept the
> commonly-accepted biological means of reproduction; to wit, that
> chemical and biological processes produce a litter of rabbits from sperm
> and egg. I'm never sure if I've gotten the final answer from you.
> Because that is all of the "material causation" that is necessary
> (although not by itself sufficient) for one to accept evolution.

Of course I accept ordinary reproduction. The womb reflects ID and is
an ID factory. In the context of the Creation/Evolution debate,
Materialism or material causation, Naturalism or natural causation,
always presupposes the non-existence of supernatural or immaterial
power and intelligence acting in reality or nature.

Ray

Frank J

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 6:11:56 PM3/9/13

to

On 8 Mar, 10:11, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 21:18, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 6:00 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Mar, 17:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> > > > > issue. Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. I hope
> > > > > that he was just joking around. Several posters got banned (Nando,
> > > > > Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). Kalkidas and Pagano haven’t

> > > > > posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID

> > > > > supporter still posting. It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> > > > > creationist scam is getting so little support. About the only time

> > > > > you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> > > > > dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt

> > > > > to get the clueless vote. As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only

> > > > > one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> > > > > Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>

> > > > > The usual disclaimers go with this list. It is only meant to be a
> > > > > resource where you can use Google to “view profile” and gain access to
> > > > > as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. If you
> > > > > want to know what the list is about, just Google”By their fruits” and
> > > > > you can look up the Biblical meaning. It is something that most of
> > > > > the posters on this list should understand. I do not claim that all
> > > > > the posters fit into a single category. They are a very diverse
> > > > > group. As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> > > > > the last rendition of this thread. Nando was a follower of the Koran
> > > > > and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. Just being a creationist does not
> > > > > get you on this list. It is what these posters do because they are
> > > > > creationists that get them on this list. If you want to argue about

> > > > > it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been
> > > > > put forward.
>
> > > > > An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
> > > > > Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous
> > > > > ones:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en
>
> > > > > Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en
>
> > > > > Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > > > > Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> > > > > I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this

> > > > > argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. Did anyone else

> > > > > know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
> > > > > the Bible?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en
>
> > > > Not only that, Peter now claims to be a Christian!
>
> > > That can't be. Everyone knows that you're the only Christian. ;-)
>
> > > > My arguments have
> > > > forced him to change his stated bias. But lets not lose track of the
> > > > truth: Peter accepts evolution and of course human evolution from a
> > > > deep time ape ancestor. So he remains an Atheist.
>

> > > How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human

> > > evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
> > > not an atheist.
>
> > > Splain.
>
> > Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter.
>
> Nice try, but so do about half of the people that you accuse of being
> an atheist, such as Ken Miller. If you since changed your mind and no
> longer consider him, Francis Collins, etc., "atheists" feel free to
> admit it here. If you don't, then it's more obvious than ever that you
> refuse to admit your real critierion for atheist, which has nothing to
> do with one's "intelligent causation" and everything to do with their
> opinion of the 99+% of scientists who accept evolution. IOW anyone who
> defends them is an "atheist" and everyone who whines about them is
> not.
>
> You can try to pull that bait-and-switch, but everyone can see it by
> your "fruits."
>

Actually I stand corrected on one thing, Peter whines about
"Darwinists" and never defends them, and you consider him an atheist.
Are there any others you put in that category?

>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Mar 9, 2013, 6:50:55 PM3/9/13

to

On 3/9/13 3:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:33 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2013 10:11 AM, Frank J wrote:
>>
>>>> How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human
>>>>>> evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
>>>>>> not an atheist.
>>
>>>>>> Splain.
>>
>>>> "Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter" (Ray Martinez).
>>
>> For a black/white kind of thinker like yourself, you leave a lot of
>> ambiguity in what you write. If Peter considers himself a Christian,
>> whether or not you agree, he must accept *some* kind of Intelligent
>> causation; including at minimum the "causation" of the existence of our
>> physical reality.
>
> Peter doesn't accept any Intelligent or supernatural causation----
> that's the first and primary indication that he's not a Christian.

What evidence do you have that Peter does not accept any "intelligent"
or "supernatural" causation at all? This appears to be your own
assumption.

> A
> good second indication is his admission that there is less than one
> percent chance that the God of the Bible exists.

Which seems to mean he believes there is a less than zero chance the God
of the Bible exists. Of course, one may believe in other gods than the
one described in the Bible, and not be an atheist.

> Not to mention the
> fact that he has no trouble accepting pro-Atheism assumptions
> (Naturalism/Materialism) concerning reality and evidence
> interpretation, and advocates space aliens as responsible for
> biological First Cause on Earth, not the Father of Christ.

Since science does not make use of any "pro atheism" assumptions
concerning reality, despite your constant mistaking methodological
naturalism for philosophical naturalism, that's hardly an indication of
atheism.

"Space Aliens" as the proximal cause of life on Earth is no less
silly than Ray's assumption that life began by a godling playing in the
mud.

> In view of
> these four indicative facts one must conclude that Peter is not a
> Christian, but an Atheist.

Since your four assumptions are not facts, and your "conclusion" was
merely assumed in the first place, that's hardly convincing.

>
> And don't forget "Christians" Dana Tweedy and Michael Siemon do not
> accept any Intelligent causation either.

That is, of course, not true. I can't speak for Michael, but I do accept
that there is "intelligent causation". Human beings are known to cause
things to happen, and humans (at least some of them) are intelligent.
If Ray means "supernatural" when he says "intelligent" I also believe
that supernatural causation happens as well, but I believe it's
impossible to distinguish between supernatural causation, and the action
of natural laws.

>
>> Or, to make a simpler observation, no one who believes in God is an atheist.
>
> Show me any evidence that Peter believes in God? Until you do he
> remains an Atheist.

What evidence do you have that you believe in God, Ray? Does that mean
you are an atheist as well?

>
>> You never specify what "level" of material causation is acceptable for a
>> Christian [?], or even what level you yourself accept [?].
>
> Material causation (also known as Materialism) presupposes the non-
> existence of immaterial entities and reality (that's why it is
> needed). So the answer is none (to both questions).

No, it does not, Ray, for reasons I've explained to you time, and time
again. "Material causation" is one possible way a supernatural being
may create. There is no need to "presuppose" the non existence of a
being that uses material processes to create.

>
>> I used to think you
>> meant that God shepherds the trajectory of every subatomic particle, but
>> now it seems that you accept some unintelligent causation. That God
>> created gravity, but thereafter gravity directs the motions of planets
>> (and the hammer toward my big toe) is in accord with your beliefs, I think.
>>
>> But where is the line exactly?
>
> The main **claims** of Victorian Creationism are actually quite
> simple. First, natural reality, past and present, was and is created.

That's your own assumption, not necessarily those of "Victorian
Creationists".

> "Created" or "creation" always means "supernatural or Intelligent
> power acting in reality or nature causing existence."

That is your assertion, not one anyone else in history has used.
Neither creation, or created, as defined by any dictionary, are limited
to those conditions.

> Whatever is
> seen, therefore, reflects Intelligent design.

Again, that's your own, not other people's assumption. Since no one
knows that "intelligent design" would look like, no one can confidently
state what "reflects intelligent design".

> Second, appearance of
> design is seen in every aspect of natural reality (except, for
> example, Paley's stone).

Why would stones appear to be not designed, if they were indeed
designed, Ray? Are you saying it's possible for something to resemble
a particular condition, but not be produced that process? Are you
saying it could be logical to see the semblance of a process, but not
accept that process was responsible?

> Third, **each** species, past and present,
> owes its existence in nature to an act of independent creation.

That's something not even Paley himself would have accepted.

> These
> acts occur periodically in real time.

Then why have those "acts" never been observed, at any time, ever? Why
do species appear to have been produced by a natural process, when they
were independently created?

>
> So there is no line; it's all or nothing. Either Supernaturalism or
> Materialism is completely true or completely false.

Or, maybe you got it wrong, and there is a possibility that God works
through natural processes? That is the way it looks, and as you say,
if something looks a particular way, it must be that way.

>
>> I have asked you before if you accept the
>> commonly-accepted biological means of reproduction; to wit, that
>> chemical and biological processes produce a litter of rabbits from sperm
>> and egg. I'm never sure if I've gotten the final answer from you.
>> Because that is all of the "material causation" that is necessary
>> (although not by itself sufficient) for one to accept evolution.
>
> Of course I accept ordinary reproduction.

Why would God have his beings reproduce, when he can just conjure up
replacements any time he wants?

> The womb reflects ID and is
> an ID factory.

That's odd, as the womb does not resemble an "ID factory". It looks
like a container in which a organisms develops naturally from a
fertilized zygote. Do you mean to say something can resemble something
other than what it is?

> In the context of the Creation/Evolution debate,
> Materialism or material causation, Naturalism or natural causation,
> always presupposes the non-existence of supernatural or immaterial
> power and intelligence acting in reality or nature.

No, that is wrong, as pointed out to you many times over. Religious
scientists have for a very long time believed that God creates through
natural processes. None of them assumed, or "presupposed" that natural
causation requires the "non existence" of the supernatural.

DJT

Ron O

unread,

Mar 10, 2013, 10:24:53 AM3/10/13

to

Do you think that Nando is trying to come back? This seems to be a
bot.

omar:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/528d993de5dfc82f?hl=en

eridanus

unread,

Mar 10, 2013, 11:05:59 AM3/10/13

to

We should send pagano an invitation to convert heathens here?
we would be grateful, for at present Ray seems a little depressed.

Really this group get boring once there is not any heavy fundy here on
duty.

Eridanus

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 5:30:55 PM3/12/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 7, 11:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 6:30 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > People who come here on crusades expecting to accomplish
> > profound things are deeply confused. They can be identified
> > by their tendency to invent lists or become obsessed with
> > terms like "bait and switch" or "rube".
>
> > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
> that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do.

Not in the last two years taken as a whole, turkey. Your replies to
me are easily ten times as numerous as Shrubber's.

>When Nyikos gets
> in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is,

In our most recent exchanges, which have conveniently gone down your
memory hole, it was you who behaved like the rabid dog that you are.
Here are the urls for three of those posts, which occurred on the
thread,

Subject: Re: Earliest placental mammal ancestor pinpointed

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27

There is no need to post urls for my posts that you were replying to,
because you left everything I posted in them. You totally ignored all
of it, except in the third and last one.

There, you defamed me in reply to an answer to a question of yours,
and in reply to a response to a comment by you in the second of the
documented posts. Here is that third post:

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Feb 22 2013 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: Earliest placental mammal ancestor pinpointed

On Feb 22, 3:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 8:27 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On Feb 21, 9:55 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On Feb 16, 5:21 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > > On Feb 14, 9:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > > On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > > > > On Feb 9, 8:26 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/8/2013 6:45 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > > > > > > >Placental mammals including marsupials

> > > > > Nonstandard terminology, as Harshman pointed out to you.

> > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?

> > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > statement you made [see below for both].

> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?

> You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> with that of a BBC Science Writer.

> > Do you really believe what you wrote?

> Yes.

Another lie.

> > Remember that you never lie on
> > the internet, so a simple yes or no will do.

> Correct.

What a loser. How can you stand yourself?

Ron Okimoto

> > What would you do if someone was being as bogus as you are in my
> > case?

> I'd ask for documentation, whenever ANYONE makes a claim that a
> Reuters Science writer got the content of an article in _Science_
> wrong, just as I have done below, :

> [Snip you running away from the challenge to provide documentation.]

> You made the following claim:

> > > > > > The article is lumping marsupial and eutherianplacentalmammals
> > > > > > together and is talking about the ancestor between egg laying mammals
> > > > > > like monotremes and the placentals like marsupials and eutherians.

> Here is why I asked for documentation:

> > > > > Not according to the BBC website which Metspitzer was using for his
> > > > > opening post:

> > > > > "Placentalmammals - as opposed to the kind that lay eggs, such
> > > > > as the platypus, or carry young in pouches, such as the kangaroo -
> > > > > are an extraordinarily diverse group of animals with more than
> > > > > 5,000 species today."

> [snip redundancy]

> And here is the challenge, from which you TWICE ran away:

> > > > > Are you saying that Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC
> > > > > News, got it all wrong?

> [snip redundancy]

> > > > > I'd like to see you cite from the Science article itself for this
> > > > > claim of yours.

> You have not cited from the article. Enough said.

> Peter Nyikos
=========== end of post with
Message-ID:
<ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
for those reading this in Google Groups: the last three symbols
before the @ are 889

>and he has
> enough sense to run for weeks or months at a time before coming back
> for more.

I didn't run from the mountains of rabid foam you posted in the first
two replies to me whose urls are above. I merely deleted them, with
the following comments.

In reply to the first:
[snip long rambling off-topic rant by you to get to the wild on-topic
statment made by you earlier:]

In reply to the second:
[Snip you running away from the challenge to provide documentation.]

These were the only off-topic things I posted in the posts to which
you were replying. You on the other hand were completely off topic
the whole time.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 5:41:45 PM3/12/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

...they would be Ray Martinez and Ron Okimoto.

Can you find much in the way of claims of victory by me, except
occasional ones against these two artists of massive denial?

I don't think you can. On the other hand, watch Ron O's behavior in
the first of three posts whose url I posted in reply to him a little
while ago. Note how he pays no attention to what I wrote, yet leaves
it all in.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Feb 16 2013 6:21 pm

Subject: Re: Earliest placental mammal ancestor pinpointed

Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author

On Feb 14, 9:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On Feb 9, 8:26 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2013 6:45 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > > >Placental mammals including marsupials

> Nonstandard terminology, as Harshman pointed out to you.

Nyikos what are you doing in this post? Do I care about your opinion
on anything except the issues that you have run from and lied about?
No. Do you understand what kind of asshole would make the claims that
you have been making about me and then do junk like this and your
other posts to me? Who has the problem with projection? Who has the
delusional and paranoid view that there is a conspiracy to make you
look bad?

Why am I the one with the anti-Nyikos agenda when it is almost always
you that gets in my face and does something stupid and bogus? Just
demonstrating that you are incompetent and lie a lot does not mean
that I have an anti-Nyikos agenda. It just demonstrates that you are
incompetent and lie a lot.

Instead of posting stupid taunting posts like this that I could care
less about why not post your third knockdown attempt, and then stop
posting to me like you claimed that you would do over a year ago?
Just think if you had done what you claimed that you would do back
over a year ago, and did stop posting your degenerate crap to me?
There would be a lot fewer of your bogus posts that you have run from
and lied about. You wouldn't have had to do such pathetic things such
as lie about being an agnostic that goes to mass to worship the
intelligent designer of his immortal soul that he hopes lives on after
he dies.

Just because you are an assoholic doesn't mean that there is some
grand conspiracy to make you out to be an ass. A lot of posters
understand the fact that you simply are an ass. Why am I the center
of some cabal out to get you when you are the one that has been
threatening me with knockdowns and hammer blows for over a year, but
then you have always run away and lied your ass off about your
misdeeds?

What I will probably start doing is just putting up a similar message
every time that you post your stupid crap to me. Should I also start
putting up links to your pathetic knockdown attempts? If I am the one
that is out to get you, why are you always the one caught doing the
stupid and degenerate crap? Who ran from the ring in his first
pathetic knockdown attempt, and then punched himself in the face and
knocked himself out of the ring in his second degenerate knockdown
attempt. Not only was it stupid to use that bogus side thread post as
your second knockdown, but you knew it was no knockdown because over a
month after that post you were still boasting that you were soon going
to deliver the second knockdown. No time zone difference can explain
such bogus behavior.

Learn to live with reality and get over yourself.

Ron Okimoto

> > > > may have evolved after the
> > > > Permian extinction.

> This has got to be the understatement of the year!

> Did you, perhaps mean to say,

> "may have evolved *before* the *Cretaceous* extinction"?

> But wait: this would make it seem like you are contradicting yourself
> by inserting "may be" before "evolved" when compared to the next
> statement:

> > > > There were plenty of eutherian placental mammal
> > > > lineages before the dino extinction 65 million years ago.

> Are you counting marsupials here? That would make the statement
> almost universally accepted.

> > > I'm curious: How do paleontologists know whether one of these mammals
> > > was a placenta land not a marsupial, just by analyzing a fossil skeleton?

> > > Unusually wide pelvis?

> > > --
> > > Steven L.

> > Mostly by teeth for early mammals from what I recall.

> > The article is lumping marsupial and eutherian placental mammals
> > together and is talking about the ancestor between egg laying mammals
> > like monotremes and the placentals like marsupials and eutherians.

> Not according to the BBC website which Metspitzer was using for his
> opening post:

> "Placental mammals - as opposed to the kind that lay eggs, such as

> the
> platypus, or carry young in pouches, such as the kangaroo - are an
> extraordinarily diverse group of animals with more than 5,000 species
> today."

> > It
> > states that it is talking about the ancestor that separated us from
> > our egg laying ancestors.

> Are you saying that Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC
> News, got it all wrong?

> Look, I suppose you can be forgiven for claiming that all marsupials
> are "placentals" -- just because they have structures that some
> biologists call placentas-- but this is really going out on a limb.

> I'd like to see you cite from the Science article itself for this
> claim of yours.

> > Marsupials do have placentas.

> "choriovitelline placentas," meaning that the young obtain some
> nourshment from the mother through the so-called yolk sac [which
> generally does not contain yolk, but is believed to be homologous to
> the yolk sacs of reptiles, etc.] being in contact with the urterine
> wall.

> This is in contrast to the chorioallantoic placentas of most mammals,
> and the placentas of primates and closely allied orders, which connect
> directly to the fetus via the umbilical cord, with the vestigial
> allantois and "yolk sac" off to the side, not touching the placenta.

> > They are not just internal egg layers
> > that give birth after the eggs hatch inside the mother.

> Nor, I suspect, were ichtyosaurs. I suspect that it was the old
> prejudice against "reptiles" that simply made it unthinkable that they
> were viviparous. And so all the old paleontology books opted for
> "ovoviviparous"-- eggs hatching inside mother.

> >The young are

> > just not as developed as most eutherian mammals at birth.

> > Ron Okimoto-

> Young ichthyosaurs were very well developed, btw.

> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
============== end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70e5114aa5fb893f

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 5:51:48 PM3/12/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

The irony is priceless. All your comments to Shrubber could be
addressed to you with far greater justice, in the wake of your
performance in the second of the three posts whose urls I gave in my
last reply to you. In Google Groups, people may need to click on
"Show quoted text" to see what I wrote, but it's all there.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Feb 22 2013 9:27 am

Subject: Re: Earliest placental mammal ancestor pinpointed

On Feb 21, 9:55 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 5:21 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On Feb 14, 9:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > > On Feb 9, 8:26 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 2/8/2013 6:45 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > > > > >Placental mammals including marsupials

> > > Nonstandard terminology, as Harshman pointed out to you.

> > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?

> I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> statement you made [see below for both].

Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?

Do you really believe what you wrote? Remember that you never lie on

the internet, so a simple yes or no will do.

What would you do if someone was being as bogus as you are in my

case? Really, Who has done all the bogus junk and then just runs and
lies about it? If anyone was doing to you what you are guilty of what
would you be doing? What do you claim in your projective behavior?
How could the guy that was responsible for the Dirty debating thread
make any rational claims about how unfair someone else is being to
them? Hasn't it just been down hill from there? Who started that
thread? Who made the bogus initial allegations and then would not
even try to defend them? Who badgered me that I had to respond to
your second post to someone else in that thread? Who lied about never
running misdirection ploys? Who made up the whole dirty debating
story that you told to that poster? Who ran and just started more
threads to rag on me when his foul up was obvious?

What you snipped out:

QUOTE:

END QUOTE:

This is going to be my standard response to you and you know why.
Just review your bogus and degenerate posts for the last year and a
half. Who hasn't had an issue to honestly discuss with me for well
over a year? What are you doing in your recent "witch hunt" type
threads? Who is initiating the witch hunts? Who started the lame
"Dirty Debating" thread? Who was the dirty debater? Who has started
all those types of threads where you have been shown to be so
degenerate and dishonest? Who was being the sadist in your second
knockdown side thread? Who has the anti-Nyikos agenda when I have
never come close to making up a stupid google story to make fun of
you. You do it all to yourself. You are the biggest anti-Nyikos
influence on the web. I do not lead any anti-Nyikos cabal. Who
usually initiates our exchanges that results in you running from more
bogus deeds? You are just an assoholic that has pissed off a lot of
posters.

Don't just snip and run but reflect on how bogus and degenerate you
are. Do you want me to put up some of your paranoid delusional recent
quotes? Why don't you put up your delusional quotes and defend them
in the context of the last year and a half. Just explain the running
away from one post thread. That would be a good place to start in
explaining who has the anti-Nyikos agenda. I didn't even read your
complete post. Give me one good reason why I should have when it was
obvious after the first few lines that it wasn't going to be worth
reading. Really, do I care about your opinion on this topic? Get
over yourself and try to be what you lie about being.

Ron Okimoto

- Hide quoted text -

> I wouldn't have issued this challenge, if Harshman, Wilkins, etc. had
> not fallen asleep on the job. But SOMEBODY needed to ask you to
> support your wild statement.

> [snip long rambling off-topic rant by you to get to the wild on-topic
> statment made by you earlier:]

> > > > The article is lumping marsupial and eutherian placental mammals
> > > > together and is talking about the ancestor between egg laying mammals
> > > > like monotremes and the placentals like marsupials and eutherians.

> Here is why it was wild:

> > > Not according to the BBC website which Metspitzer was using for his
> > > opening post:

> > > "Placental mammals - as opposed to the kind that lay eggs, such
> > > as the platypus, or carry young in pouches, such as the kangaroo -
> > > are an extraordinarily diverse group of animals with more than
> > > 5,000 species today."

> > > > It
> > > > states that it is talking about the ancestor that separated us from
> > > > our egg laying ancestors.

> And here is the challenge, from which you ran away:

> > > Are you saying that Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC
> > > News, got it all wrong?

> > > Look, I suppose you can be forgiven for claiming that all marsupials
> > > are "placentals" -- just because they have structures that some
> > > biologists call placentas-- but this is really going out on a limb.
> > > I'd like to see you cite from the Science article itself for this
> > > claim of yours.

> I've snipped the rest, which was a science lesson by me on the subject
> of how marsupial "placentas" differ from those of "Placental mammals -
> as opposed to..." [see above]

> Peter Nyikos
======================== end of post archived
at

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 9:56:42 PM3/12/13

to

Just a lovely kook fight between two diehard Evolutionists, Ron
Okimoto and Peter Nyikos. Scroll up for the opening salvo by Ron in
his reply to Roger Shrubber.

I urge anti-evolutionists of every stripe to gather around and enjoy.
The pulling of punches has long been abandoned.

Ray

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 10:53:02 PM3/12/13

to

Aha, so now I see what your endgame is. Fan the flames of RonO vs Nyikos
for all it is worth so it somehow merits your cause. I wish it would
backfire and unite your adversaries against you so they find common
cause and stop body slamming each other onto ringside tables covered
with thumb tacks. Or maybe this should be the Good, Bad, and the Ugly
threeway showdown match. At this point Shrubber and I can only wonder if
the next match has less bloodshed. I've lost the appetite for my popcorn.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 11:10:17 PM3/12/13

to

What we lack and seriously need right now is Gordon Solie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Solie

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 11:19:16 PM3/12/13

to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAO6DdSUwgg

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aLtGwHqX8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsGXv5JInH4

What we need is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlsGwUsdUd8

To end it for good.

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 3:13:41 AM3/13/13

to

I was thinking that we need sweet Rebecca of Donnybrook
Farm, imperiled by the lustful godless ways of the cabal,
her virtue resting ever so precariously on the mighty
rhetorical truth, and prodigious posting (and repostings)
of her personal paladin. I picture it like the perils of
Pauline.

Ron O

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 8:24:09 AM3/13/13

to

On Mar 12, 4:51�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:46�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:20 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 1:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 7, 6:30 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> > > > You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
> > > > that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do. When Nyikos gets
> > > > in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is,
>
> > > If I had to identify the two posters to talk.origins most likely
> > > to claim grand victory over their adversaries ....
>
> > You are doing a good job. �When are you going to declare victory? �Are
> > you just going to putz around or come clean about your own attitude?
> > Who was being the pest? �What was your reason for being a pest? �Did I
> > care about your opinion? �Do you even understand what you are doing?
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> The irony is priceless. �All your comments to Shrubber could be
> addressed to you with far greater justice, in the wake of your
> performance in the second of the three posts whose urls I gave in my
> last reply to you. �In Google Groups, people may need to click on
> "Show quoted text" to see what I wrote, but it's all there.

Who is being a pest at this moment? Who is demonstrating their
problem with projection? What is your only reason for posting this
type of junk? There is no way that you can deny your projection.
What are you doing in these three posts? What did I say in the part
of the post that you requote below? It is all true. You can't deny
it. That is your problem. Denial means lying and that is all you
have been doing for about a year and a half.

Really, self evaluate your three posts in this thread. Why are you
being such an ass? Do I care about your opinion on this topic? No.
I never did.

Why didn't I read your posts? What had you been writing about me to
other posters for the previous 2 weeks? What were your last posts to
me around 2 weeks before? Why would I give you the time of day?

Here is the post where this situation was resolved and Nyikos can't
help but continue to be an ass about it.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70e5114aa5fb893f?hl=en

Here is the last post Nyikos had made to me and my response to it Feb
4.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcf159b60e79642d?hl=en

Saying that the post is delusional would be kind. I do not think that
you even knew what planet you were on when you made that post.

Really, self evaluate these three posts. Ask yourself what you are
doing when you were not even involved in the discussion.

You do this crap to yourself. Whining because your posts are not
worth reading is just sad. What you might do is go over the last 2
years of posts and come up with another post where I made a stupid
mistake. The review of all your dishonest and bogus antics should be
good for you. It would be best if you used an example where I was
discussing something with you, but I don't recall such an instance
ever happening. You might find one post, but I bet you can't find
two. Go for it. All the bogus posts have all been yours that I
recall. If it had ever happened would your first two self inflicted
knock down posts have been so pathetically stupid? Would the third
knock down be nearly a year and a half over due? What type of
degenerate clown are you? Self evaluate these posts and ask yourself
what you would think of the person that was doing it to you.
Projection may be a way of life for you, but at some level I know that
you realize just what kind of sleaze bag you are. What would a
professor of mathematics think of a person such as yourself?

Ron Okimoto

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 12:22:11 PM3/13/13

to

Nah. It is too easy to tar all participants with the same
brush.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 5:23:21 PM3/13/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 12, 9:56�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2:51�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:46�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 9:20 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 1:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 7, 6:30 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> > > > > You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
> > > > > that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do. When Nyikos gets
> > > > > in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is,

In the post I reposted yesterday, Ron O played the rabid dog all the
way, with off-topic foaming at the mouth, while I stuck to on-topic
matters which Ron O totally ignored.

Part of it is preserved below.

> > > > If I had to identify the two posters to talk.origins most likely
> > > > to claim grand victory over their adversaries ....
>
> > > You are doing a good job. �When are you going to declare victory? �Are
> > > you just going to putz around or come clean about your own attitude?
> > > Who was being the pest? �What was your reason for being a pest? �Did I
> > > care about your opinion? �Do you even understand what you are doing?
>
> > > Ron Okimoto

> > The irony is priceless. �All your comments to Shrubber could be
> > addressed to you with far greater justice, in the wake of your
> > performance in the second of the three posts whose urls I gave in my
> > last reply to you. �In Google Groups, people may need to click on
> > "Show quoted text" to see what I wrote, but it's all there.

Below, there is a parity switch until we get to Martinez's deathless
prose: even number of > marks text due to Ron O, odd number due to
others.

> > Newsgroups: talk.origins
> > From: Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

> > Local: Fri, Feb 22 2013 9:27 am
> > Subject: Re: Earliest placental mammal ancestor pinpointed

> > On Feb 21, 9:55 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 5:21 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 14, 9:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

[earlier, Ron O had written:]

> > > > > > > >Placental mammals including marsupials
> > > > > Nonstandard terminology, as Harshman pointed out to you.

Ron O treated the following as a rhetorical question by him, while I
answered it directly:

> > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?

> > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > statement you made [see below for both].
>
> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?
>
> > Do you really believe what you wrote? �Remember that you never lie on
> > the internet, so a simple yes or no will do.
>
> > What would you do if someone was being as bogus as you are in my
> > case? �Really, �Who has done all the bogus junk and then just runs and
> > lies about it? �If anyone was doing to you what you are guilty of what
> > would you be doing? �What do you claim in your projective behavior?
> > How could the guy that was responsible for the Dirty debating thread
> > make any rational claims about how unfair someone else is being to
> > them? �Hasn't it just been down hill from there? �Who started that
> > thread? �Who made the bogus initial allegations and then would not
> > even try to defend them? �Who badgered me that I had to respond to
> > your second post to someone else in that thread? �Who lied about never
> > running misdirection ploys? �Who made up the whole dirty debating
> > story that you told to that poster? �Who ran and just started more
> > threads to rag on me when his foul up was obvious?
>
> > What you snipped out:

At this point, Ron O reposted his off topic foaming at the mouth that
had I snipped out to keep the post on-topic. Since it appears in the
reply I made to Shrubber yesterday, I am snipping it here

[snip]

> > This is going to be my standard response to you and you know why.

Ron O seems to be signaling that he intends to follow the custom of
completely ignoring what I have to say (except occasional answers to
questions aimed at me) that he had followed in the wake of my
completely on-topic post of Feb 14.

As a result, he never learned on the "Earliest placental..." thread
what a silly mistake he had made.

[snip lots more foaming by Ron O, to get to on-topic stuff]

> > > I wouldn't have issued this challenge, if Harshman, Wilkins, etc. had
> > > not fallen asleep on the job. But SOMEBODY needed to ask you to
> > > support your wild statement.
>
> > > [snip long rambling off-topic rant by you to get to the wild on-topic
> > > statment made by you earlier:]
>
> > > > > > The article is lumping marsupial and eutherian placental mammals
> > > > > > together and is talking about the ancestor between egg laying mammals
> > > > > > like monotremes and the placentals like marsupials and eutherians.

Here is why it was wild:

> > > > > Not according to the BBC website which Metspitzer was using for his
> > > > > opening post:
> > > > > "Placental mammals - as opposed to the kind that lay eggs, such
> > > > > as the platypus, or carry young in pouches, such as the kangaroo -
> > > > > are an extraordinarily diverse group of animals with more than
> > > > > 5,000 species today."
>
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > states that it is talking about the ancestor that separated us from
> > > > > > our egg laying ancestors.

And here is the challenge, from which Ron O ran away without ever even
reading it:

> > > > > Are you saying that Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC
> > > > > News, got it all wrong?
> > > > > Look, I suppose you can be forgiven for claiming that all marsupials
> > > > > are "placentals" -- just because they have structures that some
> > > > > biologists call placentas-- but this is really going out on a limb.
> > > > > I'd like to see you cite from the Science article itself for this
> > > > > claim of yours.
> > > I've snipped the rest, which was a science lesson by me on the subject
> > > of how marsupial "placentas" differ from those of "Placental mammals -
> > > as opposed to..." [see above]
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > ======================== end of post archived
> > at
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7
>
> Just a lovely kook fight between two diehard Evolutionists,

Reality check: the only rationalization Ray has for calling the above
a "kook fight" is that in his eyes, evolutionism is the domain of
kooks. Actually the thing Ray is labeling is a spectacle (not even a
fight in the usual sense) of a hate-crazed lunatic ignoring on-topic
corrections by a patient pedagogue.

> Ron
> Okimoto and Peter Nyikos. Scroll up for the opening salvo by Ron in
> his reply to Roger Shrubber.
>
> I urge anti-evolutionists of every stripe to gather around and enjoy.
> The pulling of punches has long been abandoned.

Au contraire, it was only abandoned by me yesterday, except for one
post on another thread later in February. In that one, Ron O tried to
chew a hole in the floor to get out of the corner into which he had
painted himself with his three replies to me that I documented
yesterday. Excerpts from the second of these appear above.

> Ray

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 6:25:15 PM3/13/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 13, 8:24�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 4:51�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:46�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 9:20 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 1:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 7, 6:30 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> > > > > You obviously already did. You are the pest in this case, not only
> > > > > that, but you likely post to Nyikos more than I do. When Nyikos gets
> > > > > in my face I put him down like the rabid dog that he is,
>
> > > > If I had to identify the two posters to talk.origins most likely
> > > > to claim grand victory over their adversaries ....
>
> > > You are doing a good job. �When are you going to declare victory? �Are
> > > you just going to putz around or come clean about your own attitude?
> > > Who was being the pest? �What was your reason for being a pest? �Did I
> > > care about your opinion? �Do you even understand what you are doing?
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > The irony is priceless. �All your comments to Shrubber could be
> > addressed to you with far greater justice, in the wake of your
> > performance in the second of the three posts whose urls I gave in my
> > last reply to you. �In Google Groups, people may need to click on
> > "Show quoted text" to see what I wrote, but it's all there.
>
> Who is being a pest at this moment?

You are, as of the time you posted the above question, compared to any
time before, starting with the Mar 7 post of Shrubber.

> �Who is demonstrating their
> problem with projection?

You are, both above and below.

>�What is your only reason for posting this
> type of junk?

To show the supreme irony in you saying that I behave like a rabid
dog, whereas it is you who monopolized that status in all three of
your posts that I reposted yesterday.

> There is no way that you can deny your projection.

You just don't get it, do you? The only reason the irony totally
escapes you is that you are a self-important, self-satisfied, self-
righteous and mentally unstable jerk.

You are also totally oblivious to the additional great irony of you
replying with 100% off-topic irrelevancies to my repeated warnings
that you had made a stupid on-topic blunder.

> What are you doing in these three posts? �What did I say in the part
> of the post that you requote below?

Who cares? If anyone besides you cares enough about your slapped-on
crud, either this time around or in that earlier post, they can let me
know, and I will deal with it.

Peter Nyikos

[snip again, see post earlier this week]

Ron O

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 6:53:14 PM3/13/13

to

This is why you are such an ass. Who posted to me to be a pest and
for no other reason? Really, just self evaluate your three posts. It
should be easy, just pretend that I wrote these posts to you. Isn't
it sad that it is your stock and trade?

>
> > Who is demonstrating their
> > problem with projection?
>
> You are, both above and below.

Projecting about projection is as sad as you can get.

You can't deny your bogus behavior. You just have to read your posts.

>
> > What is your only reason for posting this
> > type of junk?
>
> To show the supreme irony in you saying that I behave like a rabid
> dog, whereas it is you who monopolized that status in all three of
> your posts that I reposted yesterday.

Who was obviously the rabid dog and being a pest? What were your
reasons for posting the last three posts? I rest my case.

>
> > There is no way that you can deny your projection.
>
> You just don't get it, do you? �The only reason the irony totally
> escapes you is that you are a self-important, self-satisfied, self-
> righteous and mentally unstable jerk.

More projection. Who is the guy that claimed that he was a professor
of mathematics and that he had no reason to lie when you were lying
about lying?

Who was the self righteous jerk who said that debating me was beneath
him because he was a professor of mathematics and you didn't know who
I was? Projection is just a way of life for you. Just put up one
example of me doing what you are guilty of. Go for it.

>
> You are also totally oblivious to the additional great irony of you
> replying with 100% off-topic irrelevancies to my repeated warnings
> that you had made a stupid on-topic blunder.

You are totally oblivious to the fact that in what you reposted it is
clear that I had no interest in your opinion of the topic and when I
realised what you were going on about I cleared it up imediately and
you are the one that is still being an ass about it. That is the
plain and simple truth.

Just check out your asinine responses to this post of which these
three posts under discussion are just extensions of your asinine
behavior.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70e5114aa5fb893f?hl=en

>
> > What are you doing in these three posts? What did I say in the part
> > of the post that you requote below?
>
> Who cares? �If anyone besides you cares enough about your slapped-on
> crud, either this time around or in that earlier post, they can let me
> know, and I will deal with it.
>
> Peter Nyikos

You are obviously just being an ass. Self evaluate these three posts
with respect to reality. Do that just once and maybe your delusional
fog may clear for a brief moment. Really, just state the facts
leading up to these posts (what were you doing?), review what happened
and explain what you are doing in these three posts. Face the facts,
you are just being your usual asinine self. You have no other
excuse. Projecting your own bogus behavior onto someone else is just
Nyikosian.

Ron Okimoto

> ...
>
> read more �

Ray Martinez

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 10:17:55 PM3/13/13

to

On Mar 9, 4:50 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

[....]

> > Material causation (also known as Materialism) presupposes the non-
> > existence of immaterial entities and reality (that's why it is
> > needed). So the answer is none (to both questions).
>
> No, it does not, Ray, for reasons I've explained to you time, and time
> again. "Material causation" is one possible way a supernatural being
> may create. There is no need to "presuppose" the non existence of a
> being that uses material processes to create.

As ridiculous and unlearned as it gets!

Materialism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheism and modern
science since the rise of Darwinian evolution.

Your opinion says no such philosophy exists----everyone is working in
behalf of Deism or Theism.

Again, as ridiculous and unlearned as it gets!

Ray

[....]

gdgu...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 7:57:05 AM3/14/13

to

On Mar 9, 6:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:33 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/2013 10:11 AM, Frank J wrote:
>
> > >> How? Behe in your opinion "accepts evolution and of course human
> > >> > >evolution from a deep time ape ancestor." Yet you admitted that he's
> > >> > >not an atheist.
>
> > >> > >Splain.
>
> > >>"Behe does accept and advocate Intelligent causation, unlike Peter" (Ray Martinez).
>
> > For a black/white kind of thinker like yourself, you leave a lot of
> > ambiguity in what you write. If Peter considers himself a Christian,
> > whether or not you agree, he must accept *some* kind of Intelligent
> > causation; including at minimum the "causation" of the existence of our
> > physical reality.
>
> Peter doesn't accept any Intelligent or supernatural causation----
> that's the first and primary indication that he's not a Christian. A
> good second indication is his admission that there is less than one
> percent chance that the God of the Bible exists. Not to mention the
> fact that he has no trouble accepting pro-Atheism assumptions
> (Naturalism/Materialism) concerning reality and evidence
> interpretation, and advocates space aliens as responsible for
> biological First Cause on Earth, not the Father of Christ. In view of
> these four indicative facts one must conclude that Peter is not a
> Christian, but an Atheist.

I'm curious, would you allow that there are other categories? Not
Christian, but not atheist?

>
> And don't forget "Christians" Dana Tweedy and Michael Siemon do not
> accept any Intelligent causation either.

Anyone who believes that God created the universe accepts intelligent
causation.

> > Or, to make a simpler observation, no one who believes in God is an atheist.
>
> Show me any evidence that Peter believes in God? Until you do he
> remains an Atheist.

OK. I don't read enough of his stuff to know for sure what he thinks,
but you said he calls himself a Christian. If so, and unless he is a
good bit more befuddled than I think he is, then he believes in God.

>
> > You never specify what "level" of material causation is acceptable for a
> > Christian [?], or even what level you yourself accept [?].
>
> Material causation (also known as Materialism) presupposes the non-
> existence of immaterial entities and reality (that's why it is
> needed). So the answer is none (to both questions).

"Material causation" can't "presuppose" anything; only humans can. And
the great majority of humans seem to believe in some sort of God *and*
believe in material causation of most of the things they see. When the
glass falls off the table gravity pulls it to the ground. When they
turn on the stove the flame is caused by the properties of carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen. God may have created those material properties,
but they operate on their own.

>
> > I used to think you
> > meant that God shepherds the trajectory of every subatomic particle, but
> > now it seems that you accept some unintelligent causation. That God
> > created gravity, but thereafter gravity directs the motions of planets
> > (and the hammer toward my big toe) is in accord with your beliefs, I think.
>
> > But where is the line exactly?
>
> The main **claims** of Victorian Creationism are actually quite
> simple. First, natural reality, past and present, was and is created.
> "Created" or "creation" always means "supernatural or Intelligent
> power acting in reality or nature causing existence." Whatever is
> seen, therefore, reflects Intelligent design.

Reflects?

> Second, appearance of
> design is seen in every aspect of natural reality (except, for
> example, Paley's stone).

How did the stone come to be?

> Third, **each** species, past and present,
> owes its existence in nature to an act of independent creation. These
> acts occur periodically in real time.

You haven't answered the question. When the hammer drops on my toe,
what makes it happen?

> So there is no line; it's all or nothing. Either Supernaturalism or
> Materialism is completely true or completely false.

Is it? You're viewing this with a computer. I think the that physical
and chemical properties of the materials that comprise your computer's
components produce the image you see on your monitor. Do you think
otherwise? Does God write the image instead? While he's injuring my
toe?

> > I have asked you before if you accept the
> > commonly-accepted biological means of reproduction; to wit, that
> > chemical and biological processes produce a litter of rabbits from sperm
> > and egg. I'm never sure if I've gotten the final answer from you.
> > Because that is all of the "material causation" that is necessary
> > (although not by itself sufficient) for one to accept evolution.
>
> Of course I accept ordinary reproduction. The womb reflects ID and is
> an ID factory.

How does it work? I think it works through chemical and biological
processes. DNA replicates, cells divide, that sort of thing.

> In the context of the Creation/Evolution debate,

"Context" is another pitfall for you.

> Materialism or material causation, Naturalism or natural causation,
> always presupposes the non-existence of supernatural or immaterial
> power and intelligence acting in reality or nature.

Naturalism comes in at least two flavors: methodological and
philosophical. Neither is a proper synonym for natural causation. And
none of them can "presuppose" anything at all; all are human creations
and exist in the human mind. Most human beings seem to "presuppose"
both the existence of God and material causation; the "natural
causation" being the result of God's laws of nature. This makes you
simply, empirically wrong. In the only place that your allegedly
incompatible "presuppositions" exist, they frequently coexist. And you
have yet to show that there is anything illogical about that. Why
can't a logical person believe in a God that creates material
processes?

Lastly, before you forget, what about the hammer?

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 11:11:43 AM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 9, 7:11 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8 Mar, 10:11, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > On 7 Mar, 21:18, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 6:00 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Mar, 17:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the
> > > > > > issue. Wilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. I hope
> > > > > > that he was just joking around. Several posters got banned (Nando,
> > > > > > Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). Kalkidas and Pagano haven’t
> > > > > > posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID
> > > > > > supporter still posting. It is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> > > > > > creationist scam is getting so little support. About the only time
> > > > > > you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> > > > > > dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt
> > > > > > to get the clueless vote. As sad as it may seem Ray is about the only
> > > > > > one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> > > > > > Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>
> > > > > > The usual disclaimers go with this list. It is only meant to be a
> > > > > > resource where you can use Google to “view profile” and gain access to
> > > > > > as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. If you

> > > > > > want to know what the list is about, just Google”By theirfruits” and

> > > > > > you can look up the Biblical meaning. It is something that most of
> > > > > > the posters on this list should understand. I do not claim that all
> > > > > > the posters fit into a single category. They are a very diverse
> > > > > > group. As I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> > > > > > the last rendition of this thread. Nando was a follower of the Koran
> > > > > > and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. Just being a creationist does not
> > > > > > get you on this list. It is what these posters do because they are
> > > > > > creationists that get them on this list. If you want to argue about

> > > > > > it go back to the pastFruitsthreads and reread what has already been

> > > > > > put forward.
>
> > > > > > An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>

> > > > > > Here is a link to the lastFruitsthread and it has links to previous

I almost never use the word, Ray. What are you talking about?

> and never defends them,

False. I defended Inez against Kleinman, for instance.

I hardly ever defend anyone, actually. One of the few exceptions was
when I tried to defend Ray Martinez against John Harshman, who was
calling him "paranoid."

Ray's reaction cured me of ever trying to help him unless he requests
it, and even then I will only do it if he seems to be in the right.

What Ray did was to essentially confirm John's diagnosis (which he was
very unsuccessful with up to that point) by "turning on [me] like a
viper," to use a phrase found several times in English translations of
the original _Pinocchio_.

To change the "children's" literature allusion: Ray was acting in
analogy with the following variation on a pair of verses from one of
Lewis Carroll's books:

Tweedledee and Tweedledum
Agreed to have a battle;
And Alice sided with Twedledee--
Tweedledum had spoiled his rattle.

Then Tweedledee turned on Alice
And the twins forgot their battle
While Tweedledee lambasted Alice
Making noise like a herd of cattle.

> and you consider him an atheist.
> Are there any others you put in that category?

Better you should ask: is there anyone other than himself that he does
NOT put into that category?

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 11:58:11 AM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 13, 6:53 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:25 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 4:51 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 7, 11:46 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 7, 9:20 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > If I had to identify the two posters to talk.origins most likely
> > > > > > to claim grand victory over their adversaries ....
>
> > > > > You are doing a good job. When are you going to declare victory? Are
> > > > > you just going to putz around or come clean about your own attitude?
> > > > > Who was being the pest? What was your reason for being a pest? Did I
> > > > > care about your opinion? Do you even understand what you are doing?
>
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > The irony is priceless. All your comments to Shrubber could be
> > > > addressed to you with far greater justice, in the wake of your
> > > > performance in the second of the three posts whose urls I gave in my
> > > > last reply to you. In Google Groups, people may need to click on
> > > > "Show quoted text" to see what I wrote, but it's all there.
>
> > > Who is being a pest at this moment?
>
> > You are, as of the time you posted the above question, compared to any
> > time before, starting with the Mar 7 post of Shrubber.
>
> This is why you are such an ass. Who posted to me to be a pest and
> for no other reason?

The real reason is stated by me below.

> Really, just self evaluate your three posts.

I have an infinitely better idea: why don't you READ, for the first
time ever, the three posts of mine that are in such stunning contrast
to the replies you made to them?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmode=source
Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
b536-0e2...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmode=source
Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
d1fd-40eb-806...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

They were totally on-topic, except for two comments about what I was
snipping out of your rants, and totally factual. And you behaved like
a total ass in response to them:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmode=source
Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
b536-0e2...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmode=source
Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
d1fd-40eb-806...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

> It
> should be easy, just pretend that I wrote these posts to you. Isn't
> it sad that it is your stock and trade?

YOUR stock in trade this time around was to foam at the mouth in three
successive replies to those three posts, totally off topic and totally
ignoring what I wrote, including the warning that you preserved in
your third post:

___________________begin excerpt _____________

> > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?

.

> > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > statement you made [see below for both].
.
> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?

.

> You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> with that of a BBC Science Writer.

.

> > Do you really believe what you wrote?

.
> Yes.

Another lie.
============================= end of excerprt

[snip for forcus]

> > You are also totally oblivious to the additional great irony of you
> > replying with 100% off-topic irrelevancies to my repeated warnings
> > that you had made a stupid on-topic blunder.
>
> You are totally oblivious to the fact that in what you reposted it is
> clear that I had no interest in your opinion of the topic

It wasn't a question of opinions. My posts were completely factual,
with one possible [but doubtful] exception mentioned below, and you'd
know that if you had bothered to read them.

> and when I
> realised what you were going on about I cleared it up imediately

Like hell you did. You failed to clear up a slander you leveled at me:
"Another lie" in the above excerpt from the third of your posts.

There is NO REASON for anyone to doubt anything I wrote in those three
posts, except maybe the label "rant" that I once posted for what you
snipped. But you should know that I do believe the whole thing was a
rant.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 12:34:22 PM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 14, 11:11 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:11 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Actually I stand corrected on one thing, Peter whines about
> > "Darwinists"
>
> I almost never use the word, Ray.

I should have said "Frank". That makes two of us who have posted in
reply to themselves to clear up a mistake; Frank did so earlier.

It seemed so out of character for Frank to say the above.

Subsequently I saw that I was replying to Frank, so I revised the
wording before I did the post, but I missed the one occurrence of
"Ray" above.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 12:40:36 PM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 13, 6:53 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:25 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 4:51 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Repeating a few items from my first reply, for later reference. The
following is taken from the third in a trio of outrageous replies from
you to me:

___________________begin excerpt _____________

> > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?

.

> > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > statement you made [see below for both].
.
> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?

.
> You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> with that of a BBC Science Writer.
.

> > Do you really believe what you wrote?

.
> Yes.

Another lie.
============================= end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27
Message-ID:
<ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Note to people reading this in a place with e-mail masking: the last
three symbols before the @ are 889.

> Projecting about projection is as sad as you can get.

You've done the unenviable feat of projecting about projecting about
projection, and I doubt that even this is as sad as *you* can get.

> You can't deny your bogus behavior. You just have to read your posts.

How delusional can you get? I defy you to find *anything* bogus in
any of the three successive replies I did to you on that "Earliest
placental..." thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d17ab2ed51527217?dmode=source
Message-ID: <79be378b-cc3c-48a9-
b686-4c9...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/257107a60efc3792?dmode=source
Message-ID: <2c1ffa7b-de70-4317-9684-
c40f75...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12f3f81e8d7527a4?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<479d0f27-5a01-40ee...@y4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

These were the three posts to which you, in turn, posted mountains of
foaming rant, all of it off-topic. These rabid, sadistic replies of
yours are the three posts that I have reposted to this thread so far
from that thread.

>
>
> > > What is your only reason for posting this
> > > type of junk?
>
> > To show the supreme irony in you saying that I behave like a rabid
> > dog, whereas it is you who monopolized that status in all three of
> > your posts that I reposted yesterday.
>
> Who was obviously the rabid dog and being a pest?

You were, in your three replies to those three posts of mine:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmode=source
Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
b536-0e2...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmode=source
Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
d1fd-40eb-806...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

> What were your
> reasons for posting the last three posts?

I already gave them above. You are, as usual, exhibiting the trait
described by the following famous "definition":

"Insanity - doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results."
-Albert Einstein

> I rest my case.

Delusional to the end, just like you are about the outcome of that
"Scottish verdict" thread and the "Insane logic" thread.

Your usual treatment of those threads nowadays is to post a barrage of
loaded questions which suggest the truth lies one way, while in
reality it lies the other way. Just like your barrage above.

> > > There is no way that you can deny your projection.
>
> > You just don't get it, do you? The only reason the irony totally
> > escapes you is that you are a self-important, self-satisfied, self-
> > righteous and mentally unstable jerk.
>
> More projection.

Typical Ron O Pee Wee Hermanism.

> Who is the guy that claimed that he was a professor
> of mathematics

"claimed"?? are you actually suggesting that I am not who I say I
am? If so, you are too late. I've corresponded with someone from
this newsgroup very recently on my departmental e-mail address.

> and that he had no reason to lie when you were lying
> about lying?

The part after the "when you" is totally false.

> Who was the self righteous jerk who said that debating me was beneath
> him

I never said that, nor did I give any such reason as the following for
anything remotely suggesting that:

> because he was a professor of mathematics and you didn't know who
> I was? Projection is just a way of life for you. Just put up one
> example of me doing what you are guilty of. Go for it.

I am guilty of being sincere, honest, and rational, and the only place
I can think of where you acted that way in reply to me was on a thread
where the two of us discussed directed panspermia -- heatedly, but
without personal accusations.

By the way, that was the thread with a title like, "Did Ron O run away
from this post?" Two people chimed in by saying that they didn't give
a fig about accusations of "running away," and nobody said anything to
the contrary IIRC.

Yet, despite the provocative title, the two of us were able to stay on-
topic.

The contrast between that and your three replies to my three posts was
absolutely stunning. [See above urls.]

>
>
> > You are also totally oblivious to the additional great irony of you
> > replying with 100% off-topic irrelevancies to my repeated warnings
> > that you had made a stupid on-topic blunder.

> You are totally oblivious to the fact that in what you reposted it is
> clear that I had no interest in your opinion of the topic

That was in your second reply, but I set things straight in my reply
to that, as documented above. Too bad you ignored the warning.

You claimed in another thread that you didn't read what I wrote
because you assumed what I wrote was stupid.

What made you completely ignore my warning? You had to have seen it
because it was in direct reply to a question of yours:

[excerpt repeated from above, you going first:]

> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?

.
> You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> with that of a BBC Science Writer.
.

> > Do you really believe what you wrote?

.
> Yes.

Another lie.
============================= end of excerpt

> and
> you are the one that is still being an ass about it. That is the
> plain and simple truth.

Projection by you, but you are too self-satisfied and self-righteous
to see it.

> Just check out your asinine responses to this post of which these
> three posts under discussion are just extensions of your asinine
> behavior.

More projection: it is your response to my completely factual post
that was asinine, and you are documenting THAT with the url here:

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70e5114aa5fb893f?hl=en

Are you completely oblivious to what an ass you were making of
yourself with your personal attacks in response to a perfectly
accurate, on-topic and low-key post of mine?

Just WHO was behaving like a rabid dog in that post, hmmmmm?

>
> > > What are you doing in these three posts? What did I say in the part
> > > of the post that you requote below?
>
> > Who cares? If anyone besides you cares enough about your slapped-on
> > crud, either this time around or in that earlier post, they can let me
> > know, and I will deal with it.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding: the slapped-on crud was a
mixture of false accusations, loaded questions, half-truths,
diabolically twisted descriptions of past events, and enough true
statements mixed in to give the whole thing an air of plausibility to
someone who is ignorant of the history of our past encounters.

> > Peter Nyikos

This time I snipped out the crud you slapped on this time around, as
well as what is preserved from before.
And now I amplify my earlier offer: if anyone cares about the content
of the slapped-on crud, they can let me know, and I'll deal with the
parts that they show they care about. The post to which I am replying
can be accessed in full here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/519030e9caf57350?dmode=source

or by using Google Advanced Search and pasting the part inside the
pointy brackets in the search by message-id:

Message-ID: <eca154d9-
d0f1-4bff-83a...@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 1:07:36 PM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 9, 10:36 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9 Mar, 08:27, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > NashTon just posted:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d2d6d317c6178547?hl=en
>
> > Another regular poster that hasn't been around much lately.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>

> What does "around" mean anyway?
>
> In 2007 I asked for a simple proposal to state and test an alternate
> hypothesis *on its own merits*, without dragging in the same old long-
> refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." To make it easy I restricted it
> to *human* origins. To date I received zero proposals, which means
> that serious evolution-deniers have not been around at least since
> then, and probably much longer.
>
> What these wannabe DI fellows do is throw out whatever nonsense about
> "Darwinism" they can, and see who takes the bait - by correcting their
> claims (never mind that it has been done ~1000x), or whining about
> "lying for Jesus." Lost in all that feeding are the occasional simple
> questions - usually by TomS or me - about their alternate "theories."
> I have ~12 years of data that dramatically show that, when you ask
> them simple questions (e.g. "how old is life"?) instead of taking the
> bait, they disappear real fast.

So THAT is why so many people, totally oblivious to what I have said
umpteen times before, think they have a show-stopper when they ask me
where my "aliens" came from! They have followed advice like yours.

But these questions completely miss the point where I am concerned.
I've enshrined one version of these queries in my draft for a FAQ on
directed panspermia:

B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
where the origin of life is concerned?

REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
life ON EARTH.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 1:35:26 PM3/14/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 12, 11:10 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 07:30 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> > On Mar 8, 10:14 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 7:06 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Meanwhile, in the "do they have a reflection in the mirror or are
> >>> they uniquely immune to observing it" category, we have fermenting
> >>>https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d026428da49c1ee5
> >>> demonstrating that ripe fruitiness is fascinating in all its
> >>> manifestations.
>
> >> It sure is. What are you going to do for an encore? Trying to talk
> >> sense to Nyikos is always a good one.
>
> > I just did. It was a horribly long winded exposition.
> > The TL;DR version is that talk.origins requires a sense of humor.

...which Shrubber tried to paint as if that were the main thing he had
browbeat me about, rather than how "antisocial" it is to accuse people
repeatedly of lying.

I think he did this because he had belatedly realized that his main
thesis had the corollary that Mitchell Coffey was antisocial.

> > People who come here on crusades expecting to accomplish
> > profound things are deeply confused. They can be identified
> > by their tendency to invent lists or become obsessed with
> > terms like "bait and switch" or "rube".
>
> > And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>
> What we lack and seriously need right now is Gordon Solie:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Solie

Pro wrestling has never interested me. I am more familiar with the
lingo of boxing. And in that vein, I have some good news for you,
Hemidactylus

The third knockdown of Ron O has taken place.

Remember how I told you that Ron O is like Oscar Bonavena, who was so
clumsy that he made everyone fighting him look clumsy, including
Muhammad Ali? and how Ali decked Bonavena three times in the 15th
round, and Bonavena got up every time, but the referee finally stopped
the fight, awarding Ali a TKO?

And the beauty of it is, Ron O did far more damage to himself than I
did to him, especially in the three posts of his that started the last
exchange of blows. I remained calm and on-topic, and this so
infuriated him that he kept swinging wildly at me and only hurting
himself in the process. The climax came in the third post, which
features the only really solid jab I landed on him ("You'd better
care...") up to that point:

___________________begin excerpt _____________

> > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?
.
> > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > statement you made [see below for both].
.
> > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?
.
> You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> with that of a BBC Science Writer.
.
> > Do you really believe what you wrote?
.
> Yes.

Another lie.

============================= end of excerprt

Instead of compensating for the damage that solid jab produced, he
swung so wildly that he landed a solid left hook on his own jaw
("Another lie").

There is no reason for you to doubt that I believed everything I had
posted in my three posts up to that point:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27

They were totally on-topic, except for two comments about what I was

snipping out of Ron O's rants, and totally factual.

After that self-administered blow, it was only a matter of time before
Ron O hit the canvas.

Unfortunately, there are no referees here with the kind of authority
the referee in the Ali-Bonavena fight had. Therefore, I have taken it
upon myself to inaugurate a new policy: from now on, I will confine
myself to very brief direct replies to posts of Ron O, ending with
statements like the following.

If anyone but Ron O cares about the content of
Ron O's snipped-out text, they can

let me know, and I'll deal with the
parts that they show they care about.

Then I'll provide them with an url and maybe a message-id to where
they can access Ron O's full post.

Peter Nyikos

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 6:24:05 PM3/14/13

to

On 3/13/13 8:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:50 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>> Material causation (also known as Materialism) presupposes the non-
>>> existence of immaterial entities and reality (that's why it is
>>> needed). So the answer is none (to both questions).
>>
>> No, it does not, Ray, for reasons I've explained to you time, and time
>> again. "Material causation" is one possible way a supernatural being
>> may create. There is no need to "presuppose" the non existence of a
>> being that uses material processes to create.
>
> As ridiculous and unlearned as it gets!

Why do you claim it is either? Oh, you must be calling your shots again.

>
> Materialism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheism and modern
> science since the rise of Darwinian evolution.

No, modern science makes use of methodological naturalism as a tool. It
does not have an "interpretive philosophy". Science always has made
use of methodological naturalism, long before Darwin.

>
> Your opinion says no such philosophy exists

My statement says that it's not used by science. There may indeed by a
philosophy called "materialism" but it's not one that science either
supports, or denies.

>----everyone is working in
> behalf of Deism or Theism.

You are using the logical fallacy of false dichotomy again. Science
does not work "in behalf" of either atheism, or theistic belief.
Science does not work for any particular philosophic position.

>
> Again, as ridiculous and unlearned as it gets!

That does describe your claims, but what does it have to with me?

DJT

Ron O

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 7:10:55 PM3/14/13

to

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmod...
> Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
> b536-0e2cc2fa5...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmod...
> Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
> d1fd-40eb-8069-6e287d4a4...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmod...
> Message-ID:
> <ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265-8bda-349b471e4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

>
> They were totally on-topic, except for two comments about what I was
> snipping out of your rants, and totally factual. �And you behaved like
> a total ass in response to them:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmod...
> Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
> b536-0e2cc2fa5...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmod...
> Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
> d1fd-40eb-8069-6e287d4a4...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmod...
> Message-ID:
> <ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265-8bda-349b471e4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

Of course it had nothing to do with the previous 2 weeks of your lame
bleating and whinning to other posters starting more thread to lie
about deletion and such. I read a couple of those posts, and since I
had read only a fraction of what you had posted I had a pretty good
idea of what lies and other bogousity you were posting to everyone but
me. You also forget how sad your last post to me was.

You also can't explain why I would ignore your point on purpose. Why
would I do that? It is just a fact that I did not read your post. I
saw no reason to do it in light of your then current antics. In the
next case once I saw that you had deleted what I had written, why
would I consider what you had written?

Really, produce one good reason why I would ignore your point on
purpose. What would I have to gain when it was just a stupid
oversight on my part and no one else had mentioned it.

You do have to self evaluate your delusions and projective behavior.
Not everyone runs from their mistakes like you do. Why should I run
from that one? What would make such an insignificant point that
important? Really, what would be so important about that stupid
issue? Don't project your own delusions onto me, but think about why
someone else would do something like that on purpose for no good
reason? You have to answer those questions before continuing to be
the ass that you obviously are.

>
> > �It

> > should be easy, just pretend that I wrote these posts to you. �Isn't
> > it sad that it is your stock and trade?
>
> YOUR stock in trade this time around was to foam at the mouth in three
> successive replies to those three posts, totally off topic and totally
> ignoring what I wrote, including the warning that you preserved in
> your third post:

Your opinion just wasn't worth considering. Just face that simple
fact and live with it.

Yes it was. Your opinion was worthless to me. It still is for as
long as you want to lie about the stupidest things like you do. What
can you not face about this situation? Really, why would I ignore
your point on purpose? Was it at all significant or relevant to
anything that we have discussed for the last 2 years?

>
> > and when I
> > realised what you were going on about I cleared it up imediately
>
> Like hell you did. You failed to clear up a slander you leveled at me:
> "Another lie" in the above excerpt from the third of your posts.
>
> There is NO REASON for anyone to doubt anything I wrote in those three
> posts, except maybe the label "rant" that I once posted for what you
> snipped. �But you should know that I do believe the whole thing was a
> rant.

There was no reason for anyone to read what you wrote in any of those
posts. I am not as dishonest as your are. You just have to face that
fact. You can't project your own bogus nature onto me because it just
does not apply. Really, just give one good reason why I would not
have responded to your point if I thought that it was at all
reasonable? When have I done such a thing to hide anything? You are
the one that is always doing that type of dishonest junk and you know
that for a fact. When have I ever done it? Put up the example. Do
you want me to start putting up examples of you doing it repeatedly?

>
> Continued in next reply.

Why continue? What a loser.

Ron Okimoto
>
> Peter Nyikos

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 7:53:07 PM3/14/13

to

Can either of you provide a compelling reason to continue this M.A.D.
routine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

It makes no sense to me. Ray might be getting his jollies, so at least
you and your pal Nyikos are making him very happy. Otherwise this is
nothing but extreme wrestling with thumbtacks on cardtables at ringside.
Not the sort of wrestling events I grew up with. but times have changed
for the worse.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 7:56:28 PM3/14/13

to

Does anybody really care? Take it to email both of you.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 8:00:01 PM3/14/13

to

Does anyone beside either of you give a damn? Set up a newsgroup of your
own for this crap.

Ron O

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 8:22:46 PM3/14/13

to

On Mar 14, 11:40 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:53 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 5:25 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 8:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 4:51 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Repeating a few items from my first reply, for later reference. The
> following is taken from the third in a trio of outrageous replies from
> you to me:

What a loser. Do you even know what you are doing?

>
> ___________________begin excerpt _____________
>
>
>
> > > > > Nyikos what are you doing in this post?
> .
> > > > I'm trying to teach you some science, and to challenge you on a wild
> > > > statement you made [see below for both].
> .
> > > Do I care what your opinion is on this topic?
> .
> > You'd better care whether you are misrepresenting an article in
> > _Science_, even if Satan himself [if there is such a being] suggests
> > that this is what your are doing and shows how your summary disagrees
> > with that of a BBC Science Writer.
> .
> > > Do you really believe what you wrote?
> .
> > Yes.
>
> Another lie.

It was a lie if you are at all sane. You might have the insanity
defense, but that is all.

> ============================= end of excerpt
> fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27
> Message-ID:
> <ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265-8bda-349b471e4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

> Note to people reading this in a place with e-mail masking: the last
> three symbols before the @ are 889.
>
> > Projecting about projection is as sad as you can get.
>
> You've done the unenviable feat of projecting about projecting about
> projection, and I doubt that even this is as sad as *you* can get.

Poor Nyikos. It must be the insanity defense.

>
> > You can't deny your bogus behavior. You just have to read your posts.
>
> How delusional can you get? I defy you to find *anything* bogus in
> any of the three successive replies I did to you on that "Earliest
> placental..." thread:

Just read your last post to me before these. Just do that and
evaluate it. Insanity is one explanation. It was either a psychotic
break or some type of self induced chemical imbalance, and I did tell
you to sleep it off instead of going with the psychotic break
explanation.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcf159b60e79642d?hl=en

Are your posts worth reading?

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d17ab2ed51527217?dmod...
> Message-ID: <79be378b-cc3c-48a9-
> b686-4c9a23cdf...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/257107a60efc3792?dmod...
> Message-ID: <2c1ffa7b-de70-4317-9684-
> c40f75496...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12f3f81e8d7527a4?dmod...
> Message-ID:
> <479d0f27-5a01-40ee-876a-1eb36ef65...@y4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

>
> These were the three posts to which you, in turn, posted mountains of
> foaming rant, all of it off-topic. These rabid, sadistic replies of
> yours are the three posts that I have reposted to this thread so far
> from that thread.

Poor Nyikos, you just have to face the fact that your posts just were
not worth reading. I have no other motive for not responding to your
point if I had read it. Really, just put up one example where I have
been as dishonest as you have been on something like this. When have
I ever dodged a point in a dishonest fashion? Put up the example.
Isn't it sad that I never have, but you can't say that. What bout the
misdirection thread? The running away from one post thread etc. Who
was running from posts and could not bring himself to respond to
them? I don't do that kind of thing. You obviously do. Face
reality. You are bleating about nothing because there is no issue
here. You are just being an ass to be an ass.

>
> > > > What is your only reason for posting this
> > > > type of junk?
>
> > > To show the supreme irony in you saying that I behave like a rabid
> > > dog, whereas it is you who monopolized that status in all three of
> > > your posts that I reposted yesterday.
>
> > Who was obviously the rabid dog and being a pest?
>
> You were, in your three replies to those three posts of mine:

Why did I respond in that way? Who was being the pest and doing
nothing, but foaming at the mouth about me to other posters? That was
you before you ever posted those posts.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/893c9719aa84c590?dmod...
> Message-ID: <04fcbdf2-793c-4e03-
> b536-0e2cc2fa5...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a251c68dde20d27?dmod...
> Message-ID:
> <ea7eef0e-5f5a-4265-8bda-349b471e4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e49b1a96d76288c7?dmod...
> Message-ID: <c67b3d98-
> d1fd-40eb-8069-6e287d4a4...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

This repetition seems to be a sign of insanity. Is that going to be
your defense?

>
> > What were your
> > reasons for posting the last three posts?
>
> I already gave them above. You are, as usual, exhibiting the trait
> described by the following famous "definition":
>
> "Insanity - doing the same thing over
> and over again and expecting different results."
> -Albert Einstein

Says the guy that is repeating himself. You can't make this junk up.
Projection is just a way of life for Nyikos. Just because you are so
dishonest doesn't mean that everyone is like you. Do you realize what
your problem with projection means when you claim that other people
are insane?

>
> > I rest my case.
>
> Delusional to the end, just like you are about the outcome of that
> "Scottish verdict" thread and the "Insane logic" thread.

You didn't address my case. You only bleated and ignored reality.
Why would I ignore your point on purpose? Give one good reason.
Really, was it on any topic that we have discussed in the last two
years and have disagreed about? No. There was no reason except your
bogus behavior and the fact that none of your posts for the previous
several weeks were worth jack. You just have to face that simple
fact.

>
> Your usual treatment of those threads nowadays is to post a barrage of
> loaded questions which suggest the truth lies one way, while in
> reality it lies the other way. Just like your barrage above.

The last Dunning-Kruger thread claimed that you could train the
incompetent to better self evaluate themselves. The questions are
supposed to get you to self evaluate the situation, but you never do.
All you ever do is the next Dunning-Kruger type of incompetent
behavior such as your last few posts. You really should self evaluate
these last few posts. What were you doing for the previous weeks
before the posts you link to above. What have you been doing for the
last year and a half? Just reflect on the fact that all basically
have been doing for since October is bleating and whinning about your
past misdeeds and making your stupid claims about how your third
knockdown is delayed another month. It was supposed to come back in
October. How many posts have you made just to claim that it is still
coming? Why should I take you seriously when you claimed that the
knockdowns were going to be delivered nearly a year and a half ago.
What kind of lunatic does that kind of junk? Why should I have read
your posts?

>
> > > > There is no way that you can deny your projection.
>
> > > You just don't get it, do you? The only reason the irony totally
> > > escapes you is that you are a self-important, self-satisfied, self-
> > > righteous and mentally unstable jerk.
>
> > More projection.
>
> Typical Ron O Pee Wee Hermanism.

You can't deny that it is projection. When have I ever done anything
as self righteous and self-important as you? Who is obviously the
unstable jerk? Did someone else wrtie these posts for you?

>
> > Who is the guy that claimed that he was a professor
> > of mathematics
>
> "claimed"?? are you actually suggesting that I am not who I say I
> am? If so, you are too late. I've corresponded with someone from
> this newsgroup very recently on my departmental e-mail address.

It is just a fact that you claimed to be a professor of mathematics.
What else were you doing when you wrote that you were a professor of
mathematics? This is the type of nonsensical behavior that I just
don't get. In some Nyikosian delusion "claim" matters, when that is
exactly what he was doing. Was Nyikos denying that he was a professor
of mathematics?

>
> > and that he had no reason to lie when you were lying
> > about lying?
>
> The part after the "when you" is totally false.

Lying about lying is so stupid that it is a joke by now. What will
you do if I go back and pull out your exact words? Will you just snip
it out and lie about it again?

Nyikos has some weird definition of lying. If he is lying about
something in another post it doesn't count as lying. He will snip out
the evidence that he is lying just so he he can claim that the
evidence isn't in the post that he told the lie in. I am not making
this junk up. Has Nyikos ever gone into his weirdness about only
lying if the evidence and the lie are in the same post with anyone
else? He literally will not accept going back up one post to
determine what he snipped out and that he is lying about it. He has
with me. It is the weirdest delusion of reality that I have ever
encountered.

>
> > Who was the self righteous jerk who said that debating me was beneath
> > him
>
> I never said that, nor did I give any such reason as the following for
> anything remotely suggesting that:

Lying is so stupid that I can't imagine what it is like to be you.
Who are you accusing of doing something dishonest? Why lie about the
junk that you have done? When have you never denied doing this
before? You didn't deny doing it after you did it. So why now? How
sad can you be?

>
> > because he was a professor of mathematics and you didn't know who
> > I was? Projection is just a way of life for you. Just put up one
> > example of me doing what you are guilty of. Go for it.
>
> I am guilty of being sincere, honest, and rational, and the only place
> I can think of where you acted that way in reply to me was on a thread
> where the two of us discussed directed panspermia -- heatedly, but
> without personal accusations.

No it wasn't in the directed panspermia thread. It was before that.

>
> By the way, that was the thread with a title like, "Did Ron O run away
> from this post?" Two people chimed in by saying that they didn't give
> a fig about accusations of "running away," and nobody said anything to
> the contrary IIRC.

Nyikos why bring up your projective foibles. Who was running (by his
very own definition of running written in that post) from 10 times as
many posts just in your bogus insane logic thread? Who was running
from dozens of other posts by that time? Did I even know that your
post existed to respond to it? No. Nyikos is referring to a thread
that died young because it was started by a post and run troll. I
never went back to the thread, and did not expect Nyikos to respond to
my post. Nyikos was not participating in that thread. Basically no
one was participating in that thread until Nyikos resurrected it. Who
ran from that thread too? Isn't that sad? Who left unanswered post
for over your two month time limit? No one could make this junk up it
is worse than bad fiction. What is strange is that I just started to
play the latest Tomb Raider game and there is a twerpy character in it
that does lord his degree around and make stupid claims that he counts
more because of his PhD. Like I said, bad fiction.

Projection is just a way of life for Nyikos.

>
> Yet, despite the provocative title, the two of us were able to stay on-
> topic.

And Nyikos ran.

>
> The contrast between that and your three replies to my three posts was
> absolutely stunning. [See above urls.]

I just didn't know what you were claiming. Once I saw it, I admitted
my mistake. No big deal. It wasn't about anything important. Nyikos
has to come up with some Nyikosian reason for why I would have done
that on purpose. There simply is none. This is all some weird
delusional episode on Nyikos' part. Who else would make this type of
fuss over it?

>
> > > You are also totally oblivious to the additional great irony of you
> > > replying with 100% off-topic irrelevancies to my repeated warnings
> > > that you had made a stupid on-topic blunder.
> > You are totally oblivious to the fact that in what you reposted it is
> > clear that I had no interest in your opinion of the topic
>
> That was in your second reply, but I set things straight in my reply
> to that, as documented above. Too bad you ignored the warning.
>
> You claimed in another thread that you didn't read what I wrote
> because you assumed what I wrote was stupid.
>
> What made you completely ignore my warning? You had to have seen it
> because it was in direct reply to a question of yours:

What is the big deal? You were ignored, get over it.

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/519030e9caf57350?dmod...

>
> or by using Google Advanced Search and pasting the part inside the
> pointy brackets in the search by message-id:
>
> Message-ID: <eca154d9-

> d0f1-4bff-83ad-0f62c5a08...@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
>
> Peter Nyikos

How many times are you going to repost the same thing? Your lies
don't get any more true. Self evaluate this post. Just do it once
and see if you can figure out why you would do something as asinine as
this and for what purpose?

Ron Okimoto

Hemidactylus

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 8:33:08 PM3/14/13

to

> Nah. It is too easy to tar all participants with the same
> brush.

I grew up with the icon Gordon Solie and only he would be able to call
the Okimoto/Nyikos Pier 6 Brawl. He saw much worse. He dealt with the
Fabulous Freebirds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulous_Freebirds

They turned Georgia into hell on Earth. Ask the Junkyard Dog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_Dog

[quote]While on top he feuded with some of the top heels in the company,
including a now infamous angle with the Fabulous Freebirds where they
blinded him with hair cream. At the peak of the feud JYD's wife gave
birth to their first child, which was made part of the storyline. It was
explained that JYD could not see his new daughter, something that
increased the heat on the Freebirds to the point where they needed
police escorts in and out of arenas. The feud ended with the
still-blinded JYD and Freebird leader Michael "P.S." Hayes wrestling in
a dog collar match.[/quote]

I remember that infamous blinding of JYD vividly. Ask Ron O or Nyikos if
they could relate. I seriously doubt it.

Otherwise they both should STFU or get Goldberged!! Neither can relate
to the NWO! Nuff said.

So over it!

jillery

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 8:55:35 PM3/14/13

to

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:00:01 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>Does anyone beside either of you give a damn? Set up a newsgroup of your
>own for this crap.

Sci.bio.paleo isn't being used for anything interesting.

Ron O

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 9:11:00 PM3/14/13

to

I'm just waiting for the third knockdown attempt. Remember he boasted
about it to you several times. Do you think that he lied about never
posting to me again after delivering it? If you have an answer to the
twerp let's hear it. Whinning about the situation certainly doesn't
help me. You do note who is going on about this? There will
literally be months when there is no correspondence between us even
when he is being his usual Nyikosian assoholic self. I let other
posters deal with Nyikos until he gets in my face. Those months
aren't too pleasant for others, but it is a vacation to me. You guys
have some misunderstanding that I am feeding Nyikos. Anyone that
wants to waste a lot of time can go back since October of 2011. Until
last October 2012 there were probably over 6 months of extended
periods where Nyikos was running and not posting to me, and I didn't
post to him. There were a couple of months that I recall after the
insane logic thread, and over three months after his bombastic claims
in July that the second and third knockdowns were soon coming. There
was even a month break in the time that he was lying about not being a
creationist.

How do I know that? Because Nyikos brings up junk that is literally
that old and I have to go back and try to figure out what he is
bleating about when we haven't corresponded for months.

Nyikos keeps whinning and bleating about me during those restful
respites, but I'm not there. It is all Nyikos bleating to other
posters. I can't do anything about that. I stopped reading most of
Nyikos' posts 2 years ago. The guy comes to me and tells me that he
is doing something bogus that I should address in some thread.
Really, before the Dirty Debating thread (over 2 years ago) I had
already stopped reading most of his posts that were not responses to
one of my posts. You can't help reading a few when you open some
thread and one is staring you in the face, but I really don't read
most of the junk that he writes and I can't understand why anyone else
would. Why do you read them when I don't?

That has been my solution to the Nyikos problem. I just stopped
reading his posts to other posters. How many times has everyone told
him to post his junk to the relevant people if he thinks that it is
important? If you have some way to make Nyikos stop, put it forward.
Otherwise you are stuck with my solution. Just don't read the posts.

Ron Okimoto

Burkhard

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 9:11:50 PM3/14/13

to

That is a rhetorical question, right? I mean, nobody here is a
psychiatrist who gets paid by the word to read that crap as part of a
therapy session, I presume.

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 9:51:33 PM3/14/13

to

It is not that easy. Do you remember the Great Fuss over
the (correct) claim that 2.99999... = 3 and the denier of
that?

Getting engaged isn't the problem. It is knowing when to
pull back and drop it.

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 10:04:26 PM3/14/13

to

Doesn't it have old stuff in it?

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 10:10:23 PM3/14/13

to

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 12:00?am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 01:35 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 12, 11:10 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 03/07/2013 07:30 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mar 8, 10:14 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mar 5, 7:06 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Meanwhile, in the "do they have a reflection in the mirror or are
>> >>>>> they uniquely immune to observing it" category, we have fermenting
>> >>>>>https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d026428da49c1ee5
>> >>>>> demonstrating that ripe fruitiness is fascinating in all its
>> >>>>> manifestations.
>>

>> >>>> It sure is. ?What are you going to do for an encore? ?Trying to talk

>> >>>> sense to Nyikos is always a good one.
>>
>> >>> I just did. It was a horribly long winded exposition.
>> >>> The TL;DR version is that talk.origins requires a sense of humor.
>>
>> > ...which Shrubber tried to paint as if that were the main thing he had
>> > browbeat me about, rather than how "antisocial" it is to accuse people
>> > repeatedly of lying.
>>
>> > I think he did this because he had belatedly realized that his main
>> > thesis had the corollary that Mitchell Coffey was antisocial.
>>
>> >>> People who come here on crusades expecting to accomplish
>> >>> profound things are deeply confused. They can be identified
>> >>> by their tendency to invent lists or become obsessed with
>> >>> terms like "bait and switch" or "rube".
>>
>> >>> And now I'm backing off before I fall into the same pit.
>>
>> >> What we lack and seriously need right now is Gordon Solie:
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Solie
>>
>> > Pro wrestling has never interested me. I am more familiar with the
>> > lingo of boxing. And in that vein, I have some good news for you,
>> > Hemidactylus
>>
>> > The third knockdown of Ron O has taken place.
>>
>> > Remember how I told you that Ron O is like Oscar Bonavena, who was so
>> > clumsy that he made everyone fighting him look clumsy, including

>> > Muhammad Ali? ?and how Ali decked Bonavena three times in the 15th

>> > round, and Bonavena got up every time, but the referee finally stopped
>> > the fight, awarding Ali a TKO?
>>
>> > And the beauty of it is, Ron O did far more damage to himself than I
>> > did to him, especially in the three posts of his that started the last

>> > exchange of blows. ?I remained calm and on-topic, and this so

>> > infuriated him that he kept swinging wildly at me and only hurting

>> > himself in the process. ?The climax came in the third post, which

>> > Unfortunately, ?there are no referees here with the kind of authority
>> > the referee in the Ali-Bonavena fight had. Therefore, ?I have taken it

>> > upon myself to inaugurate a new policy: from now on, I will confine
>> > myself to very brief direct replies to posts of Ron O, ending with
>> > statements like the following.
>>

>> > ? ? If anyone but Ron O cares about the content of
>> > ? ? Ron O's snipped-out text, they can
>> > ? ? let me know, and I'll deal with the
>> > ? ? parts that they show they care about.

>>
>> > Then I'll provide them with an url and maybe a message-id to where
>> > they can access Ron O's full post.
>>
>> Does anyone beside either of you give a damn?

>That is a rhetorical question, right? I mean, nobody here is a
>psychiatrist who gets paid by the word to read that crap as part of a
>therapy session, I presume.

> Set up a newsgroup of your
>> own for this crap.

I'd like to note that nobody likes seeing themselves
misrepresented over and over again in postings. Some
of the regulars might know that there is a loon doing
the posting, but others might not.

I've seen situations in which the target did not
respond and soon enough acquired the reputation that
the loon was pushing, simply because there was no
pushback.

So yes, it can, and often does, get out of hand. And
that requires remediation.

jillery

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 10:18:15 PM3/14/13

to

Nobody will notice a difference.

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 11:07:34 PM3/14/13

to

On Mar 15, 9:53 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Can either of you provide a compelling reason to continue this M.A.D.
> routine?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Talk.origins was meant to be a dumping grounds, from the beginning.
Like many a dumping ground, it is a rich landscape of both flora
and fauna, filled with the pungent scents of busy metabolism,
fermenting the detritus of frustrated egos and vain visions of
compelling composition. Are you worried they'll leave the place
a mess?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Mar 15, 2013, 1:18:58 AM3/15/13

to

On Mar 14, 10:10 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

How does one remediate? Peter's arguments are concertina. Yet to
dispute with Peter is to have one's arguments XORed with his; entropy
is conserved. Thus a skimming of a given Peter v. Anybody will make
both parties seem equally bizarre yet tedious.

Meanwhile, there's literally no convincing Peter even of
incontrovertible facts. It took me a while to realize that Peter
actually believes that the Ur offense against Prawnster was you saying
that Prawnster had no personality - that Peter believes this was an
outrage, because obviously Prawnster *does* have a personality! And
Peter has gone to some length to prove it, even demonstrating that he
has more personality than you, truth be told, and pointing out that
these facts are obvious, so your misrepresentation is probably
deliberate.

The nature of humor has been explained to Peter several time, without
avail.

So. The best is not to respond, right? Yet as you point out, that
sometimes doesn't help. And nobody likes seeing themselves
misrepresented. So I ask you, how does one remediate?

Mitchell

Frank J

unread,

Mar 15, 2013, 4:18:51 PM3/15/13

to

OK, so I stand at least partially uncorrected. It only takes one
defense of a "Darwinist" to make Ray run for the "atheist" label.

As I said before, whether I agree with you or not on the "what
happened when and how," you are a refreshing change of pace from the
usual evolution-deniers.

Frank J

unread,

Mar 15, 2013, 4:23:00 PM3/15/13

to

On 10 Mar, 10:24, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 10:40 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Mar, 08:27, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 10:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > NashTon just posted:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d2d6d317c6178547?hl=en
>
> > > Another regular poster that hasn't been around much lately.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>

> > Looks like we got another (if not nymshifted) "have you considered
> > Islam?" post-n-run trolls.
>
> Do you think that Nando is trying to come back? This seems to be a
> bot.
>
> omar:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/528d993de5dfc82f?hl=en

I don't think it's Nando. Bot or not, for years there has been the
occasional post-n-run troll with that off-topic sales pitch. I should
reply to all with "yes I did consider Islam, but you talked me out of
it."

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 15, 2013, 4:28:40 PM3/15/13

to

Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> misrepresented over and over again in postings. ?Some

>> of the regulars might know that there is a loon doing
>> the posting, but others might not.
>>
>> I've seen situations in which the target did not
>> respond and soon enough acquired the reputation that
>> the loon was pushing, simply because there was no
>> pushback.
>>

>> So yes, it can, and often does, get out of hand. ?And

>> that requires remediation.

>How does one remediate? Peter's arguments are concertina. Yet to
>dispute with Peter is to have one's arguments XORed with his; entropy
>is conserved. Thus a skimming of a given Peter v. Anybody will make
>both parties seem equally bizarre yet tedious.

One way is the method that's worked for me. At some point
folks simply posted that it was time for me to drop the
subject. And I did.

Harshman may need such a post soon enough.

>Meanwhile, there's literally no convincing Peter even of
>incontrovertible facts. It took me a while to realize that Peter
>actually believes that the Ur offense against Prawnster was you saying
>that Prawnster had no personality - that Peter believes this was an
>outrage, because obviously Prawnster *does* have a personality! And
>Peter has gone to some length to prove it, even demonstrating that he
>has more personality than you, truth be told, and pointing out that
>these facts are obvious, so your misrepresentation is probably
>deliberate.

Agreed. Indeed, IIRC what I wrote was in response to some
comment on Prawnster's personality. I believe I wrote
"Prawnster has a personality? Who knew?"

>The nature of humor has been explained to Peter several time, without
>avail.

>So. The best is not to respond, right? Yet as you point out, that
>sometimes doesn't help. And nobody likes seeing themselves
>misrepresented. So I ask you, how does one remediate?

Answered above. It is like a person's friends with him or her
at a bar, noting that they've had enough and it was time to go
home.

Ron O

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 12:44:38 PM3/17/13

to

On Mar 2, 11:12嚙窮m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> The diversity of TO is going down noticeably on both sides of the

> issue. 嚙磕ilkins just left a cryptic note that he was leaving. 嚙瘢 hope
> that he was just joking around. 嚙磅everal posters got banned (Nando,
> Quark, and Prawnster (someone else?)). 嚙皺alkidas and Pagano haven t

> posted for some time so that leaves Nyikos as about the only ID

> supporter still posting. 嚙瘢t is sort of sad that the most recent ID/
> creationist scam is getting so little support. 嚙璀bout the only time

> you hear about intelligent design is when some ignorant and or
> dishonest politician pipes up and barks about it in some lame attempt

> to get the clueless vote. 嚙璀s sad as it may seem Ray is about the only

> one willing to attempt to argue the anti-evolution side of the issue.
> Just about everything else is lame denial or anagrams.
>

> The usual disclaimers go with this list. 嚙瘢t is only meant to be a

> resource where you can use Google to view profile and gain access to

> as many posts as you can stand to read from these posters. 嚙瘢f you
> want to know what the list is about, just Google By their fruits and
> you can look up the Biblical meaning. 嚙瘢t is something that most of
> the posters on this list should understand. 嚙瘢 do not claim that all
> the posters fit into a single category. 嚙確hey are a very diverse
> group. 嚙璀s I have mentioned things are less diverse than they were in
> the last rendition of this thread. 嚙瞇ando was a follower of the Koran
> and Kalk was a Hindu creationist. 嚙皚ust being a creationist does not
> get you on this list. 嚙瘢t is what these posters do because they are
> creationists that get them on this list. 嚙瘢f you want to argue about
> it go back to the past Fruits threads and reread what has already been

> put forward.
>
> An example of creationists that would not make the list:http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>

> Here is a link to the last Fruits thread and it has links to previous

> ones:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d892eaf84ffe6bcb?hl=en
>
> Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/832aeee717a54a70?hl=en
>
> Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a374fc1c9a9ac6a?hl=en
>
> I have to add this post by Nyikos because I have never seen this

> argument before, so you can learn new things on TO. 嚙瘩id anyone else

> know that Directed Panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of
> the Bible?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efa883546fdc6dce?hl=en
>

> Hal Womack (typical post and run?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f0f1b97ff4b4369d?hl=en
>
> Ed Conrad may still be lurking and posting even though he was banned
> years ago:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6b15ca871c93491?hl=en
>
> Dale:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/459d33cd368b35e8?hl=en
>
> Prawnster got the boot:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c8ad07bf370e8f8?hl=en
>
> Debra:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8a1d3ebcb9d93a7b?hl=en
>
> Dav:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a42b6085522d0b3b?hl=en
>
> Kalkidas hasn t posted much recently this came from the old thread
> that Dav resurrected:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e4c075fa3b4526cc?hl=en
>
> Kiddush post and run:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97979ea7fe9579e9?hl=en
>
> curtjester1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cdd6aa1152513616?hl=en
>
> Quark E got banned:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d932a1f7c38936ed?hl=en
>
> Quark also posted as Chemist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40d0c416b9a6e192?hl=en
>
> Robert another post and run:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/59d4deb7b7159c1e?hl=en
>
> Sean Pitman did not post, but someone resurrected an old thread from
> 2002. 嚙瞑eople should note that there was a time when some of the guys
> on this list did actually try to argue some point:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78e3fab14ba660f9?hl=en
>
> R Dean (his profile is corrupted and can t be accessed):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c07d37625088f9b1?hl=en
>
> If I missed anyone add them to the list. 嚙瘢 only go back through a
> couple weeks of threads to find active posters, so I did not find
> Nando's last posts before he was banned for making threats.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Numerous is posting. It is a pretty indoctrinated IDiot. I say "it"
because I don't know if it is he, she or they. Lots of IDiots used to
post, posts like this. What you won't see from guys like Numerous and
R Dean is a description of their alternative to whatever they are
blabbing about and why their alternative is better. They really have
no rational alternative. That is what makes rational discourse pretty
much impossible with IDiots. They also have to deal with the sorry
fact that the goons that sold them the ID scam have a new scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. These are just the sorry
leftovers that haven't gotten the message. There really isn't
anything else to say about posters that are that out of touch with
current reality and what the latest creationist scams are.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7344c663a7317d06?hl=en

These are the remnants of the last creationist scam to pretend that
their alternative was scientific enough to teach in the public
schools. This is literally all they can do.

Ron Okimoto

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 9:25:33 AM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 14, 8:00�pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/14/2013 01:35 PM, pnyikos wrote:

Hemidactylus, you don't seem to realize what a game-changer this turn
of events represents. It's partly my fault for including too much in
the reply to you to which you were replying. I've trimmed it
considerably here so you can better see the lay of the land.

> > On Mar 12, 11:10 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip side issue involving Shrubber v. Ron O]

> >> What we lack and seriously need right now is Gordon Solie:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Solie

I thought I was entering into the spirit of your comment with my
choice of words below, but it looks like I got it wrong:

> > Pro wrestling has never interested me. I am more familiar with the
> > lingo of boxing. And in that vein, I have some good news for you,
> > Hemidactylus
>
> > The third knockdown of Ron O has taken place.

[snip boxing lore]

[snip narration and documentationn of the foundation for the third
"knockdown"]

> > �I have taken it

> > upon myself to inaugurate a new policy: from now on, I will confine
> > myself to very brief direct replies to posts of Ron O, ending with
> > statements like the following.
>
> > � � If anyone but Ron O cares about the content of
> > � � Ron O's snipped-out text, they can
> > � � let me know, and I'll deal with the
> > � � parts that they show they care about.
>
> > Then I'll provide them with an url and maybe a message-id to where
> > they can access Ron O's full post.
>
> Does anyone beside either of you give a damn? Set up a newsgroup of your
> own for this crap.

That would make no sense in the light of my new policy; nor would
"taking it to e-mail", another one of your obsolete suggestions.

Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? Because there are
people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
was made before I even showed up on it.

In fact, from time to time I will also inform people about the post to
which you are replying here, just to inform readers about the reasons
for my new policy.

Peter Nyikos

Bill

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 1:48:07 PM3/18/13

to

On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are
> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
> was made �before I even showed up on it.

I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
just stopped responding to them.

jillery

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 2:23:50 PM3/18/13

to

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are
>> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
>> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
>> was made �before I even showed up on it.
>
>I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
>irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
>Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
>just stopped responding to them.

Your arguments suggests the problem lies with Ron O. or anybody else.
My experience is the opposite, that the poster to whom you replied is
usually the initiator, to the point of imagining "digs" to which to
respond.

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 5:15:06 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 18, 1:48锟絧m, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:25锟絧m, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? 锟紹ecause there are

> > people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> > his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")

> > was made 锟絙efore I even showed up on it.

>
> I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> irritating,

I'm referring to ONE person, who posts massively defamatory things
about me. And at least one person, O'Shea [who does the same thing]
has chimed in with the "opinion" that a pack of lies by this ONE
person was the truth.

> they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> just stopped responding to them.

Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
objectivity, have any data points to back it up?

For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
stupid?

And if so, did you ignore him/her?

> > In fact, from time to time I will also inform people about the post to
> > which you are replying here, just to inform readers about the reasons
> > for my new policy.
>

> > Peter Nyikos-

Mark Isaak

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 5:44:55 PM3/18/13

to

On 3/18/13 2:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> On Mar 18, 1:48 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> [...]

>> I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
>> irritating,

>> they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
>> Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
>> just stopped responding to them.
>
> Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
> objectivity, have any data points to back it up?
>
> For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
> grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
> newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
> and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
> stupid?
>
> And if so, did you ignore him/her?

If I were subjected to relentless accusations by one person, I would
respond to them in depth once (or maybe once every six months or so),
respond with a brief "Not true" or the equivalent occasionally, and
ignore the vast majority of the posts.

If I were subjected to relentless accusations by multiple people, I
would examine my own posts and then determine what I need to do in the
future to stop being insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Bill

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:04:42 PM3/18/13

to

On Mar 19, 4:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:48�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are

> > > people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> > > his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")

> > > was made �before I even showed up on it.

>
> > I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> > irritating,
>
> I'm referring to ONE person, who posts massively defamatory things
> about me. � And at least one person, O'Shea [who does the same thing]
> has chimed in with the "opinion" that a pack of lies by this ONE
> person was the truth.
>
> > they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> > Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> > just stopped responding to them.
.
>
> Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
> objectivity, have any data points to back it up?

The experiment is easy. Just try it and you can find all the relevant
data points you need.

>
> For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
> grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
> newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
> and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
> stupid?

Feel free to defame me, to post relentless accusations about me on a
grand scale, accuse me of insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty. I'll
demonstrate my approach. I'll ignore you, and sooner or later you'll
get bored and stop.

Bill

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:06:53 PM3/18/13

to

On Mar 19, 1:23�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>

> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are
> >> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> >> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
> >> was made �before I even showed up on it.
>
> >I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> >irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> >Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> >just stopped responding to them.
>
> Your arguments suggests the problem lies with Ron O. or anybody else.
> My experience is the opposite, that the poster to whom you replied is
> usually the initiator, to the point of imagining "digs" to which to
> respond.

It takes two to tango, and it takes two to generate weeks long threads
of accusations and counter-accusations.

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:14:31 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

I wonder whether Bill will take cognizance of jillery's post.

Jillery is another ally of Ron O, but instead of claiming accuracy as
to the content of Ron O's rants like O'Shea did at least twice,
jillery tries to paint him as the innocent party.

On Mar 18, 2:23锟絧m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>

> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 18, 8:25锟絧m, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? 锟紹ecause there are

> >> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> >> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")

> >> was made 锟絙efore I even showed up on it.

Note the observation about Ron O being the aggressor on this thread.
The fact that jillery ignored this comment below already says a lot
about the unreliability of what she writes below.

> >I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> >irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> >Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> >just stopped responding to them.
>
> Your arguments suggests the problem lies with Ron O. or anybody else.
> My experience is the opposite,

False. From the get-go, almost immediately after I returned to t.o.
in December 2010, jillery posted flamebait against me, and I refrained
from replying the way I am regularly accused of replying. Getting
into a heated personal exchange before Christmas was the last thing I
wanted.

Since then, what has happened is that I caught jillery slandering me
several times, thereby earning her enmity towards me [she is highly
self-righteous]. I also decisively refuted her in on-topic
discussion about a case where Behe was right and his prestigious
critic wrong, and she had been trying to show the opposite.

I carefully refrained from going for flamebait that she sprinkled
through her last two replies to me, and she quit after the second
flame-free reply to her by me.

Shortly before she killfiled me, she kept falsely insisting that the
reason she hadn't replied to that last post "must have been" because
she was tired of my personal attacks.

> that the poster to whom you replied is
> usually the initiator, to the point of imagining "digs" to which to
> respond.

To add to the unreliablility of this claim, jillery has gotten into
several flamefests with Harshman, whom she has even claimed to be like
me, despite the enormous prestige Harshman enjoys in this newsgroup.
She drags them out, apparently trying to get in the last word, in
stark contrast to her behavior on that Behe-Doolittle dispute.

Bill, I suppose, thinks that all of what I've written here is
counterproductive, and may even think that jillery would stop taking
pot shots at me from the security of her killfile if I just ignored
them. He may even insist that nobody would think any the worse of me
if I left these pot shots go unchallenged.

Burkhard

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:16:09 PM3/18/13

to

Do you want to reconsider that last point? Not that your approach is
not immensely sensible, but this specific proof is going to fail, I'm
afraid :o)

Burkhard

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:16:37 PM3/18/13

to

And a pox on both their houses...

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:29:10 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 18, 6:04�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 1:48�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are
> > > > people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> > > > his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
> > > > was made �before I even showed up on it.
>
> > > I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> > > irritating,
>
> > I'm referring to ONE person, who posts massively defamatory things
> > about me. � And at least one person, O'Shea [who does the same thing]
> > has chimed in with the "opinion" that a pack of lies by this ONE
> > person was the truth.

And now jillery has chimed in on Ron O's side, in a different way.

> > > they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> > > Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> > > just stopped responding to them.
> .
>
> > Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
> > objectivity, have any data points to back it up?
>
> The experiment is easy. Just try it and you can find all the relevant
> data points you need.

Ducking of question noted. Would it be out of line to conclude that
your answer is negative?

> > For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
> > grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
> > newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
> > and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
> > stupid?
>
> Feel free to defame me, to post relentless accusations about me on a
> grand scale, accuse me of insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty. I'll
> demonstrate my approach. I'll ignore you, and sooner or later you'll
> get bored and stop.

Are you serious???

Do you expect me to go against some of my most deeply held moral
principles???

Are you as amoral as this "recommendation" of yours seems to suggest?

Or are you just making it in order to avoid answering the questions I
asked of you?

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:29:45 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 18, 6:06�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:23�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>
> > <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 18, 8:25�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? �Because there are
> > >> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
> > >> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")
> > >> was made �before I even showed up on it.
>
> > >I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> > >irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> > >Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> > >just stopped responding to them.

I'd like to hear why you think my new policy, announced in the part
you snipped above, isn't likely to have the same effect.

> > Your arguments suggests the problem lies with Ron O. or anybody else.
> > My experience is the opposite, that the poster to whom you replied is
> > usually the initiator, to the point of imagining "digs" to which to
> > respond.

I made a comment about you towards the end of my reply to jillery's
post, and am curious to see your reaction to that too.

> It takes two to tango, and it takes two to generate weeks long threads
> of accusations and counter-accusations.

Have you ever posted something like this in reply to Ron O? Or
something along the lines of what you posted in reply to me above?

Did you notice that I have left his last two replies to me
unanswered?

Most importantly, are you aware that Ron O's replies to the three
solidly on-topic posts by me, that I've been documenting, were full
of taunts about me not having dealt with this or that accusation he
had leveled at me earlier?

All you have to do is look back at my first three posts to this
thread, which documented his long rants in reply to my devoid-of-
personal-remarks replies to him.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:03:10 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 18, 5:44�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 3/18/13 2:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 1:48 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
> >> irritating,
> >> they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
> >> Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
> >> just stopped responding to them.
>
> > Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
> > objectivity, have any data points to back it up?
>
> > For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
> > grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
> > newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
> > and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
> > stupid?
>
> > And if so, did you ignore him/her?
>
> If I were subjected to relentless accusations by one person, I would
> respond to them in depth once (or maybe once every six months or so),
> respond with a brief "Not true" or the equivalent occasionally, and
> ignore the vast majority of the posts.

I might eventually get to that point, if my new policy against Ron O
proves successful.

That policy got deleted in the exchanges of today, and you may have
missed it yourself, so I'm reposting it here.

____________________________

> I have taken it
> > upon myself to inaugurate a new policy: from now on, I will confine
> > myself to very brief direct replies to posts of Ron O, ending with
> > statements like the following.

> > If anyone but Ron O cares about the content of
> > Ron O's snipped-out text, they can
> > let me know, and I'll deal with the
> > parts that they show they care about.

> > Then I'll provide them with an url and maybe a message-id to where
> > they can access Ron O's full post.

=============== end of repost from about 15 posts back

> If I were subjected to relentless accusations by multiple people, I
> would examine my own posts and then determine what I need to do in the
> future to stop being insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc.

My goodness, you really don't have much confidence in your own
integrity, do you?

Peter Nyikos

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:05:08 PM3/18/13

to

Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 19, 1:23?am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>>
>> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Mar 18, 8:25?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? ?Because there are

>> >> people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
>> >> his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")

>> >> was made ?before I even showed up on it.

>>
>> >I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
>> >irritating, they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
>> >Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
>> >just stopped responding to them.
>>
>> Your arguments suggests the problem lies with Ron O. or anybody else.
>> My experience is the opposite, that the poster to whom you replied is
>> usually the initiator, to the point of imagining "digs" to which to
>> respond.

>It takes two to tango, and it takes two to generate weeks long threads
>of accusations and counter-accusations.

Well, no. But it helps. I remember with great sadness my
mother claiming that it took two to have a fight (I was in
grammar school at the time). This resulted in my coming
home one day with a black eye and a bloody nose and the new
adult understanding that my mother did not know everything.

Paul J Gans

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:06:32 PM3/18/13

to

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 18 Mar, 22:04, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 19, 4:15?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 1:48?pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 18, 8:25?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Why don't I just ignore Ron O's farce from now on? ?Because there are

>> > > > people who may be mystified by complete silence by me in the wake of
>> > > > his digs at me. His first dig at me on this thread ("...rabid dog...")

>> > > > was made ?before I even showed up on it.

>>
>> > > I doubt anyone would be mystified. If you ignored posters you found
>> > > irritating,
>>
>> > I'm referring to ONE person, who posts massively defamatory things

>> > about me. ? And at least one person, O'Shea [who does the same thing]

>> > has chimed in with the "opinion" that a pack of lies by this ONE
>> > person was the truth.
>>
>> > > they'd stop messing with you. It is highly unlikely that
>> > > Ron O. or anyone else, would persistently generate digs at you if you
>> > > just stopped responding to them.
>> .
>>
>> > Does your highly subjective opinion, couched in the language of
>> > objectivity, have any data points to back it up?
>>
>> The experiment is easy. Just try it and you can find all the relevant
>> data points you need.
>>
>>
>>
>> > For instance, have YOU been subjected to relentless accusations, on a
>> > grand scale, that you are insane, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. in a
>> > newsgroup where the accuser enjoyed greater popularity than yourself,
>> > and is treated with kid gloves even when he posts something abysmally
>> > stupid?
>>
>> Feel free to defame me, to post relentless accusations about me on a
>> grand scale, accuse me of insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty. I'll
>> demonstrate my approach. I'll ignore you, and sooner or later you'll
>> get bored and stop.
>>
>>

>Do you want to reconsider that last point? Not that your approach is
>not immensely sensible, but this specific proof is going to fail, I'm
>afraid :o)

BINGO!

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:29:34 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 15, 1:18�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:10�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >On Mar 15, 12:00?am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 03/14/2013 01:35 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > >> > On Mar 12, 11:10 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On 03/07/2013 07:30 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
> > >> >>> On Mar 8, 10:14 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> >>>> On Mar 5, 7:06 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>>> Meanwhile, in the "do they have a reflection in the mirror or are
> > >> >>>>> they uniquely immune to observing it" category, we have fermenting
> > >> >>>>>https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d026428da49c1ee5
> > >> >>>>> demonstrating that ripe fruitiness is fascinating in all its
> > >> >>>>> manifestations.
>
> > >> >>>> It sure is. ?What are you going to do for an encore? ?Trying to talk
> > >> >>>> sense to Nyikos is always a good one.
>
> > >> >>> I just did. It was a horribly long winded exposition.
> > >> >>> The TL;DR version is that talk.origins requires a sense of humor.
>
> > >> > ...which Shrubber tried to paint as if that were the main thing he had
> > >> > browbeat me about, rather than how "antisocial" it is to accuse people
> > >> > repeatedly of lying.
>
> > >> > I think he did this because he had belatedly realized that his main
> > >> > thesis had the corollary that Mitchell Coffey was antisocial.

Mitchell seems to have missed the above comment about himself.

More interestingly, Mitchell seems to have un-killfiled me. He did a
direct reply to a post of mine earlier today. But at this point he
may still have had me in his killfile.

[snip]

Fortunately for Gans, (or perhaps unfortunately) there is very little
misrepresentation of him on t.o. or soc.history.medieval, so this
statement of his isn't as empathetic as it may seem.

The reality about Gans is so bad, there is no need to misrepresent him
to discredit him.

> >�Some

> > of the regulars might know that there is a loon doing
> > the posting, but others might not.

Yes. For instance, the loon known as Paul Gans is not generally known
as a loon.

> > I've seen situations in which the target did not
> > respond and soon enough acquired the reputation that
> > the loon was pushing, simply because there was no
> > pushback.
>
> > So yes, it can, and often does, get out of hand. �And
> > that requires remediation.
>
> How does one remediate? Peter's arguments are concertina. Yet to
> dispute with Peter is to have one's arguments XORed with his; entropy
> is conserved. Thus a skimming of a given Peter v. Anybody will make
> both parties seem equally bizarre yet tedious.

Mitchell includes himself in the above, or at least he should.

He has first-hand experience, after all, unlike Bill, whom I have
never seen display insanity or much evidence of insincerity or
hypocrisy, and so I couldn't possibly take his suggestion that I
accuse him of these things seriously.

> Meanwhile, there's literally no convincing Peter even of
> incontrovertible facts.

Mitchell has never really tried to try to convince me; he's contenting
himself largely with convincing others that I am a pathological liar,
etc.

> It took me a while to realize that Peter
> actually believes that the Ur offense against Prawnster was you saying
> that Prawnster had no personality

Nonsense. What happened was that Coffey took my challenge to this
claim by Gans as the real Ur offense of "supporting a horrific racist,
rape apologist..." and declared war on me for it.

>- that Peter believes this was an
> outrage, because obviously Prawnster *does* have a personality!

Coffey is only adding evidence that he is mentally unhinged [though
not nearly to the extent that Ron O is] by these bizarre remarks about
me.

> And
> Peter has gone to some length to prove it, even demonstrating that he
> has more personality than you,

I don't know where Coffey gets these wild ideas about me. I just
don't cultivate the laid-back air that Gans cultivates in talk.origins
most of the time. A big exception came when I accused him of
clowning when he posted one dirty debating tactic and falsehood after
another..

Then he got irate, as though he would much rather be known as a highly
dishonest person than as a clown.

>truth be told, and pointing out that
> these facts are obvious, so your misrepresentation is probably
> deliberate.
>
> The nature of humor has been explained to Peter several time, without
> avail.

Translation: I didn't respond to explanations that belabored the
obvious. I have better uses for my spare time.

> So. The best is not to respond, right? Yet as you point out, that
> sometimes doesn't help. And nobody likes seeing themselves
> misrepresented. So I ask you, how does one remediate?

For popular people like Mitchell and Gans, all they have to do is
behave like mature, responsible adults.

But that may be the one thing they cannot bring themselves to do-- or
maybe they are so far gone, they don't even know how to do it.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:37:04 PM3/18/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Mar 18, 7:06 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

This shows how little Gans knows about me, or is willling to admit to
knowing about me. The specific proof will never take place, for
reasons I explained to Bill and amplified in reply to Coffey, unless
Bill reveals aspects of his behavior that I never would have
associated with him up to now.

For some reason, I think we won't see Bill again on this thread, at
least as far as replying to posts of mine that bear on this "proof".

Peter Nyikos

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:37:33 PM3/18/13

to

On Mar 19, 8:29 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 6:06 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to hear why you think my new policy, announced in the part
> you snipped above, isn't likely to have the same effect.

If I were tempted to have a formal policy about people who
announce formal policies I hope I would have a policy to keep
it to myself least people think I was the way I expect most
people feel about people who announce their policies, but
under no circumstances would I go and have it notarized.

... and like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

Roger Shrubber

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:44:26 PM3/18/13

to

On Mar 19, 9:06 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Well yes but if you habitually walk by the chimp enclosure
to have a gander at the people who aren't smart enough
to stay away from the chimp enclosure and the well
documented radius of fecal projectiles, one really
ought to be laughing at oneself if you get something
foul on the bottom of your shoes. I'm speaking
autobiographically here.

jillery

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 8:15:52 PM3/18/13

to

That's not the point you made before. If you really think it takes
two, you would not have put responsibility on those he finds
irritating.

With normal people, I would agree with you. That is not the case
here. When someone is determined to perpetuate a feud, realities
don't matter, he invents and imagines things to be irritated about.
Everybody could stop replying to him, and he would continue posting
while proclaiming his victory over his "irritants".