Quiet Revolution

[Glenn]

Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.

"Once overlooked as genetic junk"

"In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/

[erik simpson]

You are what you eat. What the hell have you been eating?

[*Hemidactylus*]

What the hell is your obsession with atheists? Should we be worried?

[Glenn]

Yes. Read your own posts.

[RonO]

This just another stupid argument for denial purposes. What are they
trying to build out of it? Does what they are claiming even make sense?

The sad thing is that researchers have been looking for the regulatory
elements in the non coding DNA since we discovered the non coding DNA.
We knew that non coding DNA could be regulatory sequences since people
first figured out how genes were regulated back in the 1960's. It is no
mystery to anyone that regulatory sequences are in the non coding DNA.
Just because some people lump this in with "junk" DNA doesn't mean that
it is junk. The original definition of junk DNA did not include
regulatory sequences. It was some medical doctor that wrote some paper
on it that got it wrong and people started calling non coding DNA junk.
I put up the papers on it a while back, and it showed that the guy
credited with initiating "junk" DNA did not include the regulatory
sequences in what he called junk. It was only the guy that came after
him that popularized the phrase that got it wrong. Non coding DNA was
never considered to be all junk. ENCODE was a huge effort to try to
determine how much non coding DNA was not junk. History likely already
shows that they over estimated the functional parts by quite a large
margin, and their estimates will likely need to be reevaluated.

The simple fact remains that we expect to find the regulatory sequences
in the non coding DNA. No mystery and end of story.

If you want to know what the junk is you can look at why a salamander
has 8 times the DNA as a human. Where is the intelligent design in that
waste of DNA? A pea plant (3.9 billion base-pairs) has more DNA than a
human (3 billion base-pairs), while the weed arabidopsis has a genome
size of 135 million base-pairs, and watermelon has a genome size of only
425 million base-pairs. What is a pea plant doing with all that extra
DNA? Why do some amphibians have 40 times (120 billion base-pairs) the
DNA as a human while a puffer fish gets by with only 400 million
base-pairs of DNA?

With the known rate of mutations and a populations ability to deal with
deleterious mutations, the consensus is that we would not be here if
most of the junk non coding DNA had a function. When you have around 60
mutations every generation it is a good thing that most of the DNA is
not functionally relevant.

Get the ID perps to tell you the functional significance of the 120
billion base-pairs in some salamander's genome. The known genome sizes
of salamanders range from 10 billion base-pairs to 120 billion
base-pairs. Why would one species need 12 times the DNA as some other
salamander? Why would a lowly salamander (with a small genome of 10
billion base-pairs) need more than 3 times the DNA of a human? Why
would they both need so much more than a puffer fish?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/30/2020 2:58 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> >
> > "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> >
> > "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> >
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/
> >
>
> This just another stupid argument for denial purposes.

Oh, ok. Thanks for letting us know.

I don't think I would care for salamander anymore than I would for puffer fish.

[RonO]

Why run from the obvious? What kind of design is it when Humans can
live with so little DNA compared to a salamander? Why do humans need so
much more than a puffer fish.

Why go back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you are running
from the Top Six?

Reality isn't going to change by running from it.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I used to love to run. My best time for the 3 mile run was just under 15 minutes, and that was only to pass the military requirements. I grew up running everywhere, and continued till my 40s when old injuries started to catch up to me. So yes, reality isn't going to change by running from it.

[Sadovnik Socratus]

was just under 15 minutes, and that was only to pass the military requirements. -----
@Glenn. . . you was a good runner . . .
Men's 5000m Final | IAAF World Championships London 2017
(13.32.79)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCA9KBxxSkM

[Peter Nyikos]

What bothers me is the RNA in the Modena vaccine being developed, which uses
RNA from the coronavirus in some adulterated form. That has a better chance of messing with your gene expression, I think.

Someone with HIV might be in real trouble if there is reverse transcriptase
in one of the cells (HIV is a retrovirus) or floating around in the
intercellular medium. Any chance of that DNA getting into the genome, I wonder?


By the way, Glenn, I had huge difficulties with Google Groups yesterday, so
I ran out of time for starting that one new thread that I promised yesterday.
However, unless "lightning strikes twice" [no, there was no literal
lightning involved yesterday] I'll get it going today.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

A mile is about 200 meters short of 5000 meters. I'm not sure what the record was at the time. But my run was unofficial, made by some Marine Corps test taker. Here's one claim I found, from close to the same time period and close to what I thought the record was at the time:

'Craig Virgin owns the next fastest time in history, having secured an effort of 13:50.60 at the state championships in Illinois in 1972. "

https://www.milesplit.com/articles/267796/nico-young-bags-national-3-mile-record-at-woodbridge

[RonO]

Running will not change reality. Why even bother with this second rate
junk when you can't deal with the best that they claim to be able to
give to you? Why run from what this second rate junk should actually
tell you? Why can a salamander have 120 billion base pairs of DNA and a
human only 3 billion base pairs of DNA in their genome? What does that
tell you about junk DNA?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:00:00 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:29:11 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> >
> > "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> >
> > "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> >
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/
>
> What bothers me is the RNA in the Modena vaccine being developed, which uses
> RNA from the coronavirus in some adulterated form. That has a better chance of messing with your gene expression, I think.
>
> Someone with HIV might be in real trouble if there is reverse transcriptase
> in one of the cells (HIV is a retrovirus) or floating around in the
> intercellular medium. Any chance of that DNA getting into the genome, I wonder?
>

There's a lot to be worried about, and not just about viruses.

>
> By the way, Glenn, I had huge difficulties with Google Groups yesterday, so
> I ran out of time for starting that one new thread that I promised yesterday.
> However, unless "lightning strikes twice" [no, there was no literal
> lightning involved yesterday] I'll get it going today.
>

I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?

[Glenn]

No, but it can sure change your idea of reality.

[Sadovnik Socratus]

--------------
Hmm . . . i have no idea how the Einstein's SRT has influenced their time
---

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 3:54:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > On 7/1/2020 1:08 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> > >> If you want to know what the junk is you can look at why a salamander
> > >> has 8 times the DNA as a human. Where is the intelligent design in that
> > >> waste of DNA?

Notice, Glenn, how Ron O continues to push either

(1) a God that stopped caring about the universe it designed after creation
or (2) a pantheistic God described in the book _Honest to God_, by Anglican
Archbishop J.A.T Robinson
or (3) atheism.

The smart money may be on (2), since Ron O has stoutly maintained that
you are avoiding his "ID's Best Six" challenge because, so he illogically
thinks, you cannot bear the thought of a Designer of the universe
(which is all the first two in the Top Six are about)
who keeps guiding the course of things on earth (as in 3 through 6).

J.A.T. Robinson sneered at (1) by bringing in the distasteful image of
God winding up the universe like an alarm clock and having nothing
more to do with it. But then, in a surprise maneuver for someone
believed to be a Christian, he also sneered at theism for thinking
that God meddled with the universe with "periodic rewindings".

Ron O may have been brainwashed by this kind of talk into thinking
that literal theism is something any normal adult outgrows when
"putting away the things of a child," as Burt Lancaster put it
so effectively in the movie, "Elmer Gantry."


<snip for focus>

> > >> Why would a lowly salamander (with a small genome of 10
> > >> billion base-pairs) need more than 3 times the DNA of a human? Why
> > >> would they both need so much more than a puffer fish?

> > > I don't think I would care for salamander anymore than I would for puffer fish.
> > >
> >
> > Why run from the obvious? What kind of design is it when Humans can
> > live with so little DNA compared to a salamander? Why do humans need so
> > much more than a puffer fish.

Obviously, Ron O takes you to be a creationist who can't stand the
notion of God coaxing evolution along with subtle nudges like
in the quote I post from time to time in Loren Eiseley's _The Immense Journey_.

> > Why go back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you are running
> > from the Top Six?
> >
> > Reality isn't going to change by running from it.

It took me a while to learn that Ron O is NOT criticizing you here
for not defending the Top Six. It just never occurred to me that
he was actually asking you to face the "fact" that the kind of God
responsible for THAT kind of design is one you cannot stomach.

But he let me know that this was what he had in mind, in no uncertain terms.

> I used to love to run. My best time for the 3 mile run was just under 15 minutes, and that was only to pass the military requirements. I grew up running everywhere, and continued till my 40s when old injuries started to catch up to me. So yes, reality isn't going to change by running from it.

I'm impressed. My best time for the mile was 6:09, and in ROTC I was merely
the 4th of my cadet platoon of 44, and my time was 6:15. In Chemical Corps
branch school as a "first Louie" it was about the same, and no physical
involved a test run of over a mile.

Did OCS have a longer test run? Or were you an EM, as non-officers
were known in those days? [Later, they were called "soldiers." I don't
know whether that is the PC term nowadays.]


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
>Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?

Asinine allusions and conspiracies are things you share with your
strange bedfellow.

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

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
> >Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?
>
>
> Asinine allusions and conspiracies are things you share with your
> strange bedfellow.
>

Look who shows up, and minutes after I posted.

By the way, Peter, the post to which jillery is replying does not appear in my browser. Do you see it?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 2:24:59 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
> >Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?
>
>
> Asinine allusions

You seem to be alleging that Glenn is completely off-base with thinking
that an abuse report was the cause of my problems. And I might have thought
that, were it not for my problems being so weird, that my first thought was
that someone had hacked into Google Groups.

But I also found out, while searching for a way to start posting again,
and finding most Google "help" completely useless, that their Legal Department
has a place for having offending material removed. So it is you who are way
off base.

> and conspiracies are things you share with your
> strange bedfellow.

Your sneering at "conspiracy theories" makes you a strange bedfellow
of the CIA, which originated the term to discredit people who
accused the CIA of gross misbehavior. And if you think that the CIA was
innocent of gross misbehavior, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that you
might be interested in buying.

I believe the original use of the term was in Shakespeare's "The Tempest",
where Trinculo says "Necessity doth make strange bedfellows". [Quoted from
memory.]


It was a rather comical use of the term, but history has made truly strange
bedfellows due to dire necessities. Perhaps the best case of that was
when Winston Churchill defended his alliance with Stalin which necessity
almost forced on them in 1941.

Churchill famously said that if Satan himself were warring with Hitler,
he would put in a favorable comment to the House of Commons for the devil.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I see it, and I'm curious to see whether you can see my reply to jillery
in your browser. I can see it in mine.


Here is some "topmatter" (headers, I think they are called)
from the original of your post in Google:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/iEdNHAtSAwAJ

If this url behaves normally in your computer, it should show everything else I
list below, and much more besides. By replacing "forum" with "d" and
"#!original" with "msg" you will be taken to the thread itself, but I have
no idea whether your post will become visible that way.


Subject: Re: Quiet Revolution
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d906df1a-00bb-45aa...@googlegroups.com>

Path: nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.etla.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
X-Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.209.225.92; posting-account=LTsYjwkAAACi9EOosr8cUsLvEqpGlJoX
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.209.225.92
X-Injection-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 17:18:30 +0000
Delivered-To: talk-o...@ediacara.org
id 0A29A1E14E0; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016E41E14DE
for <talk-o...@ediacara.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:18:34 -0400 (EDT)


Hope this helps.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:15:00 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
> > > >Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?
> > >
> > >
> > > Asinine allusions and conspiracies are things you share with your
> > > strange bedfellow.
> > >
> > Look who shows up, and minutes after I posted.
> >
> > By the way, Peter, the post to which jillery is replying does not appear in my browser. Do you see it?
>
> I see it, and I'm curious to see whether you can see my reply to jillery
> in your browser. I can see it in mine.

The headers for your post here includes
"X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"

The posts you have made since the trouble yesterday did not include that line.

It is curious that you and I were able to make some posts earlier today, but when I tried to post a reply to you, googlegroups again went nutty on me.

The issue seems to be clearly with googlegroups, since other's with newsreaders see the posts that are missing from google.

I wouldn't give this a second thought, and attribute it to some snafu, except for the added "abuse" line suddenly appearing, that I have not seen before and is not in any other post I have searched to see whether it may be a regular occurence, and not connected to these recent problems.

Now I'm faced with whether to hit "post" and take the chance that I lose the post from my view...here goes...

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:15:00 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
> > > >Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?
> > >
> > >
> > > Asinine allusions and conspiracies are things you share with your
> > > strange bedfellow.
> > >
> > Look who shows up, and minutes after I posted.
> >
> > By the way, Peter, the post to which jillery is replying does not appear in my browser. Do you see it?
>
> I see it, and I'm curious to see whether you can see my reply to jillery
> in your browser. I can see it in mine.
>
>
> Here is some "topmatter" (headers, I think they are called)
> from the original of your post in Google:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/iEdNHAtSAwAJ
>
> If this url behaves normally in your computer, it should show everything else I
> list below, and much more besides. By replacing "forum" with "d" and
> "#!original" with "msg" you will be taken to the thread itself, but I have
> no idea whether your post will become visible that way.
>
>
> Subject: Re: Quiet Revolution
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <d906df1a-00bb-45aa...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Path:

Look up one line before this. I think you'll find

"X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"

nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.etla.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> X-Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.209.225.92; posting-account=LTsYjwkAAACi9EOosr8cUsLvEqpGlJoX
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.209.225.92
> X-Injection-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 17:18:30 +0000
> Delivered-To: talk-o...@ediacara.org
> id 0A29A1E14E0; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no
> autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
> by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016E41E14DE
> for <talk-o...@ediacara.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>

Here is the headers I see for your post here:

X-Received: by 2002:a1c:303:: with SMTP id 3mr13938182wmd.180.1593636301134;

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)

X-BeenThere: talk.o...@googlegroups.com

Received: by 2002:adf:82ca:: with SMTP id 68ls4464499wrc.2.gmail; Wed, 01 Jul

2020 13:44:57 -0700 (PDT)

X-Received: by 2002:adf:84e2:: with SMTP id 89mr29558928wrg.139.1593636297096;

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:44:57 -0700 (PDT)

X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63

Path: nntp.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!news.muarf.org!news.uzoreto.com!news.etla.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

From: Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com>

snip rest of header

[Robert Carnegie]

Whose ma takes central stage? ...Hamlet's maybe.

A default presumption is that food doesn't want to
be eaten. I expect that you don't want to be eaten,
and if I was going to eat you and I asked you to
give me advice on good digestion, your reply would
not be helpful.

There are species that take a long view and get the
upper hand and provide food to other species deliberately
for what I'm in danger of calling their own purposes.
A plant getting a mobile animal to eat plant seed and
then excrete it in fertile growing ground elsewhere
is not the most extreme form of exploitation that those
nasty green bastards commit. Or maybe it is. It could
get worse but I don't want to think about how.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 2:19:59 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 23:29:11 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> > Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> >
> > "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> >
> > "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> >
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/
>
> Whose ma takes central stage? ...Hamlet's maybe.

Thats "rna".

>
> A default presumption is that food doesn't want to
> be eaten.

It *is*? So you wouldn't commit harry kerry for me?

> I expect that you don't want to be eaten,
> and if I was going to eat you and I asked you to
> give me advice on good digestion, your reply would
> not be helpful.

Well then ask your food next time you get a chance.

>
> There are species that take a long view and get the
> upper hand and provide food to other species deliberately
> for what I'm in danger of calling their own purposes.

You are in no danger of that, I'm sure.

> A plant getting a mobile animal to eat plant seed and
> then excrete it in fertile growing ground elsewhere
> is not the most extreme form of exploitation that those
> nasty green bastards commit. Or maybe it is. It could
> get worse but I don't want to think about how.

Ask a dung beetle if what they consume is "nasty".

[RonO]

Lying to yourself isn't the solution that you need. What good is the
second rate junk ever going to do for you? It is second rate even by
the standards of the guys selling it to you.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

This sounds like you are talking about Denton who is a diest that claims
that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all
unfolded into what we have today. He sells the junk Glenn swallows. I
just point out why it is stupid to swallow the junk that Denton and the
other ID perps produce. If you want to conclude what you do from that,
you are likely reflecting your own beliefs. Projection is stupid. You
are the religious nut job who goes to church to worship his intelligent
designer and claims that space aliens were responsible for life on earth.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

How does that make you feel?

[Glenn]

I suspect the truth is Ron can not stomach any kind of God.

>
> This sounds like you are talking about Denton who is a diest that claims
> that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all
> unfolded into what we have today. He sells the junk Glenn swallows. I
> just point out why it is stupid to swallow the junk that Denton and the
> other ID perps produce. If you want to conclude what you do from that,
> you are likely reflecting your own beliefs. Projection is stupid. You
> are the religious nut job who goes to church to worship his intelligent
> designer and claims that space aliens were responsible for life on earth.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> >
> >
> >> I used to love to run. My best time for the 3 mile run was just under 15 minutes, and that was only to pass the military requirements. I grew up running everywhere, and continued till my 40s when old injuries started to catch up to me. So yes, reality isn't going to change by running from it.
> >
> > I'm impressed. My best time for the mile was 6:09, and in ROTC I was merely
> > the 4th of my cadet platoon of 44, and my time was 6:15. In Chemical Corps
> > branch school as a "first Louie" it was about the same, and no physical
> > involved a test run of over a mile.
> >
> > Did OCS have a longer test run? Or were you an EM, as non-officers
> > were known in those days? [Later, they were called "soldiers." I don't
> > know whether that is the PC term nowadays.]
> >

Enlisted. Every 6 months or year, if memory serves. Of course, not while in-country. I did that run at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, when sent for special training, in '72.

Peter, I posted a reply to your post above earlier, and it didn't appear to go thru.

[RonO]

Disappointed that there are rubes as mentally incompetent as you are to
be preyed upon by people that you likely understand that you cannot
trust for reliable information, let alone people that you should let
influence your religious beliefs.

The ID scam is a political scam that the creationists are running on
themselves. Haven't you ever read and understood the ID perp's original
mission statement? The ID perps were willing to use the rube's
religious beliefs to further their political goals. They never had any
intention of doing any science, and when they had to put up or shut up
the kept the political scam going by running the bait and switch on the
creationist rubes.

Even someone as lost as yourself should understand that by now. The ID
perps were mostly old earth creationists, and they were willing to let
the YEC rubes lie to themselves in order to get their support for their
political objectives. It was never an honest effort and the fact that
rubes like yourself understand that you never wanted them to do any ID
science and can still go back to them for second rate denial stupidity
at this time should wake you up, but what does it do instead?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Doesn't matter because I know that you lie to yourself all the time, so
there is no reason why you should trust your suspicions. You should
have figured that out by now. How often have you been wrong in terms of
this issue? Probably over 95% of the time. Just put up the last time
that you were correct about something that you got from the ID perps.
With that track record you should have some solid conclusions about what
you are doing, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't read Denton. In fact, for a long time I had to stop to think which
one is the creationist -- Benton or Denton?

Lately I've read some of Benton's book on vertebrate paleontology, but it's
on the level of Colbert, not Romer. So I keep gravitating back to
the gold standard, Carroll's 1988 classic, and only look at Benton
occasionally for more up to date information.

>who is a diest that claims
> that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all
> unfolded into what we have today.

Kenneth Miller is almost surely like that. As an implacable foe of Behe,
he has no more stomach for true theism (see above about "subtle nudges")
than you imagine MarkE and Glenn to have.

> He sells the junk Glenn swallows.

You've got to be kidding!

If you aren't, then Glenn is only a "creationist" in the disastrous-for-NSF
definition of "one who believes in a creator." I remember a whole thread
where people criticized you with super-kid-gloves for clinging to that
clueless definition.

Wasn't that the thread which soured the entity posting via the email address
j.nobel...@gmail.com on you?


Concluded in next post, hopefully today.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I suspect that someone sent google an abuse report, and google sent messages from you and I to some filter which produced the odd happenings yesterday.
>> >Who might have done such a thing, I wonder?
>>
>>
>> Asinine allusions and conspiracies are things you share with your
>> strange bedfellow.
>>
>Look who shows up, and minutes after I posted.

I suppose you're right, if you mean over an hour qualifies as "minutes
later". If so, then your post also appeared "minutes later" after I

posted.


>By the way, Peter, the post to which jillery is replying does not appear in my browser. Do you see it?

Your post appears on both eternal-september and albasani. Perhaps you
should stop using GG.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:


Let's see how well Mark Isaak's suggestion works here.

[Peter Nyikos]

How safe would Glenn be there from scrubbing of posts because of alleged abuse
if he did take your advice?

Might Glenn lose all his posting and reading privileges if he were subjected
to too many anonymous allegations, even though he could document the truth
of every bit of what is labeled "abuse" if he knew of the allegations?

If the answer is yes, then you are like a fox telling a farmer how
to design his henhouse.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 5:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/1/2020 1:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 3:54:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

[to Glenn:]

> >>> Why run from the obvious? What kind of design is it when Humans can
> >>> live with so little DNA compared to a salamander? Why do humans need so
> >>> much more than a puffer fish.
> >
> > Obviously, Ron O takes you to be a creationist who can't stand the
> > notion of God coaxing evolution along with subtle nudges like
> > in the quote I post from time to time in Loren Eiseley's _The Immense Journey_.

Having posted the above to show the context, I now pick up
where I left off in my first reply.

> I just point out why it is stupid to swallow the junk that Denton and the
> other ID perps produce.

Almost all the other "ID perps" are poles apart from what you claim about Denton;
the scientifically sophisticated ones are fully compatible with
the "careful finger of God" speculated on by the agnostic Loren Eiseley
(see about him above in my preceding post). Denton, if he is as you
described, believes God abandoned our universe after creating it.

> If you want to conclude what you do from that,
> you are likely reflecting your own beliefs.

You are way off in la-la land. Deism never had any appeal for me.
Intellectually (which is where my BELIEFS are), I am an agnostic,
with no more than 10% confidence in a designer of our universe.
Which means that, intellectually, I fit in well with the alt.atheists.

Emotionally, I am just as much a Christian as Obama was emotionally a Muslim.
Only I take my emotions to the Catholic Church, while Obama knew that
America was not yet ready for a Muslim President. So he attended Christian
Churches for political reasons. (And boy, what politics his pastor had!)
But I think he "put away the things of a child" as far as anything supernatural
(including, of course, Allah) is concerned.

If you wanted to know why I am faithful to the rules and customs of the
Catholic Church, all you had to do during your 9.5 years of implacable
hostility towards me was to ask. But yours is a terminal case of
"MMIMuDCMwtF." ("My Mind Is Made up, Don't Confuse Me with the Facts.")


As you demonstrate with your demented fantasy about me:

> Projection is stupid. You
> are the religious nut job who goes to church to worship his intelligent
> designer

And you go to the movies to get crushes on the actors and actresses, do you?

> and claims that space aliens were responsible for life on earth.

Fortunately, I was able to wean Bill Jefferys away from that
politically motivated and widely repeated misrepresentation of me.

Do you know who Bill Jefferys is? He got a nice introduction to
my hypothesis -- which I never thought of as more than a hypothesis --
which he couldn't make a dent in. His last attempt met with a
resounding,

Even Project Orion? Did you break the sad news to Freeman Dyson
before he died in February?

Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Glenn]

How can I help you?

[Glenn]

Do you feel better now?

[Peter Nyikos]

Glenn, I'll have to postpone the idea of starting any new threads to t.o.
[and possibly to sci.bio.paleontology] until one thing is clarified.

Nothing that has been posted to this thread has appeared in the archive
of Google Groups that I get when I click on "show activity". Not from
me and not from anyone else, including jillery.

This may simply because Google is slow in archiving posts this past day or two.
Then, there is no problem.

But there is a possibility that it is because I have been denied access to
anything that appears in the archive after the strange events of yesterday.

Until this possibility is eliminated, I would be making a lot of extra
work for myself if I start new threads.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 5:14:59 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip for focus>

> > Here is some "topmatter" (headers, I think they are called)
> > from the original of your post in Google:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/iEdNHAtSAwAJ
> >
> > If this url behaves normally in your computer, it should show everything else I
> > list below, and much more besides. By replacing "forum" with "d" and
> > "#!original" with "msg" you will be taken to the thread itself, but I have
> > no idea whether your post will become visible that way.
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: Quiet Revolution
> > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <d906df1a-00bb-45aa...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > Path:
>
>

>
> Look up one line before this. I think you'll find
> "X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"

Thank you for alerting me to this, Glenn.

If my second possibility is correct, this may hold the
key to what is going on.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
>conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
>to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.

Nobody conned DIG into banning Kleinman.

Nobody, not even Bill Jefferys, claimed jillery ticked them off.

NOTA has anything to do with anything related to this topic, this
thread, or anything anybody said in it.

There were several posters who replied to "that post" of yours.

That you brag about not reading my posts only shows you're proud of
not knowing what you're talking about.

That you post your obfuscating noise above shows your lack of interest
in advancing the discussion.

IMO my comments above meet the Mr. Rogers safety test, and qualify as
a substantive response, certainly more than enough to substantively
respond to the obfuscating noise they refute. The mileage of other
posters may vary.

[jillery]

Your questions reflect the attitude of a willfully ignorant
pseudo-skeptic who has convinced himself of an unfalsifiable
conspiracy. Not sure why you even pretend to ask questions of me when
you use almost every post to baldly deny my competence, integrity, and
even my very existence.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn, I'll have to postpone the idea of starting any new threads to t.o.
> [and possibly to sci.bio.paleontology] until one thing is clarified.
>
> Nothing that has been posted to this thread has appeared in the archive
> of Google Groups that I get when I click on "show activity". Not from
> me and not from anyone else, including jillery.
>
> This may simply because Google is slow in archiving posts this past day or two.
> Then, there is no problem.
>
> But there is a possibility that it is because I have been denied access to
> anything that appears in the archive after the strange events of yesterday.
>
> Until this possibility is eliminated, I would be making a lot of extra
> work for myself if I start new threads.
>

You might not be able to do such things on school PCs but maybe on a
personal laptop on the school network, but try weaning yourself from GG.
Find free access newsserver (be clear this is a very specific thing) or pay
nominal monthly fee to Giganews or other reliable newsserver. Then for free
you can download Thunderbird or better newsreader (Forte being one for
Windows). A bit of PITA hurdle on initial setup but better reliability and
some bells and whistles. If you have an iPhone there are ways to go with
that which become far more convenient. Not sure about Android options for
newsreaders.

Given your enthusiasm for usenet participation might be a way to go.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 9:04:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Glenn, I'll have to postpone the idea of starting any new threads to t.o.
> [and possibly to sci.bio.paleontology] until one thing is clarified.
>
> Nothing that has been posted to this thread has appeared in the archive
> of Google Groups that I get when I click on "show activity". Not from
> me and not from anyone else, including jillery.
>
> This may simply because Google is slow in archiving posts this past day or two.
> Then, there is no problem.
>
> But there is a possibility that it is because I have been denied access to
> anything that appears in the archive after the strange events of yesterday.
>
> Until this possibility is eliminated, I would be making a lot of extra
> work for myself if I start new threads.

That's going way overboard.

>
>
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 5:14:59 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>
> > > Here is some "topmatter" (headers, I think they are called)
> > > from the original of your post in Google:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/iEdNHAtSAwAJ
> > >
> > > If this url behaves normally in your computer, it should show everything else I
> > > list below, and much more besides. By replacing "forum" with "d" and
> > > "#!original" with "msg" you will be taken to the thread itself, but I have
> > > no idea whether your post will become visible that way.
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Quiet Revolution
> > > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Message-ID: <d906df1a-00bb-45aa...@googlegroups.com>
> > >
> > > Path:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Look up one line before this. I think you'll find
> > "X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"
>
> Thank you for alerting me to this, Glenn.
>
> If my second possibility is correct, this may hold the
> key to what is going on.
>

And I could very well be wrong. It appears that I was wrong about the line being rare, it looks like many posts have the line, from way before this all happened.
I could swear that when I looked yesterday though, that was not the case. But it is not reasonable to suspect that google added that line to many existing posts.

This doesn't mean that the possibility of an abuse report being received and handled by someone at google that did things that caused the havoc.

[Glenn]

Poor baby. There are bogeymen everywhere you look.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Sez the village idiot who has his knickers in a twist about bogeymen.

[Glenn]

LOL. Everyone knows your knickers are in a constant state of twist.

But this post of yours is the first to have this line included in headers:

"X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"

Turned yourself in, did you?

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

"everyone knows" is other words for "I'm too lazy/stupid to explain
it"

And I'm not the one looking for bogeymen inside closets and underneath
beds.

>But this post of yours is the first to have this line included in headers:
>
>"X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63"
>
>Turned yourself in, did you?

I have no idea what you think that line means, but it doesn't appear
in any headers of any posts from Eternal-september or Albasani. That
line appears only when I use GG. A cursory examination reveals that
header line appears in *all* the posts to this topic, not just mine,
and not just yours. I also looked at headers of posts from other
topics, including your posts, and that line doesn't appear in them. It
may appear in other topics, but I didn't see it. From that, I infer
GG thinks this topic is a problem. Perhaps "revolution" is a trigger
word. IDK and IDC. I do know that it's stupid to think conspiracy as
an initial assumption. As usual, you're confusing yourself.

[jillery]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 03:34:40 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Correction: Not all of the posts in this topic show that header line
in GG. My cursory examination coincidentally happened to look at
posts that have it. Glenn's OP and Eric's reply to it have it, but
not Glenn's second post. RonO's first post has it, but not his second
post, and not Hemidactylus' first post. Socratus' post has it but not
peter's first post,

So the above doesn't support my previous inference, but it doesn't
support conspiracy, either.

And to remind those who wants to check for themselves, that header
line doesn't appear outside GG.

[RonO]

Are you less in denial? Why keep lying to yourself? What good has
lying to yourself done in decades? You started on TO as just a plain
vanilla creationist. You found out that you could not support those
notions in the real world, and you became an IDiot after the bait and
switch started to go down and absolutely no one was ever getting the
promised ID science. Just name a single group of rubes that ever got
the ID science from the ID perps when they needed it since you became an
IDiot. Zero should tell you something, but what do you do instead?

The Top Six is something that you can't deal with, and the ID perps
never retracted them, but you see them going back to them one at a time
at their creationist news site where you get most of your bogus
information. Why go back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you
can't face the best that they have to give you?

What kind of IDiot does that make you?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Juat put up something that you have verified means what you thought that
it meant that you got from the ID perps. link to your initial post o n
the subject and then demonstrate that you had the correct notion about
it. Your best bet is their Top Six and you can explain why you are
running from them. That is likely the last time you were correct about
something that they told you. They put those up Nov 2017.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You defend against what you think is an assumption that you did it. And you call that a conspiracy. I love it!
>

[Glenn]

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Once again, you battle delusional strawmen. I suppose that's easier
than advancing the discussion.

[Peter Nyikos]

ATTN Glenn: I'm going to a lot of trouble here to correct a lot of
garbage Ron O is spouting below [and not even all of it, just some
really salient points]. If Ron O runs true to form, he will start
out with a shower of verbal abuse and tell me that I "need" to reply
to some old post he dredges up before he will deal with anything
I wrote here.

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2020 4:57 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 2:44:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 7/1/2020 12:20 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:09:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/1/2020 8:59 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 3:54:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/1/2020 1:08 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2020 2:58 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/

<snip what is mostly a tirade by Ron O that has nothing to do with whether
the answer to "can genetic material be transferred to us...?" is Yes or No>

> >> Disappointed that there are rubes as mentally incompetent as you are

Verbal abuse of Glenn noted.

> >> to be preyed upon by people that you likely understand that you cannot
> >> trust for reliable information, let alone people that you should let
> >> influence your religious beliefs.
> >>
> >> The ID scam is a political scam that the creationists are running on
> >> themselves. Haven't you ever read and understood the ID perp's original
> >> mission statement?

Stop pretending not to know how Phillip you-know-who admitted that "the
science isn't there" for that idiotic few-year timetable in the mission
statement for ID to be competitive IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS [1] with the current
materialistic theory [2] of evolution.

[1] The capitalized words are there because you keep leaving them out when
interpreting a change of strategy in 2002 as "a bait and switch scam."[3]

[2] I'm talking about a theory that has had more than a century and a half to
accumulate scientific evidence for itself. And yet it is almost exclusively
a theory of microevolution.

[3] When you changed your strategy about calling yourself a creationist on t.o.,
[to be described in my next reply] did that mean that you were guilty of
a bait and switch scam?

> >> The ID perps were willing to use the rube's
> >> religious beliefs to further their political goals. They never had any
> >> intention of doing any science,

Are you sure you aren't committing libel against them?

Oh, wait, you never did give us any names of people who were on your
list of "ID perps" did you? So nobody could sue you because you
might be talking about the empty set, eh?

> >> and when they had to put up or shut up

When was that? If you say Ohio 2002, where is your documentation
that they ever promised "the Ohio rubes" to be regaling them
on the advances in ID science? That would HAVE to be the "bait"
whose existence you keep alleging, yet all anyone gets from
you is a webpage of the DI which says teachers have a constitutional
right to teach ID in the public schools.

My "Scottish verdict" thread was designed to get you to produce the
bait you keep alleging, but all you did was to run your own
bait and switch scam about the alleged "bait."

Yet you have some insane notion that I lost the debate just because I stopped
replying to your torrents of verbal abuse that had nothing to
do with evidence of "bait".

> >> the kept the political scam going by running the bait and switch on the
> >> creationist rubes.

> >> Even someone as lost as yourself should understand that by now.

It is you who are lost, but Glenn no longer sees the point in
trying to let you know that.

For one thing, he'd be feeding a troll who is more abusive than Kleinman
was, with his childish name calling that a competent 6-year old
would laugh off with "sticks and stones can break my bones,
but words can never hurt me."

Well, they could hurt if there was truth to them, or if Kleinman
weren't outnumbered about 20 to 1, but you were complaining to DIG
about things just about everyone knew to be silly, weren't you?


Concluded in next reply, hopefully to be done some time to day.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:25:00 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:09:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > On 7/1/2020 8:59 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 3:54:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > >> On 7/1/2020 1:08 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/30/2020 2:58 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>> Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>

Well put, Glenn. One of my favorite T-shirts has a picture of a runner
treed by a dog, with the caption, "Running is a natural high."
Not the kind of high one associates with drugs, but a feeling of
accomplishment that it's hard to mimic.


By the way, did you notice that both our X-FeedAbuse lines are identical?
Ron O and jillery also have the same, in some of their posts.

In particular, they end in the same number string: 78.192.65.63
That looks like the kind of number that is uniquely associated with
a single computer.

It shouldn't be hard for a computer-savvy person to find out information
about that computer.

Then perhaps we could get down to the bottom of what this is all about.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

You can't seem to help yourself so why ask?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 14:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>By the way, did you notice that both our X-FeedAbuse lines are identical?
>Ron O and jillery also have the same, in some of their posts.
>
>In particular, they end in the same number string: 78.192.65.63
>That looks like the kind of number that is uniquely associated with
>a single computer.
>
>It shouldn't be hard for a computer-savvy person to find out information
>about that computer.
>
>Then perhaps we could get down to the bottom of what this is all about.

I'm glad to see you took my advice, and examined post headers for
yourself. So you know that what I wrote is true, that some posts have
that line and some don't, and it's not dependent on the poster.

The rational thing to do next is to contact Google support and ask
what they have to say about it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Been a while since I did this sort of thing

https://whois.domaintools.com/78.192.65.63

“IP Location France France Paris Proxad/free Sas
ASN France AS12322 PROXAD, FR (registered Mar 11, 1999)
Resolve Host mil75-1-78-192-65-63.fbxo.proxad.net
Whois Server whois.ripe.net
IP Address 78.192.65.63
Reverse IP 1 website uses this address.”

[Glenn]

Can you tell me what bothers you?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

In this concluding reply, I am almost done with the earlier foolishness
of Ron O, but the best comes with the bilge he posted this time around.

> >> ID perps were mostly old earth creationists, and they were willing to let
> >> the YEC rubes lie to themselves in order to get their support for their
> >> political objectives.

You've got that backwards. It is the "rubes" who tolerate ID experts
like Behe (who believes in common descent), because ID is useful for THEIR political objectives.

> >> It was never an honest effort and the fact that
> >> rubes like yourself understand that you never wanted them to do any ID
> >> science and can still go back to them for second rate denial stupidity
> >> at this time should wake you up, but what does it do instead?
> >>
> > Do you feel better now?
> >
>
> Are you less in denial?

What evidence do you have for Glenn being in denial about anything?

You never had any evidence when you used that line on me,
nor when you used verbal abuse like the following :

> Why keep lying to yourself? What good has
> lying to yourself done in decades?

"What good has beating your wife done in decades?"

> You started on TO as just a plain
> vanilla creationist.

OEC, YEC, or creationist-sensu-Ron-O? [Meaning: one who believes in a creator.]

When I re-joined talk.origins in 2010 after having been away since mid-2001,
you CLAIMED to be a "plain vanilla creatonist-sensu-Ron-O" but clung adamantly
to total secrecy about what kind of "creator" you believed in.

So, as usual, you are equivocating here.

> You found out that you could not support those
> notions in the real world,

Correction: in the hotbed of verbal abuse known as talk.origins.

> and you became an IDiot

Did Glenn now? I haven't seen much in the way of support of ID
from him, but mostly the sort of thing I mostly do: correct little waves
from the vast ocean of mis-and-disinformation about ID in
the real world that lap at the feet of people here in t.o.,
posted by rubes/perps like yourself.

> after the bait and
> switch started to go down and absolutely no one was ever getting the
> promised ID science.

Correction: ENOUGH of the ID scientific theory to compete IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. See another use of those capitalized words in my first reply.

> Just name a single group of rubes that ever got
> the ID science from the ID perps when they needed it

They got some from Behe and Minnich at Dover, but those
ID perps [NOT rubes] were too bent on violating the free speech
rights of teachers. You are their mirror image, trying to
violate the free speech rights of ID-believing teachers by
misrepresenting a statement of those rights as "bait"
in a "bait and switch scam."

> since you became an
> IDiot. Zero should tell you something, but what do you do instead?

I don't think Beetle Bailey's friend would want to tell Glenn anything. ;-)

> The Top Six is something that you can't deal with, and the ID perps
> never retracted them,

It is you who can't deal with them, not even on the thread that
I *expressly* set up to challenge you and the other anti-ID
regulars in talk.origins.

NONE of you wants to either deal with the Top Six, or to come up with
even ONE pro-evolutionary-theory argument to top any of the Top Six.

Yet you and John Harshman are two of most competent people to
meet such a challenge. And both of you posted several times
to that thread.


What does that tell you about the caliber of ID opponents in t.o.?

> but you see them going back to them one at a time
> at their creationist news site where you get most of your bogus
> information. Why go back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you
> can't face the best that they have to give you?

Mainly because no anti-ID regular can face it.

How sad is that?


And I haven't even started on the second rate junk Bill Rogers
feeds MarkE when Mark tells him about the third of the Top Six.

> What kind of IDiot does that make you?
>
> Ron Okimoto

Look in the mirror when you say that, O dearly beloved of Oxyaena
and jillery and Hemidactylus.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[RonO]

You call the truth verbal abuse, and what do you do with all of your
lies? Projection is a way of life for you. There is pretty much no
doubt that Glenn is mentally incompetent. What isn't known is how bad
off he actually is. What is known at this time is that he is mentally
incompetent enough to run from the Top Six, but still go back to the ID
perps for second rate junk.

>
>
>>>> to be preyed upon by people that you likely understand that you cannot
>>>> trust for reliable information, let alone people that you should let
>>>> influence your religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> The ID scam is a political scam that the creationists are running on
>>>> themselves. Haven't you ever read and understood the ID perp's original
>>>> mission statement?
>
> Stop pretending not to know how Phillip you-know-who admitted that "the
> science isn't there" for that idiotic few-year timetable in the mission
> statement for ID to be competitive IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS [1] with the current
> materialistic theory [2] of evolution.
>
> [1] The capitalized words are there because you keep leaving them out when
> interpreting a change of strategy in 2002 as "a bait and switch scam."[3]
>
> [2] I'm talking about a theory that has had more than a century and a half to
> accumulate scientific evidence for itself. And yet it is almost exclusively
> a theory of microevolution.
>
> [3] When you changed your strategy about calling yourself a creationist on t.o.,
> [to be described in my next reply] did that mean that you were guilty of
> a bait and switch scam?

Glenn likes to put up this teach ID propaganda piece, and unfortunately
for you he claims that the ID perps claim to have the ID science to
teach in the public schools in that propaganda piece. The ID perps
updated it after they put out the Top Six in Nov 2017, but it still has
the old Education policy claiming that they have a scientific theory of
ID to teach in the public schools in it.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

They are still putting up ID as the bait, and they keep running the bait
and switch on any rube that believes them and tries to teach the junk in
the public schools. The date (2018) of the update is in the link
address. So the bait and switch is still going down.

The old education policy is now on page 15.

The quote that you keep lying about is on page 6

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

The link to the original mission statement of the ID perps:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http:/discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Just more for Nyikos to lie about.

>
>
>>>> The ID perps were willing to use the rube's
>>>> religious beliefs to further their political goals. They never had any
>>>> intention of doing any science,
>
> Are you sure you aren't committing libel against them?

Have they ever attempted to do any ID science? What do the Top Six tell
you about what they ended up doing?

>
> Oh, wait, you never did give us any names of people who were on your
> list of "ID perps" did you? So nobody could sue you because you
> might be talking about the empty set, eh?

I routinely name them when I talk about specific ones. Just keep lying
to yourself.

>
>>>> and when they had to put up or shut up
>
> When was that? If you say Ohio 2002, where is your documentation
> that they ever promised "the Ohio rubes" to be regaling them
> on the advances in ID science? That would HAVE to be the "bait"
> whose existence you keep alleging, yet all anyone gets from
> you is a webpage of the DI which says teachers have a constitutional
> right to teach ID in the public schools.

Why do you insist on lying about this junk after all these years. You
were first wrong about the ID perps participating in the Ohio bait and
switch, and all your subsequent lies have been due to running from being
wrong about something that stupid.

It was the first instance where their teach ID scam was publicly put
forward by a bunch of creationist rubes on the Ohio State school board.
What did the ID perps do instead of putting up or shutting up. The bait
and switch has been going down since March 2002. No IDiot rube has ever
gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools. All any IDiot has
ever gotten is a switch scam that the ID perps themselves claim has
nothing to do with intelligent design. No matter what they still claim
in their teach ID propaganda pamphlet that has been the reality for all
IDiots since 2002. The last bait and switch happened to the Utah rubes
as the ID perps were putting up their Top Six in 2017. Around a year
later the ID perps were complaining that the Utah rubes dropped the
issue instead of bending over for the switch scam. There hasn't been
another IDiot group that stupid since, but the ID perps did update the
teach ID propaganda pamphlet in 2018 so my guess is that there will be
another group stupid and dishonest enough to try again.

>
> My "Scottish verdict" thread was designed to get you to produce the
> bait you keep alleging, but all you did was to run your own
> bait and switch scam about the alleged "bait."

You started lying about the quote that I put up earlier in this post
because you had to run from being such a disgusting and dishonest poster
in another thread. Who ended up being the dirty debater? Who
manipulated my post so that it looked like I wrote something that I
never wrote? I didn't even know what you were talking about. When I
did figure it out, what happened? Running and putting up another
misdirection thread was your response, and one of your lies in the dirty
debating thread was your claim that you did not run misdirection ploys.
How sad was that whole episode? Why would you even want to bring it
back up. Really, you started the scottish verdict thread the day after
I confronted you with the bogus thing that you had done. I even worded
my claim in such a way as for you to be able to admit that you may have
inadvertantly manipulated my post because you routinely make such
changes without attribution, but you ran and misdirected the argument.

>
> Yet you have some insane notion that I lost the debate just because I stopped
> replying to your torrents of verbal abuse that had nothing to
> do with evidence of "bait".

Read the quote. The ID perps are claiming to have a scientific theory
that a teacher can teach in the public schools. No one but you could
deny that. Here is the quote again.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

The whole original propaganda pamphlet was about how wrong the Dover
decision was in claiming that ID could not be taught in the public
schools, and it still mostly is just that. About the only thing that
they may have done is put in more switch scam language.

>
>
>>>> the kept the political scam going by running the bait and switch on the
>>>> creationist rubes.
>
>>>> Even someone as lost as yourself should understand that by now.
>
> It is you who are lost, but Glenn no longer sees the point in
> trying to let you know that.

What point do you have to continue to lie about junk that you were wrong
about for the last decade? There is no doubt that the ID perps ran the
teach ID scam. It was their major emphasis before Ohio. It continued
to be the wedge that they thought that they could use to push their
political agenda. Their current teach ID propaganda pamphlet just tells
anyone that they are still claiming to be able to teach ID in the public
schools even though that isn't going to happen unless the bait and
switch fails like it failed in Dover.

>
> For one thing, he'd be feeding a troll who is more abusive than Kleinman
> was, with his childish name calling that a competent 6-year old
> would laugh off with "sticks and stones can break my bones,
> but words can never hurt me."

Poor Nikos maybe I should put up your threats in that last series of
your posts where I finally gave up on you. Projection is just a way of
life for you, so you likely think that your threats could have been
warded off by a competent 6 year old. The threats were lame and stupid.
Why would the ID perps bother about someone like me, so what good
would reporting me to them do you? What could they possibly do about
the truth? You are that lame and pathetic and a lying asshole.

Why don't you get the ID perps to tell you what their propaganda
pamphlet is about? They updated it in 2018 so they ought to be able to
explain it to you. Glenn even says hat they claim to have the ID
science in that pamphlet. Do you remember that fiasco?

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 12:19:59 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
> >conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
> >to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.
>
>
> Nobody conned DIG into banning Kleinman.

Crybaby Ron O, applying gross double standards, whether he realizes it
or not, did indeed con DIG.

DIG "woke up from a deep slumber" to a thread where just about everyone
was telling Ron O to just ignore Kleinman's childish but not malicious insults.
Somehow Ron O's whining got through to him anyway.

> Nobody, not even Bill Jefferys, claimed jillery ticked them off.

It was obvious from his reaction that he was annoyed by your persistent
behavior. And even after he voiced his annoyance, you kept at him.
He let you have the last word, just as so many have had to do so,
because you just keep going like the Energizer Bunny.

> NOTA has anything to do with anything related to this topic, this
> thread, or anything anybody said in it.

Neither does your childish abuse about 'knappies in a knot', 'spew ejaculated
from puckered sphincter,' etc. embellished with "If you don't want to be
criticized for spew ejaculated from your puckered sphincter, stop
ejaculating spew from your puckered sphincter. Not sure how even you
haven't figured that out."

I doubt that Ron O has seen even 5% of your prodigious output of such
abuse. He seems to be under the delusion that there is something
superlative about Kleinman's persistent needling of him.

> There were several posters who replied to "that post" of yours.

Thanks for tipping me off. I haven't looked at that thread for
some time, thanks to the torrents of totally insane/dishonest
abuse to which I have been subjected on other threads since that post was
made, including malicious rewritings of talk.origins history to cast
aspersions on me. [Details on request.]

> That you brag about not reading my posts

Illegitimate use of plural noted. It was one post on a scientific
matter from someone who told me long ago that she doesn't want
to discuss any science with me.

> only shows you're proud of
> not knowing what you're talking about.

Dream on, turkey. A glance at what you wrote was enough to see that
you were an incompetent pinch-hitter for Bill Jefferys, who hasn't returned
there yet. But now that you've assured me that others have chimed
in after you, I'll take a look before the week is out.

> That you post your obfuscating noise above shows your lack of interest
> in advancing the discussion.

See above about your announcement years ago, complete with a diabolically
misleading comment to "justify" it.

> IMO my comments above meet the Mr. Rogers safety test,

Bill Rogers will almost surely approve of them, granted. As for the
more famous Mr. Rogers, his whole character was something that is
alien to The World According to Jillery.

> and qualify as
> a substantive response, certainly more than enough to substantively
> respond to the obfuscating noise they refute.

You are entitled to these delusional opinions of yours.

>The mileage of other posters may vary.

You are sure to get a lot of mileage from about a dozen people I could
name, and very few of the people whose mileage is different would
be courageous enough to risk being on The List of Those Who Crossed Jillery Seriously.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/2/2020 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > ATTN Glenn: I'm going to a lot of trouble here to correct a lot of
> > garbage Ron O is spouting below [and not even all of it, just some
> > really salient points]. If Ron O runs true to form, he will start
> > out with a shower of verbal abuse and tell me that I "need" to reply
> > to some old post he dredges up before he will deal with anything
> > I wrote here.

ATTN: Glenn: it seems that Ron O has fully recovered from his state of shock
and panic when I did more than three consecutive replies to him last year.
He had convinced himself that there was a "rule of three" which he
libelously called three lying posts.

He had to be comforted by quite a crew on that occasion, most memorably
Erik Simpson, who claimed to find me "boring" and claimed to hardly
pay any attention to me any more. [Well, Erik has sure found out in the
last few weeks how wrong he had been about that.]

Ron O was so discombobulated that for months he completely avoided me,
even fleeing from a thread that he had started on fine tuning when I showed up.

Now Ron O has returned to his pernnial pack of lies that he calls "the truth"
and attacks me for truthful statements that he calls "lies."

But this time he has added you, Glenn, to the mix. And I deal with that
part today, because my duties here don't allow me to feed Ron O's troll
performances for an extended period of time. Besides, I'm really curious
to see how Ron O deals with my concluding reply to his preceding post,
where he at least managed to sound sane.

I continue to address you below, Glenn, because in his present state
of mind, Ron O is incapable of grasping almost anything I say.

> > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 7/1/2020 4:57 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 2:44:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/1/2020 12:20 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:09:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/1/2020 8:59 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 3:54:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2020 1:08 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2020 2:58 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just when atheists think they know how the cell works, along comes some fools who are still looking for answers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Once overlooked as genetic junk"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "In other words, can genetic material be transferred to us from the food we eat? It’s too early to tell what roles dietary RNA play, but what a concept to think that food might be doing more than providing nutrients; it might also be adding genetic information about how to use those nutrients!"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/in-new-research-rna-takes-center-stage/
> >

In the jargon of John Harshman, Ron O has hijacked this thread, as I pointed
out in the following comment:

> > <snip what is mostly a tirade by Ron O that has nothing to do with whether
> > the answer to "can genetic material be transferred to us...?" is Yes or No>

> >>>> Disappointed that there are rubes as mentally incompetent as you are
> >
> > Verbal abuse of Glenn noted.
>
> You call the truth verbal abuse,

He calls you, Glenn mentally incompetent, and fails to give a smidgin of credible support for that highly derogatory claim. I call that verbal abuse.

> and what do you do with all of your
> lies? Projection is a way of life for you.

Ron O is libeling me here, complete with projecting onto me HIS way of life.

> There is pretty much no
> doubt that Glenn is mentally incompetent.

Note how Ron O even lets go of the context of ID in calling you mentally

incompetent.


> What isn't known is how bad
> off he actually is. What is known at this time is that he is mentally
> incompetent enough to run from the Top Six, but still go back to the ID
> perps for second rate junk.

Ron O has repeated this derogatory allegation several times in the
past month to me and NEVER tried to support it with either
documentation or reasoning. Like I said, I count such behavior verbal abuse.

> >>>> to be preyed upon by people that you likely understand that you cannot
> >>>> trust for reliable information, let alone people that you should let
> >>>> influence your religious beliefs.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ID scam is a political scam that the creationists are running on
> >>>> themselves. Haven't you ever read and understood the ID perp's original
> >>>> mission statement?
> >
> > Stop pretending not to know how Phillip you-know-who admitted that "the
> > science isn't there" for that idiotic few-year timetable in the mission
> > statement for ID to be competitive IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS [1] with the current
> > materialistic theory [2] of evolution.
> >
> > [1] The capitalized words are there because you keep leaving them out when
> > interpreting a change of strategy in 2002 as "a bait and switch scam."[3]
> >
> > [2] I'm talking about a theory that has had more than a century and a half to
> > accumulate scientific evidence for itself. And yet it is almost exclusively
> > a theory of microevolution.
> >
> > [3] When you changed your strategy about calling yourself a creationist on t.o.,
> > [to be described in my next reply] did that mean that you were guilty of
> > a bait and switch scam?
>
> Glenn likes to put up this teach ID propaganda piece, and unfortunately
> for you he claims that the ID perps claim to have the ID science to
> teach in the public schools in that propaganda piece.

Ron O labels it a propaganda piece, but never gives evidence for this
derogatory claim. He does not dare to actually quote from the pamphlet
to support his allegation that they claim to have the ID science to
teach in the public schools, nor does he support the allegation that you
have claimed that the "ID perps" have made that claim.

How sad is that?

Ron O simply has no aptitude for thinking like a scientist when
"hypothesizing" about people he dislikes.


Ron O doesn't seem to have added anything new below to what he
wrote about you, Glenn, but I'll tell you something that nobody but
he and myself know about. And wild horses couldn't drag it out of him,
so it is up to me to tell you about it.

> The ID perps
> updated it after they put out the Top Six in Nov 2017, but it still has
> the old Education policy claiming that they have a scientific theory of
> ID to teach in the public schools in it.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf
>
> They are still putting up ID as the bait, and they keep running the bait
> and switch on any rube that believes them and tries to teach the junk in
> the public schools.

For around nine years now, Ron O has waved his hands over the quote below,
as though it proved what he said about the dangling of bait:

The date (2018) of the update is in the link
> address. So the bait and switch is still going down.
>
> The old education policy is now on page 15.
>
> The quote that you keep lying about is on page 6

Ron O doesn't dare to identify any alleged lies by myself. It is he
who has been lying about the quote below for at least eight years now.
Not even Robert Camp supported Ron O in his lie when he commented
on the lack of evidence for "bait". And

NOBODY has supported Ron O's claim that the quote below is evidence of "bait".
Not even his dear friends jillery, Oxaena, and Hemidactylus.

>
> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
> should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
> wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
> academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE:
>
> The link to the original mission statement of the ID perps:
> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http:/discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
>
> Just more for Nyikos to lie about.

All bluff and no evidence. And libelous verbal abuse.


'nuff said for now.


Peter Nyikos

PS if I were to snip anything of Ron O's ranting below, he would
accuse me of "running away". But for the last half decade at least,
he has convinced himself that he is NOT running away when he leaves
hundreds of lines in and shows no awareness of what they contain.

[erik simpson]

https://www.ip-adress.com/ip-address/ipv4/78.192.65.63

Ain't google wonderful?

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 12:19:59 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
>> >conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
>> >to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.
>>
>>
>> Nobody conned DIG into banning Kleinman.
>
>Crybaby Ron O, applying gross double standards, whether he realizes it
>or not, did indeed con DIG.
>
>DIG "woke up from a deep slumber" to a thread where just about everyone
>was telling Ron O to just ignore Kleinman's childish but not malicious insults.
>Somehow Ron O's whining got through to him anyway.

You endow Ron O with extraordinary powers, that he could so easily con
DIG as you say. Or you endow DIG with a weakness of character that
belies his contributions to T.O.

Since Ron O has expressed similar objections about you, and for far
longer, it's odd that he has not yet succeeded in conning DIG to ban
your persona. But you don't let facts get in the way of your
comforting delusions.

>> Nobody, not even Bill Jefferys, claimed jillery ticked them off.
>
>It was obvious

That's just other words for "I'm too stupid/lazy/dishonest to actually
make my case".

>from his reaction that he was annoyed by your persistent
>behavior. And even after he voiced his annoyance, you kept at him.
>He let you have the last word, just as so many have had to do so,
>because you just keep going like the Energizer Bunny.

You rely on me not following you down that rabbit hole to not show how
the above is more of your obfuscating lies. But even if AOTA is true,
which you don't even try to back up, NOTA has anything to do with

anything related to this topic, this thread, or anything anybody said
in it.


>> NOTA has anything to do with anything related to this topic, this
>> thread, or anything anybody said in it.
>
>Neither does your childish abuse about 'knappies in a knot', 'spew ejaculated
>from puckered sphincter,' etc. embellished with "If you don't want to be
>criticized for spew ejaculated from your puckered sphincter, stop
>ejaculating spew from your puckered sphincter. Not sure how even you
>haven't figured that out."

And none of *that* has anything to do with your previous complaints
which have nothing to do with this topic, this thread, or anything
anybody said in it. Your just pile more of your obfuscating lies on
top of lies.

But since you mention it, my alleged "childish abuse" has everything
to do with your perpetual lies, obfuscating noise, and spamming
personal attacks. And since you have been posting these things since
your return in 2010, that you label me the "energizer bunny" merely
shows your remarkable chutzpah at piling your lies upon lies to back
up your lies.

>I doubt that Ron O has seen even 5% of your prodigious output of such
>abuse. He seems to be under the delusion that there is something
>superlative about Kleinman's persistent needling of him.

Non-sequitur. Your alleged doubts have nothing to do with Ron O's
alleged delusions.

>> There were several posters who replied to "that post" of yours.
>
>Thanks for tipping me off. I haven't looked at that thread for
>some time, thanks to the torrents of totally insane/dishonest
>abuse to which I have been subjected on other threads since that post was
>made, including malicious rewritings of talk.origins history to cast
>aspersions on me. [Details on request.]

Based on your past posts, I have no doubt you will spam torrents of
totally insane/dishonest lies about that thread, without any requests
at all.

>> That you brag about not reading my posts
>
>Illegitimate use of plural noted. It was one post on a scientific
>matter from someone who told me long ago that she doesn't want
>to discuss any science with me.

ONCE AGAIN, it is *you* who refuses to discuss any science with me.
Your perpetual lies, obfuscating noise, and spamming personal attacks
don't qualify.

And since you admit you didn't read my post, you can't know if it was
on "a scientific matter". Which makes that claim just another one of
your lies.

And your admission isn't the first time you claimed to not read my
posts.

>> only shows you're proud of
>> not knowing what you're talking about.
>
>Dream on, turkey. A glance at what you wrote was enough to see that
>you were an incompetent pinch-hitter for Bill Jefferys, who hasn't returned
>there yet. But now that you've assured me that others have chimed
>in after you, I'll take a look before the week is out.

For someone who has repeatedly claimed to have no time to reply to
others' posts, it's remarkable how often you find the time to
resurrect old threads long after the participants have forgotten the
issues.

>> That you post your obfuscating noise above shows your lack of interest
>> in advancing the discussion.
>
>See above about your announcement years ago, complete with a diabolically
>misleading comment to "justify" it.

See above about your commitment to spamming your perpetual lies,
obfuscating noise, and spamming personal attacks.

>> IMO my comments above meet the Mr. Rogers safety test,
>
>Bill Rogers will almost surely approve of them, granted.

Wrong Mr. Rogers.

>As for the
>more famous Mr. Rogers, his whole character was something that is
>alien to The World According to Jillery.

So you disagree my post doesn't pass the Mr. Rogers test. Is anybody
surprised.

>> and qualify as
>> a substantive response, certainly more than enough to substantively
>> respond to the obfuscating noise they refute.
>
>You are entitled to these delusional opinions of yours.

You are not entitled to pretending your delusions are facts.

>>The mileage of other posters may vary.
>
>You are sure to get a lot of mileage from about a dozen people I could
>name, and very few of the people whose mileage is different would
>be courageous enough to risk being on The List of Those Who Crossed Jillery Seriously.

That you claim yourself courageous recalls Monty Python's Black
Knight. Do you intend to bleed on me?

And you *still* sound jealous. Poor baby.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Look in the mirror when you say that, O dearly beloved of Oxyaena
>and jillery and Hemidactylus.

Not sure how anybody thinks this advances the discussion.

[jillery]

If only either of them knew which direction was "bottom".

[RonO]

On 7/2/2020 9:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/2/2020 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> ATTN Glenn: I'm going to a lot of trouble here to correct a lot of
>>> garbage Ron O is spouting below [and not even all of it, just some
>>> really salient points]. If Ron O runs true to form, he will start
>>> out with a shower of verbal abuse and tell me that I "need" to reply
>>> to some old post he dredges up before he will deal with anything
>>> I wrote here.
>
> ATTN: Glenn: it seems that Ron O has fully recovered from his state of shock
> and panic when I did more than three consecutive replies to him last year.
> He had convinced himself that there was a "rule of three" which he
> libelously called three lying posts.

More than likely Glenn is trying to recover from your stupidity and your
attempt to drag him into your insanity.

I just gave up on you ever changing, and I was correct. You stopped
your stupid posting to me, so I saw no need to reply to anything. For
whatever insane reason you have you started to lie about the past again,
so you get what you get. You are the lying asshole that you have always
been.

>
> He had to be comforted by quite a crew on that occasion, most memorably
> Erik Simpson, who claimed to find me "boring" and claimed to hardly
> pay any attention to me any more. [Well, Erik has sure found out in the
> last few weeks how wrong he had been about that.]

Why bad mouth everyone else on TO when you should be correcting your own
bogus junk? I keep telling you that you should address your issues with
these posters to those posters, but you never get it. Remember when you
accused me of running from a post that you had posted to someone else?
What about your dirty debating thread, where you claimed that I had to
address the thread, and after I addressed the first two posts that you
started the bogus thread with, you ran. You came back to me and claimed
that I had to address your lies to Bill in that thread. You lied to
bill about never running misdirection ploys, and that you did not snip
and run. I just had to put up multiple posts where you had done both,
and you started lying about me lying about you snipping and running. It
ended up that you had manipulated one of my posts, and you kept linking
back to the manipulation instead of what I had originally posted. What
happened when that became clear as to what you were doing in that
thread. You started the scottish verdict thread as a misdirection ploy
the next day.

If you have a beef with me you should not lie about it to some other
poster. What happens when your lies are exposed?

If you have a beef with some other poster take it up with them and they
can put you in your place. I have no interest in your beefs with other
posters.

>
> Ron O was so discombobulated that for months he completely avoided me,
> even fleeing from a thread that he had started on fine tuning when I showed up.

I was enjoying a brief respite from your assoholic behavior and the rest
of TO had to suffer your existence.

It was no different than the month or two that you would go between
running bouts without posting to me. You had some weird notion that if
you didn't address what you were running from in some bogus fashion that
you were actually running. You were actually running. Coming back with
the same nonsense after a couple months was just your bogus assoholic
behavior.

>
> Now Ron O has returned to his pernnial pack of lies that he calls "the truth"
> and attacks me for truthful statements that he calls "lies."

Demonstrate that what I have called lies are the truth. Go for it.

Reread what I posted and your replies and you will see that you lie
about my legitimacy for calling Glenn mentally incompetent, and one of
the reasons is that I never state why that is the case. When you get to
what you are lying and it is obvious why Glenn is mentally incompetent,
what do you do?

Such bogus assoholic behaviour is just what you do. Why keep lying when
the lies do not add up in the end?

Anyone that reads the pamphlet will know that it is a propaganda piece
designed to give the ID perps bogus version of why they did not lose in
Dover, and to keep selling the rubes the teach ID scam. That is what
bogus propaganda literature is supposed to do. Lie to the public about
something to further the ID perp's political views.

>
> How sad is that?

How sad is your lying about reality?

>
> Ron O simply has no aptitude for thinking like a scientist when
> "hypothesizing" about people he dislikes.

Projection is a way of life for Nyikos. The ID perps lost big in Dover.
ID was found to be no science worth teaching in the public schools.
In the initial version of the pamphlet they had the claim that ID was
still legal to teach in public schools other than Dover, because the
ruling only applied to that case, but legally the ruling applies to that
federal district. These guys understood that they lost, but since no
IDiots could appeal the case it did not go to the higher courts where it
would have been found to be as baseless as it still is. Just get Glenn
to deal with the ID perp's Top Six.

>
>
> Ron O doesn't seem to have added anything new below to what he
> wrote about you, Glenn, but I'll tell you something that nobody but
> he and myself know about. And wild horses couldn't drag it out of him,
> so it is up to me to tell you about it.

If Glenn as some mental spark left he is likely cringing.

>
>> The ID perps
>> updated it after they put out the Top Six in Nov 2017, but it still has
>> the old Education policy claiming that they have a scientific theory of
>> ID to teach in the public schools in it.
>>
>> https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf
>>
>> They are still putting up ID as the bait, and they keep running the bait
>> and switch on any rube that believes them and tries to teach the junk in
>> the public schools.
>
> For around nine years now, Ron O has waved his hands over the quote below,
> as though it proved what he said about the dangling of bait:
>
>
> The date (2018) of the update is in the link
>> address. So the bait and switch is still going down.
>>
>> The old education policy is now on page 15.
>>
>> The quote that you keep lying about is on page 6
>
> Ron O doesn't dare to identify any alleged lies by myself. It is he
> who has been lying about the quote below for at least eight years now.
> Not even Robert Camp supported Ron O in his lie when he commented
> on the lack of evidence for "bait". And

What is sad is that Nyikos mentioned the scottish verdict thread
himself, and he claims that I do not identify his alleged lies.

The Camp claim may be when Nyikos quote mined Camp in order to claim
that he did not support my notion of the bait and switch. How sad can
Nyikos get. He can go back and support his claims, but he won't because
the quote mine would embarrass anyone with a brain.

>
> NOBODY has supported Ron O's claim that the quote below is evidence of "bait".
> Not even his dear friends jillery, Oxaena, and Hemidactylus.

The bait and switch is still going down. No one has to support me.
What happened to the Utah rubes who wanted to teach the science of ID
when the ID perps were putting up their Top Six? No one with a
functional brain cannot observe that the ID perps are still running the
teach ID scam with their current propaganda pamphlet. They did not even
update their old education policy in it. There is no way that anyone
can read that pamphlet and not understand that the ID perps are still
claiming that they can still teach the ID science in the public schools
after the Dover ruling against doing such. What happens to any group of
IDiot rubes that tries to teach the junk in the public schools? All
they ever get from the ID perps is the switch scam that the ID perps
claim has nothing to do with IDiocy.

>
>
>
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
>> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
>> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
>> should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
>> wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
>> academic freedom to do so.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> The link to the original mission statement of the ID perps:
>> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http:/discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
>>
>> Just more for Nyikos to lie about.
>
> All bluff and no evidence. And libelous verbal abuse.

Why keep lying about something so stupid?

Nyikos likely has to lie about this quote because he broke one of his
stupid rules about doing something bogus and dishonest. For some reason
Nyikos can only do something that he knows is bogus and dishonest 2
times. If he does it three times that is bad, and from then on what he
did cannot have been bogus and dishonest. Nyikos has to lie about those
things forever after. Really, before Nyikos started the scottish
verdict thread he snipped and lied about the quote 3 times. After the
third time he realized his mistake and tried to put the quote back in,
and it was ridiculous. He has been lying about the quote above since.

The ID perps are talking about public schools because that is right in
the quote. They claim that ID has not been banned from the public
schools. They claim that IDiocy is a legitimate scientific theory.
They claim that a teacher can discuss it in their classroom, and Nyikos
has lie about even that. He claims that the teacher isn't teaching when
they discuss some science topic in the classroom.

That is how bad the lies are that Nyikos has to keep going.

>
>
> 'nuff said for now.

Just keep running. You should have never started lying about this junk
again.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS if I were to snip anything of Ron O's ranting below, he would
> accuse me of "running away". But for the last half decade at least,
> he has convinced himself that he is NOT running away when he leaves
> hundreds of lines in and shows no awareness of what they contain.

Snipping and lying is what you did with the scottish verdict quote.
Your claim after snipping it out and running from it was "not in the
public schools, and not in a form ready to teach". You had to snip out
the quote above in order to tell that lie. You did it once too many
times, and you have had to lie about it since then.

That is just what kind of lying asshole you are.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/2/2020 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>
>
> In this concluding reply, I am almost done with the earlier foolishness
> of Ron O, but the best comes with the bilge he posted this time around.
>
>>>> ID perps were mostly old earth creationists, and they were willing to let
>>>> the YEC rubes lie to themselves in order to get their support for their
>>>> political objectives.
>
> You've got that backwards. It is the "rubes" who tolerate ID experts
> like Behe (who believes in common descent), because ID is useful for THEIR political objectives.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Why do you think that the ID perps
foster the "Big Tent" bogus approach. It is so they can get the YEC
IDiots to support their efforts and give them money.

>
>>>> It was never an honest effort and the fact that
>>>> rubes like yourself understand that you never wanted them to do any ID
>>>> science and can still go back to them for second rate denial stupidity
>>>> at this time should wake you up, but what does it do instead?
>>>>
>>> Do you feel better now?
>>>
>>
>> Are you less in denial?
>
> What evidence do you have for Glenn being in denial about anything?

Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six. That
should be easy for you because all you have to tell him is that you
haven't dealt with the Top Six even when you have posted to those threads.

>
> You never had any evidence when you used that line on me,
> nor when you used verbal abuse like the following :

What are you in denial about the Scottish Verdict quote? What more
evidence to I need than the quote and your bogus response to it?

>
>> Why keep lying to yourself? What good has
>> lying to yourself done in decades?
>
> "What good has beating your wife done in decades?"

Hopefully, you don't do that but projection is a way of life for you.

>
>
>> You started on TO as just a plain
>> vanilla creationist.
>
>
> OEC, YEC, or creationist-sensu-Ron-O? [Meaning: one who believes in a creator.]
>
> When I re-joined talk.origins in 2010 after having been away since mid-2001,
> you CLAIMED to be a "plain vanilla creatonist-sensu-Ron-O" but clung adamantly
> to total secrecy about what kind of "creator" you believed in.

Nyikos has been lying about this topic since he snipped out all but one
sentence of my statement of my religious beliefs and lied about me not
stating what my religious beliefs were.

I have never hidden my religious beliefs on TO. They just do not matter
to what I post. You can be against stupidity and dishonesty whether you
are religious or not. You can support the science whether you are
religious or not.

Just to demonstrate that I have talked about my religious beliefs on TO
even before Nyikos came back in 2010. There is a post from 2009 that
everyone has access to.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_08.html

QUOTE:
My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since she
teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the basic
theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did not. YEC
interpretations isn't mentioned. As far as I know Methodists have no
official stance on young earth creationism, and it isn't part of the
Sunday school lesson program. It wasn't part of what we learned in
Sunday school when I went decades ago, but for some reason it is one of
the most important parts of the theology of the people responsible for
this museum.
END QUOTE:

Here I talk about it matter-of-factly as part of the topic of the post.

This should end the assoholic behavior regarding my religious beliefs,
but Nyikos is just a lying asshole, and will likely continue to be one.

>
> So, as usual, you are equivocating here.
>
>
>> You found out that you could not support those
>> notions in the real world,
>
> Correction: in the hotbed of verbal abuse known as talk.origins.
>
>
>> and you became an IDiot
>
> Did Glenn now? I haven't seen much in the way of support of ID
> from him, but mostly the sort of thing I mostly do: correct little waves
> from the vast ocean of mis-and-disinformation about ID in
> the real world that lap at the feet of people here in t.o.,
> posted by rubes/perps like yourself.

Glenn was posting when you were still posting at the turn of the
century. Glenn was just a plain vanilla creationists back then. What
is he now? You might remember Glenn as Glenn Sheldon or something else.
Something with eagle in it comes to mind, but it may be another poster.

Find something else to lie about.

>
>
>> after the bait and
>> switch started to go down and absolutely no one was ever getting the
>> promised ID science.
>
> Correction: ENOUGH of the ID scientific theory to compete IN THE PUBLIC
> SCHOOLS. See another use of those capitalized words in my first reply.

Why keep lying about the scottish verdict quote?

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

They updated this propaganda pamphlet in 2018 so what is still happening?

>
>
>> Just name a single group of rubes that ever got
>> the ID science from the ID perps when they needed it
>
> They got some from Behe and Minnich at Dover, but those
> ID perps [NOT rubes] were too bent on violating the free speech
> rights of teachers. You are their mirror image, trying to
> violate the free speech rights of ID-believing teachers by
> misrepresenting a statement of those rights as "bait"
> in a "bait and switch scam."

It was considered to be no science worth calling science. Neither Behe
nor Minnich had bothered to do the testing that they claimed could be
done, and neither has since. Making junk up isn't science.

>
>
>> since you became an
>> IDiot. Zero should tell you something, but what do you do instead?
>
> I don't think Beetle Bailey's friend would want to tell Glenn anything. ;-)

If the IDiot rubes had ever gotten the ID science to teach, why isn't
anyone teaching it?

Why keep lying to yourself about reality. No ID science showed up at
Dover. Phillip Johnson quit the ID scam after Dover and admitted that
the ID science did not exist, and that it was up to the science ID perps
to change that, and it never has been changed.

http://berkeleysciencereview.com/read/spring-2006/
The article starts on page 31.

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are
just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at
all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

>
>
>> The Top Six is something that you can't deal with, and the ID perps
>> never retracted them,
>
> It is you who can't deal with them, not even on the thread that
> I *expressly* set up to challenge you and the other anti-ID
> regulars in talk.origins.

Why can't any IDiots face the Top Six as the Top Six. Your challenge is
meaningless, because that isn't what the IDiots are running from.

Why not address my answer to that thread?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

I have given you this link before and you have just run.

>
> NONE of you wants to either deal with the Top Six, or to come up with
> even ONE pro-evolutionary-theory argument to top any of the Top Six.
>
> Yet you and John Harshman are two of most competent people to
> meet such a challenge. And both of you posted several times
> to that thread.

The science side has what it has, and that is what the IDiots can't deal
with. There is no defense of these gaps needed. It is what is around
the gaps that the IDiots can't deal with. None of the IDiots on TO can
deal with the Top Six. IDiots like Behe and Denton can, but not the
IDiots on TO. They only use the Top Six to perpetuate their denial, and
lie to themselves just long enough to get to the next bit of denial.
Why do you think that MarkE could not put his designer in the OoL gap?
That isn't the designer MarkE wants to believe in. He is only useing th
OoL gap for denial purposes. He is not trying to learn anything about
nature nor build his best IDiot alternative.

>
>
> What does that tell you about the caliber of ID opponents in t.o.?

It tells me that IDiots like you don't have a caliber to compare. In
terms of firearms they do not have negative calibers. Look at the
facts. You do not even understand what you are talking about, and all
you can do is run from understanding the situation. Why haven't you
addressed the link that I gave you again above?

The rest just amplifies on your misunderstanding of the situation.

Address other posters directly. Why be a backstabbing coward?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

>
> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.

Do you like to play cards?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 3:49:59 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 12:19:59 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
> >> >conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
> >> >to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nobody conned DIG into banning Kleinman.
> >
> >Crybaby Ron O, applying gross double standards, whether he realizes it
> >or not, did indeed con DIG.
> >
> >DIG "woke up from a deep slumber" to a thread where just about everyone
> >was telling Ron O to just ignore Kleinman's childish but not malicious insults.
> >Somehow Ron O's whining got through to him anyway.
>
>
> You endow Ron O with extraordinary powers, that he could so easily con
> DIG as you say.

Don't flatter Ron O that way. He's got more than enough delusions without
adding this one to his repertoire.

> Or you endow DIG with a weakness of character that
> belies his contributions to T.O.

Or I endow DIG with being out of touch with the behavior of regulars
like Oxyaena, Simpson, and yourself.

Or I endow DIG with being influenced by his colleague, the anti-ID zealot
Larry Moran, who keeps peddling the snake oil of "ID creationism" on "Sandwalk".

I wonder what percentage of Sandwalk regulars take that to mean that *all* of ID
is just a form of creationism.


Anyway, he may view Ron O the way Abraham Lincoln viewed Ulysses S. Grant
when some of Grant's critics complained, inter alia, that Grant was
drinking to excess and reckless with the lives of his men:

"I can't spare the man. He fights."

> Since Ron O has expressed similar objections about you, and for far
> longer,

In OP's calling attention to Ron O's being "hounded" by me?
If so, I'd love to know about it.

> it's odd that he has not yet succeeded in conning DIG to ban
> your persona.

Nothing odd about your mindless tit-for-tat ("persona") abuse of me.
It's business as usual for the likes of you.


DIG knows me from way back. When I returned to t.o. after nine and a
half years of absence, he did a post within a few days
whose words were "Now, people, be nice to Peter."

Then I made what is, in hindsight, the biggest blunder of all the time
I've ever spent in talk.origins. I told DIG, publicly, that this was
way down on my wish list. At the very top was the wish that went
something like this: that people would not pile on me, taking the
misrepresentations of others to be gospel truth without evidence.

The effect was as if I had pasted a "KICK ME" sign on my back. You
immediately sensed that I was fair game for anyone to try their dirty
debating tactics on me. And you've capitalized on that to the hilt,
starting with superficially innocuous but weird behavior on the same day,
or very soon thereafter.

> But you don't let facts get in the way of your
> comforting delusions.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

Back in those first days of my return, I disengaged myself from you as
gracefully as I could, but that "kick me sign" whetted your appetite for some
real fireworks. I hung back from real hostilities despite provocations from
you: unfortunately for you, I was still engaged in serious hostilities
with fanatics in talk.abortion, and I didn't want a war on multiple fronts.

And so, after a few months, you let down your guard and posted a lie
which was contradicted by something you yourself had said further up the page,
in older text.

When I called you out on that, you gave yourself away for the insincere
propagandist that you are by telling me about the contradiction I "thought"
I had found, but never trying to show that there was no contradiction.


At this point your standard illogical, totalitarian mentality
comeback is "Right here would have been a
good place for you to have .... That you didn't, suggests that you
don't know what you are talking about and are proud of it."

However, knowing how your good buddy Burkhard manages to breeze past
documentation of his having lied as if it weren't there, and how
you work hand in glove with him, I will only promise to provide
documentation if you solemnly state that you will face up to what
you did back then and try to give a logical explanation for that contradiction.

>
>
> >> Nobody, not even Bill Jefferys, claimed jillery ticked them off.
> >
> >It was obvious
>
>
> That's just other words for "I'm too stupid/lazy/dishonest to actually
> make my case".

You should paste those words up on your mirror and look at them
each of the myriads (myriad = ten thousand) of times you've made
provocative claims without backing them up ON THE SPOT.

That is what your illogical, totalitarian-mentality formula, quoted up there,
demands of everyone you've decided to be fair game for your shenanigans, in
a classic "do as I say, not as I do" fashion.

>
> >from his reaction that he was annoyed by your persistent
> >behavior. And even after he voiced his annoyance, you kept at him.
> >He let you have the last word, just as so many have had to do so,
> >because you just keep going like the Energizer Bunny.
>
>
> You rely on me not following you down that rabbit hole to not show how
> the above is more of your obfuscating lies.

Au contraire, I wish everyone in talk.origins would go there, to
see how I am telling the truth while you are bluffing with a "Nothing" hand.

The case is there; I've given more than enough hints for where
anyone can find the evidence.

And that's a lot more than your good buddy Burkhard pretended to expect
of regulars when he talked about sci.bio.paleontology as though
everyone in talk.origins were intimately acquainted with what goes on there.

You leaped to his defense when I demonstrated how idiotic he had been,
and now you are showing just how dishonest he had been to pretend
to take the crap he posted seriously.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to if it looks like you are going
to double down on your dishonesty and hypocrisy here.


Peter Nyikos

PS Do you suppose Burkhard is keeping count of all the "insults" to which
I've subjected you above, while disqualifying your verbal abuse
by taking a "false is true, true is false" Ron O attitude,
"You call the truth [meaning Ron O's "truth", and in this case jillery's "truth"] verbal abuse?"

[RonO]

Hey Nyikos! This should tell you how Glenn has dealt with the Top Six.
Why keep lying about the situation?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Can you address the issue?

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 12:04:59 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.

Ron O keeps running away from challenges to identify the specific
things he keeps making generic statements about. He passes the
buck to his enemies, to verify allegations he makes about other enemies.

To see how crazy this is, just try to imagine me telling John Harshman
to ask one of my other adversaries what he had written about
something that was at odds with what John was writing. John hates it
when I tell him how some buddy of his is doing the very sort
of thing John is berating me for. John is so consistent about this
that over half a decade ago I gave him the nickname, DontWanna HearAboutIt.

> Do you like to play cards?

I'm moderately fond of them, but the best thing about poker is that I have
gotten a lot of mileage out of the concept of "bluffing with a Nothing hand,"
like I did less than an hour after you posted this. In fact, the reply to
jillery where this appears is the very next post that was done to this
thread after yours.


Is that the sort of thing you had in mind when you asked Ron O your question?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/3/2020 11:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
> >
> > Do you like to play cards?
> >
>
> Hey Nyikos!

Don't worry, I saw all of the above, and replied to it appropriately
before I saw what you wrote below. Otherwise it might have distracted
me from the highly appropriate comments I made in reply to Glenn.

> This should tell you how Glenn has dealt with the Top Six.
> Why keep lying about the situation?

Don't project your ways onto me, you pathological liar.

In fact, I challenge you to display even ONE statement that I made
that you think is inconsistent with what Glenn wrote.


If you fail to meet this challenge, I will boycott any direct replies
you make to me for a whole month, starting Monday. That will give
me a freer hand to let *other* people know the truth about the scumbag
whose love of censorship got him to wheedle DIG into banning Alan Kleinman.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I know the direction, no matter how you interpret the word.

In the way that my words were meant, the truth is that I do
not know how to take effective steps in that direction.
IOW, I do not know how to get Google to respond to anything directly,
except for such useless (for me) [1] things as getting them to
remove offending posts.

I don't even know how to get DIG to do announcements to
sci.bio.paleontology when Beagle goes down, [2] to give people
some idea when to expect/hope for it to come back up again.

The last time, it took less than a full day to come back up, IIRC; the preceding
time, it was down for about a week. On that occasion, we regulars of
sci.bio.paleontology turned it into a kind of talk.origins-in-exile,
making a temporary exception to the rule of "no discussion of creationism."
We figured hospitality was more important than sticking to the letter of the law.


[1] I have no desire for people who egregiously misrepresent me
to have their posts taken down. I want historians of the future
to have as complete an idea as possible of what a microcosm
of the big outside world t.o. was while it lasted. The very best
and the very worst are represented here to the extent that a medium
like this makes possible.


[2] I've repeatedly suggested this to DIG on threads where he was
momentarily present, as well as tried to reach him by the two e-mail
addresses I've seen him post under. No response.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

In a way, but more like making fun of Ron's incessant use of "dealt with".
If I even open one of Ron's posts, I just browse quickly thru it, mainly to see what other people say. Ron is years behind on rational behavior. It is obvious to me that he really believes his rants to be informative, accurate, and challenging. Nothing will distract him from that. He's a first class loon.

[RonO]

Just ask Glenn what he is running from. Why keep lying about something
that you do not understand or care to understand?

Asking Glenn would be the sensible thing to do since you obviously do
not want to understand anything that I say about the topic. So just do
that and see what you get. When you get nothing what will that tell you?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Still running from the Top Six. Tell Nyikos why so he can have a clue.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/3/2020 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/3/2020 11:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
>>>
>>> Do you like to play cards?
>>>
>>
>> Hey Nyikos!
>
> Don't worry, I saw all of the above, and replied to it appropriately
> before I saw what you wrote below. Otherwise it might have distracted
> me from the highly appropriate comments I made in reply to Glenn.

Ask Glenn what his problem is. You won't believe me, so try to get
Glenn to tell you why he can't deal with the Top Six. Why keep being an
asshole over something that you obviously do not understand.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/3/2020 2:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 12:04:59 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
> >
> > Ron O keeps running away from challenges to identify the specific
> > things he keeps making generic statements about. He passes the
> > buck to his enemies, to verify allegations he makes about other enemies.

> > To see how crazy this is, just try to imagine me telling John Harshman
> > to ask one of my other adversaries what he had written about
> > something that was at odds with what John was writing. John hates it
> > when I tell him how some buddy of his is doing the very sort
> > of thing John is berating me for. John is so consistent about this
> > that over half a decade ago I gave him the nickname, DontWanna HearAboutIt.
> >
> >
> >> Do you like to play cards?
> >
> > I'm moderately fond of them, but the best thing about poker is that I have
> > gotten a lot of mileage out of the concept of "bluffing with a Nothing hand,"
> > like I did less than an hour after you posted this. In fact, the reply to
> > jillery where this appears is the very next post that was done to this
> > thread after yours.
> >
> >
> > Is that the sort of thing you had in mind when you asked Ron O your question?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
> Just ask Glenn what he is running from.

What part of the following didn't you understand?

> > Ron O keeps running away from challenges to identify the specific
> > things he keeps making generic statements about. He passes the
> > buck to his enemies, to verify allegations he makes about other enemies.

[reposted from above]

> Why keep lying about something
> that you do not understand or care to understand?

Why do you keep violating Jesus's commandment "Do not bear false witness"?
[Luke 18:20]
I never started lying, and if you were a Christian, you would take
the words of Jesus seriously.

Does your Methodist Pastor say Jesus's commandment is null and void?

If you run true to form, you will act as though MY quoting from the Bible
were a dead giveaway that I am not an agnostic. Thereby confirming Glenn's
assessment of you as a "first class loon".

> Asking Glenn would be the sensible thing to do since you obviously do
> not want to understand anything that I say about the topic.

Au contraire, I REALLY WANT to understand the answers to a pair of questions
I kept asking you. And the reason I cannot understand them is that you never
told me the answers.

You had written, about MarkE and Glenn:

they do not want to believe in the god that fills the Top Six gaps.

and I responded:

What makes you think that? That "god" is just a modernized version
of the God of Genesis 1, and you think Glenn and MarkE are creationists
who believe in that God, don't you?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Q_wb3DaBAwAJ
Subject: Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e8efe78f-42e9-46e6...@googlegroups.com>

You fled from the thread after I posted the above, but I kept asking
you those questions on another thread, but you kept ignoring the questions
and got more and more aggressive about other issues.

Admit it, Ron O: you have been AFRAID to repeat your accusation about what
Glenn is afraid to face, because you know that these questions of mine
are hovering in the background.

> So just do
> that and see what you get. When you get nothing what will that tell you?

I've gotten nothing from YOU.

And I think that tells me that you are an atheist (Hinyana Buddhist,
perhaps?) who never bothered to learn what Christianity is all about,
because you think all normal adults have put away childish ideas about
a creator of our universe, and designer of life on earth; and about
there being a life after death.

[And, even more "childish", a God who expects people to obey His commandments,
as interpreted by Jesus, and who punishes people in the hereafter for evil
things they have done in this life. You know, like relentlessly bearing false
witness against others.]

And so you are afraid that any answer will be a dead giveaway to Glenn
and me that you are ignorant of what it means to be a Christian. Or
even a Jew, since they too share the God of Genesis with Christians.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:29:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/3/2020 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2020 11:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
> >>>
> >>> Do you like to play cards?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hey Nyikos!
> >
> > Don't worry, I saw all of the above, and replied to it appropriately
> > before I saw what you wrote below. Otherwise it might have distracted
> > me from the highly appropriate comments I made in reply to Glenn.
>
> Ask Glenn what his problem is.

I don't think Glenn has any problems with sizing you up. YOU have
a problem with THAT.

> You won't believe me, so try to get
> Glenn to tell you why he can't deal with the Top Six.

That's because you are desperate for him to confirm
your accusation, isn't it?


[Glenn and MarkE] do not want to believe in the god that fills the
Top Six gaps.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/L1SGv5wFAwAJ

You made that up off the top of your head, didn't you?

> Why keep being an
> asshole over something that you obviously do not understand.

Projection is a way of life for you, as here.

This is so obviously true of you that you must have been told
it many times by others. You had to have been stung badly by it,
so you are stupid enough to think I can be stung in the same way
when you mindlessly accuse me of it.


> Ron Okimoto

You were lying about me below, and couldn't bear to meet my
challenge, so you "left it in and ran." You are deranged enough
to think there is an essential moral/ethical difference between that
and "snipping and running."

> >
> >> This should tell you how Glenn has dealt with the Top Six.
> >> Why keep lying about the situation?
> >
> > Don't project your ways onto me, you pathological liar.
> >
> > In fact, I challenge you to display even ONE statement that I made
> > that you think is inconsistent with what Glenn wrote.
> >
> >
> > If you fail to meet this challenge, I will boycott any direct replies
> > you make to me for a whole month, starting Monday. That will give
> > me a freer hand to let *other* people know the truth about the scumbag
> > whose love of censorship got him to wheedle DIG into banning Alan Kleinman.

You have until Monday to meet this challenge.

Don't be deluded: if you talk to OTHERS about me, direct replies
to you by me are fully compatible with this boycott. But I will
probably prefer to reply to THEM if they show any sign of sympathizing
with you or believing any derogatory thing you say about me.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:54:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:29:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> > On 7/3/2020 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> > >> On 7/3/2020 11:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you like to play cards?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hey Nyikos!
> > >
> > > Don't worry, I saw all of the above, and replied to it appropriately
> > > before I saw what you wrote below. Otherwise it might have distracted
> > > me from the highly appropriate comments I made in reply to Glenn.
> >
> > Ask Glenn what his problem is.
>
> I don't think Glenn has any problems with sizing you up. YOU have
> a problem with THAT.
>
>
> > You won't believe me, so try to get
> > Glenn to tell you why he can't deal with the Top Six.
>
> That's because you are desperate for him to confirm
> your accusation, isn't it?

Nah, he only wants and needs any response, so that he can continue his rant.

You're trying to communicate with an irrational person. It doesn't matter what anyone says to him, as we have all seen. You and I have caught him numerous times making false and irrational claims about what we have argued. This has been ongoing for *many* years, Peter. And he, if anything, has gotten worse.

Why do you appear to have any hope of getting through anything to him?

I lost count of all the times I have poked him with a stick with a one liner only to enable him to bother writing hundreds of word rants in response?

And he doesn't seem to get it. In fact, by all accounts, he takes those posts, such as "How does that make you feel" as evidence of his claims.

Get real.

[jillery]

Correct. You were bluffing with a nothing hand. That's why you don't
show your cards.

>Is that the sort of thing you had in mind when you asked Ron O your question?

Not likely.

>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

You continue to assume the problem which has Glenn's and your knickers
in a twist, has something to do with "somebody" trying to "take down"
your posts. This suggests you have no idea which end is up and which
is down. I might also mention your inability to recognize shinola,
but I demur lest you delicate ears ignite.

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT), the persona known as peter
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote...

... so much obfuscating noise that he has utterly obliterated anything
resembling coherent content. With that in mind, here is my post, in
its entirety, which the peter persona went to so much trouble to
obfuscate:

***********************************
<47nqfflgh6jg213hq...@4ax.com>

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jillery, who ticked off Bill Jefferys on the thread where you
>conned DIG into banning Kleinman, was the only person to reply
>to that post, so I haven't bothered to read what was in it.


Nobody conned DIG into banning Kleinman.

Nobody, not even Bill Jefferys, claimed jillery ticked them off.

NOTA has anything to do with anything related to this topic, this
thread, or anything anybody said in it.

There were several posters who replied to "that post" of yours.

That you brag about not reading my posts only shows you're proud of

not knowing what you're talking about.

That you post your obfuscating noise above shows your lack of interest
in advancing the discussion.

IMO my comments above meet the Mr. Rogers safety test, and qualify as

a substantive response, certainly more than enough to substantively

respond to the obfuscating noise they refute. The mileage of other
posters may vary.
************************************

Not sure how anybody considers the following as advancing the
discussion, which I leave uncommented and unaltered for documentation
purposes only.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 8:35:00 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/2/2020 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >
> > In this concluding reply, I am almost done with the earlier foolishness
> > of Ron O, but the best comes with the bilge he posted this time around.
> >
> >>>> ID perps were mostly old earth creationists, and they were willing to let
> >>>> the YEC rubes lie to themselves in order to get their support for their
> >>>> political objectives.
> >
> > You've got that backwards. It is the "rubes" who tolerate ID experts
> > like Behe (who believes in common descent), because ID is useful for THEIR political objectives.
>
> Does this make sense to anyone else? Why do you think that the ID perps
> foster the "Big Tent" bogus approach. It is so they can get the YEC
> IDiots to support their efforts and give them money.

Money and political aims are two different things, you blinking idiot.

> >
> >>>> It was never an honest effort and the fact that
> >>>> rubes like yourself understand that you never wanted them to do any ID
> >>>> science and can still go back to them for second rate denial stupidity
> >>>> at this time should wake you up, but what does it do instead?
> >>>>
> >>> Do you feel better now?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you less in denial?
> >
> > What evidence do you have for Glenn being in denial about anything?

Your reply makes it clear that you have NONE, and are desperate
for Glenn to confirm your deranged fantasies about him:

> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six. That
> should be easy for you because all you have to tell him is that you
> haven't dealt with the Top Six even when you have posted to those threads.

You are so conceited, you think Glenn is somehow obliged to answer
YOUR challenges even though you don't dare to deal with the
questions I asked you at the end of the following post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Q_wb3DaBAwAJ

> >
> > You never had any evidence when you used that line on me,
> > nor when you used verbal abuse like the following :
>
> What are you in denial about the Scottish Verdict quote?

It is YOU who are in denial about how a statement
of Constitutional rights is NOT a statement about promising
to provide teachers with ID science of such magnitude that
they can successfully convince public school students of the truth of ID.

That quote was what passed for BAIT in your deranged mind.

> What more
> evidence to I need than the quote and your bogus response to it?

It is your response that is bogus. All through the Scottish verdict
thread, you kept up a steady stream of verbal personal abuse while
not even attempting to argue that the quote really
constitutes BAIT. Instead, you kept providing torrents of information
about the "teach to the weaknesses of neo-Darwinst theory"
which you claimed to be the SWITCH, not the BAIT.

And so,YOU were guilty of a bait and switch scam. And you
ran the scam on the talk.origins readership just so you would have the sweet
satisfaction of showering me with verbal abuse.

> >
> >> Why keep lying to yourself? What good has
> >> lying to yourself done in decades?
> >
> > "What good has beating your wife done in decades?"
>
> Hopefully, you don't do that but projection is a way of life for you.

Are you pretending never to have gotten the point of what the famous saying,
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is meant to illustrate?

In case you are stupid enough NOT to be pretending, the point
is that there are dishonest questions that cannot be answered
either "Yes" or "No" without a person incriminating himself.

And you love those kinds of questions so much, I do believe you
have asked them thousands of times in talk.origins of people
you have demonized to yourself.

And the two questions you asked me about the
"Scottish quote" above belong to the same dishonest genre.

> >
> >
> >> You started on TO as just a plain
> >> vanilla creationist.
> >
> >
> > OEC, YEC, or creationist-sensu-Ron-O? [Meaning: one who believes in a creator.]
> >
> > When I re-joined talk.origins in 2010 after having been away since mid-2001,
> > you CLAIMED to be a "plain vanilla creatonist-sensu-Ron-O" but clung adamantly
> > to total secrecy about what kind of "creator" you believed in.

That was also said about you by people who had witnessed your behavior
for some time.

> Nyikos has been lying about this topic since he snipped out all but one
> sentence of my statement of my religious beliefs and lied about me not
> stating what my religious beliefs were.

IIRC you wrote that you think your beliefs are more or less those of your
Methodist congreation (or branch of the Methodist church, I forget which).

Of course, that is no answer at all, because a lot of what you think is wrong.

And you never did spell out what you believe
that "creator" created or designed, did you?

> I have never hidden my religious beliefs on TO. They just do not matter
> to what I post.

And so you don't "hide" them, you just don't bother to spell them out.
Got it.

> You can be against stupidity and dishonesty whether you
> are religious or not. You can support the science whether you are
> religious or not.
>
> Just to demonstrate that I have talked about my religious beliefs on TO
> even before Nyikos came back in 2010. There is a post from 2009 that
> everyone has access to.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_08.html
>
> QUOTE:
> My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since she
> teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the basic
> theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did not. YEC
> interpretations isn't mentioned. As far as I know Methodists have no
> official stance on young earth creationism, and it isn't part of the
> Sunday school lesson program. It wasn't part of what we learned in
> Sunday school when I went decades ago, but for some reason it is one of
> the most important parts of the theology of the people responsible for
> this museum.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Here I talk about it matter-of-factly as part of the topic of the post.

The above says NOTHING about YOUR religious beliefs, beyond your not
being a YEC. [Well, du-u-u-u-h!]

> This should end the assoholic behavior regarding my religious beliefs,
> but Nyikos is just a lying asshole, and will likely continue to be one.

Any time anyone claims you are a normal adult, I will show
them this stupefyingly irrational comment of yours.



Remainder deleted, to be replied to later. A month or more from now,
if you fail to meet my challenge and wallow in the lie you told
about me earlier today.

And in case you play dumb about what that challenge is,
you can find it at the end of this post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/EBIabxugDAo/KhTbMf0HAwAJ


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Damn, yet another knee-slapper!

>has something to do with "somebody" trying to "take down"
> your posts. This suggests you have no idea which end is up and which
> is down. I might also mention your inability to recognize shinola,
> but I demur lest you delicate ears ignite.
>

Nah, considering possible reasons of an unknown phenomenon does that make a paranoid person. Claims of abuse and censorship abound in today's internet world, and not all without merit.

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

uh huh... you are, of course, but not others.

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 20:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Not sure how anybody thinks your one-liners advance the discussion.

>>has something to do with "somebody" trying to "take down"
>> your posts. This suggests you have no idea which end is up and which
>> is down. I might also mention your inability to recognize shinola,
>> but I demur lest you delicate ears ignite.
>>
>Nah, considering possible reasons of an unknown phenomenon does that make a paranoid person. Claims of abuse and censorship abound in today's internet world, and not all without merit.
>
>> You're entitled to your own opinions.
>> You're not entitled to your own facts.
>
>uh huh... you are, of course, but not others.

You have the same problem as your strange bedfellow about not
understanding the plural "you".

--

[Glenn]

Double damn! And yet another knee-slapper let loose upon the world!

jillery's knickers seem to be eternally in a twist.

>
>
> >>has something to do with "somebody" trying to "take down"
> >> your posts. This suggests you have no idea which end is up and which
> >> is down. I might also mention your inability to recognize shinola,
> >> but I demur lest you delicate ears ignite.
> >>
> >Nah, considering possible reasons of an unknown phenomenon does that make a paranoid person. Claims of abuse and censorship abound in today's internet world, and not all without merit.
> >
> >> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> >> You're not entitled to your own facts.
> >
> >uh huh... you are, of course, but not others.
>
>
> You have the same problem as your strange bedfellow about not
> understanding the plural "you".
>

Sorry, I'm not a "plural". Do your "strange" bedfellows get their knickers in a twist for you?

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You can stop competing with Kleinman. He's gone and your career as
village idiot is secure.

--

[RonO]

I have given you the link twice to the explanation, and you have run
from it twice. Here it is again, so that you can run again. What kind
of lying asshole are you?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

It contains a link to your bogus initial post on this subject so there
is no doubt what I am talking about. You have just run twice. There is
no excuse for running and lying about the situation.

>
>>> Ron O keeps running away from challenges to identify the specific
>>> things he keeps making generic statements about. He passes the
>>> buck to his enemies, to verify allegations he makes about other enemies.
> [reposted from above]
>
>
>> Why keep lying about something
>> that you do not understand or care to understand?
>
> Why do you keep violating Jesus's commandment "Do not bear false witness"?
> [Luke 18:20]
> I never started lying, and if you were a Christian, you would take
> the words of Jesus seriously.

Why do you keep lying about this junk? You are the guy that thinks that
they can lie to God with Pascal's wager, so what good do Bible verses do
for you? You are the one that bears false witness. Just go back to the
dirty debating thread, and the scottish verdict thread that you started
as a misdirection ploy. Go back to where you snipped and lied about the
scottish verdict quote. "Not in the public schools and not in a form
ready to teach", was your lie. That is bearing false witness.
Projection is just a way of life for you.

You have been lying about this junk for nearly a decade. There is no
doubt about that, because just look at how you have to run from the
scottish verdict quote in this thread, and you are the one that started
lying about that thread. I just had to put up the quote again to
demonstrate that you had been lying for years.

You are just a pathetic lying asshole. Learn to live with it. Lying
about someone elses religious beliefs is stupid and degenerate. You
know that you snipped out most of what I wrote to lie about the topic
probably within a year of coming back to TO. You have been lying about
that ever since, so just quit. You know that you are the lying asshole.
That will never change.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/3/2020 8:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:29:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/3/2020 2:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2020 11:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you like to play cards?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Nyikos!
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I saw all of the above, and replied to it appropriately
>>> before I saw what you wrote below. Otherwise it might have distracted
>>> me from the highly appropriate comments I made in reply to Glenn.
>>
>> Ask Glenn what his problem is.
>
> I don't think Glenn has any problems with sizing you up. YOU have
> a problem with THAT.

Look at Glenn's response to your post. You will never get Glenn to tell
you what the issue is, and you run from the links that I give you, so
you will be a lying asshole about the subject forever until you stop
running, or get Glenn to tell you what the score is.

>
>
>> You won't believe me, so try to get
>> Glenn to tell you why he can't deal with the Top Six.
>
> That's because you are desperate for him to confirm
> your accusation, isn't it?

Why run from the link that I have given to you twice on the subject?

>
>
> [Glenn and MarkE] do not want to believe in the god that fills the
> Top Six gaps.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/L1SGv5wFAwAJ
>
> You made that up off the top of your head, didn't you?

No. It is an inference from what they do. If I am wrong they would
state why, but they run. MarkE will not put his god in the gap that he
was creating for what other reason? It is consistent with how he treats
all his denial arguments. He never wants to learn anything about
nature. He only wants to deny something for just a moment in time, and
then forget it in order to lie to himself about something else. Really,
you can try to get MarkE to tell you how the OoL gap fits in with the
relgious belief that he is trying to support. It doesn't or he would be
building something instead of wallowing in denial like Glenn.

>
>
>> Why keep being an
>> asshole over something that you obviously do not understand.
>
> Projection is a way of life for you, as here.

Why keep being an asshole about things that you obviously do not
understand and will not try to understand. I gave this link to you
twice before and you just run from it. Why keep lying about this topic
if you are going to do that?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

This link, links to your original post on the subject, and it is the 4th
time that I have put it in a post. You just run. Why keep lying about it?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/3/2020 10:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 8:35:00 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/2/2020 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2020 9:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 4:49:59 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In this concluding reply, I am almost done with the earlier foolishness
>>> of Ron O, but the best comes with the bilge he posted this time around.
>>>
>>>>>> ID perps were mostly old earth creationists, and they were willing to let
>>>>>> the YEC rubes lie to themselves in order to get their support for their
>>>>>> political objectives.
>>>
>>> You've got that backwards. It is the "rubes" who tolerate ID experts
>>> like Behe (who believes in common descent), because ID is useful for THEIR political objectives.
>>
>> Does this make sense to anyone else? Why do you think that the ID perps
>> foster the "Big Tent" bogus approach. It is so they can get the YEC
>> IDiots to support their efforts and give them money.
>
> Money and political aims are two different things, you blinking idiot.

What a lying asshole. They obviously need money to further their
political aims. Some of them are making quite a bit of money on the
side and it likely is one driver for them to continue. Why are they
asking for donation on their ID scam web page?

https://www.discovery.org/id/

Donate is one of the top buttons. Why would you have to lie about
something this stupid?

>
>
>>>
>>>>>> It was never an honest effort and the fact that
>>>>>> rubes like yourself understand that you never wanted them to do any ID
>>>>>> science and can still go back to them for second rate denial stupidity
>>>>>> at this time should wake you up, but what does it do instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you feel better now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you less in denial?
>>>
>>> What evidence do you have for Glenn being in denial about anything?
>
> Your reply makes it clear that you have NONE, and are desperate
> for Glenn to confirm your deranged fantasies about him:

Glenn's response tells you that I was right.

>
>> Hey Glenn! Show Nyikos how you have dealt with the Top Six. That
>> should be easy for you because all you have to tell him is that you
>> haven't dealt with the Top Six even when you have posted to those threads.
>
> You are so conceited, you think Glenn is somehow obliged to answer
> YOUR challenges even though you don't dare to deal with the
> questions I asked you at the end of the following post:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Q_wb3DaBAwAJ

The first time I tried to use this link in another post I got directed
to this tread. I think it was the same link, but now it goes to a June
12 post.

In my post I tell Nyikos to ask Glenn and MarkE about their aversion to
the Top Six, and Nyikos still has not gotten any response out of either
of them. That is just the fact. Nyikos runs from the link that I have
given him multiple times, and he can link to this post where I likely
tell him com cogent advice, that he still has not done anything with
except lie about it.

I have linked to my explanation multiple times in this thread (Nyikos
has run every time from that link because I gave it to him in another
thread and not just in this one), and Nyikos hasn't gotten any feed back
from MarkE and Glenn, so why keep lying about this situation?

If you will not try to understand what I tell you, you will have to get
Glenn and MarkE to tell you what the issue is. This is that simple.

>
>>>
>>> You never had any evidence when you used that line on me,
>>> nor when you used verbal abuse like the following :
>>
>> What are you in denial about the Scottish Verdict quote?
>
>
> It is YOU who are in denial about how a statement
> of Constitutional rights is NOT a statement about promising
> to provide teachers with ID science of such magnitude that
> they can successfully convince public school students of the truth of ID.
>
> That quote was what passed for BAIT in your deranged mind.

Why keep lying about the scottish verdict quote. Your lie was "not in

the public schools and not in a form ready to teach"

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

What kind of lying asshole could read this quote in the context of a
propaganda piece claiming that after the Dover that ID could still be
taught in the public schools.

>
>
>> What more
>> evidence to I need than the quote and your bogus response to it?
>
> It is your response that is bogus. All through the Scottish verdict
> thread, you kept up a steady stream of verbal personal abuse while
> not even attempting to argue that the quote really
> constitutes BAIT. Instead, you kept providing torrents of information
> about the "teach to the weaknesses of neo-Darwinst theory"
> which you claimed to be the SWITCH, not the BAIT.

You ran that thread as a misdirection ploy because you had to run from
the dirty debater that you were in your thread on that topic. What kind
of asshole are you?

>
> And so,YOU were guilty of a bait and switch scam. And you
> ran the scam on the talk.origins readership just so you would have the sweet
> satisfaction of showering me with verbal abuse.

You are just the lying asshole that you have always been. There is no
bait and switch. You ran the misdirection ploy. Go back and
demonstrate that you did not start the Scottish Verdict thread the day
after you had to run from the Dirty Debating thread. That was you, and
that was what you did. Lying about it now is just stupid and assoholic.

>
>>>
>>>> Why keep lying to yourself? What good has
>>>> lying to yourself done in decades?
>>>
>>> "What good has beating your wife done in decades?"
>>
>> Hopefully, you don't do that but projection is a way of life for you.
>
> Are you pretending never to have gotten the point of what the famous saying,
> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is meant to illustrate?

No. I am not making that claim, I am only noting that projection is a
way of life for you, and hopefully it doesn't apply in this situation.

>
> In case you are stupid enough NOT to be pretending, the point
> is that there are dishonest questions that cannot be answered
> either "Yes" or "No" without a person incriminating himself.
>
> And you love those kinds of questions so much, I do believe you
> have asked them thousands of times in talk.origins of people
> you have demonized to yourself.
>
> And the two questions you asked me about the
> "Scottish quote" above belong to the same dishonest genre.

My point is that you are a lying asshole and projection is what you
usually do in cases like this. Remember your second knock down where
you started a sub thread by changing the title and trying to make fun of
me for something that I supposedly had done at some time. I kept asking
you for what you were talking about, and you drew it out for multple
posts like it was going to be some big funny thing that I had done, but
when you finally gave the punch line, it was something that I could not
have done because Google didn't work that way. You started heaping
abuse onto me because you had been such an asshole. For some reason
that became your second knockdown months after it happened. You even
claimed that I was the sadistic one when you were the asshole trying to
make fun of me. Really, you drew it out for multiple posts drooling
over how you were going to roast me, and what happened. Who was the
sadistic asshole in that situation? That is what you are. Projection
is a way of life for you. It is how you deal with the lying asshole
that you are.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You started on TO as just a plain
>>>> vanilla creationist.
>>>
>>>
>>> OEC, YEC, or creationist-sensu-Ron-O? [Meaning: one who believes in a creator.]
>>>
>>> When I re-joined talk.origins in 2010 after having been away since mid-2001,
>>> you CLAIMED to be a "plain vanilla creatonist-sensu-Ron-O" but clung adamantly
>>> to total secrecy about what kind of "creator" you believed in.
>
> That was also said about you by people who had witnessed your behavior
> for some time.

My guess is that no one ever thought that I was a plain vanilla
creationist like Glenn. Glenn started out trying to support some of the
basic scientific creationist claptrap. Not so much young earth, but
general creationist nonsense.

>
>> Nyikos has been lying about this topic since he snipped out all but one
>> sentence of my statement of my religious beliefs and lied about me not
>> stating what my religious beliefs were.
>
> IIRC you wrote that you think your beliefs are more or less those of your
> Methodist congreation (or branch of the Methodist church, I forget which).

You sniped out the part about Jesus Christ etc. You can look up what
Methodists believe. I've even explained it more recently, so why beef
about what you have been lying about for nearly a decade? There is no
doubt that you are lying, so just stop.

>
> Of course, that is no answer at all, because a lot of what you think is wrong.
>
> And you never did spell out what you believe
> that "creator" created or designed, did you?

What a lying asshole. Do you even convince yourself? What makes a
person a creationist. It is belief in a creator God. Why lie about
something this stupid? You know my definition because I pulled it out
of a dictionary and presented it multiple times.

>
>
>> I have never hidden my religious beliefs on TO. They just do not matter
>> to what I post.
>
> And so you don't "hide" them, you just don't bother to spell them out.
> Got it.

What an asshole, when something doesn't matter it doesn't matter.

>
>
>> You can be against stupidity and dishonesty whether you
>> are religious or not. You can support the science whether you are
>> religious or not.
>>
>> Just to demonstrate that I have talked about my religious beliefs on TO
>> even before Nyikos came back in 2010. There is a post from 2009 that
>> everyone has access to.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_08.html
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since she
>> teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the basic
>> theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did not. YEC
>> interpretations isn't mentioned. As far as I know Methodists have no
>> official stance on young earth creationism, and it isn't part of the
>> Sunday school lesson program. It wasn't part of what we learned in
>> Sunday school when I went decades ago, but for some reason it is one of
>> the most important parts of the theology of the people responsible for
>> this museum.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Here I talk about it matter-of-factly as part of the topic of the post.
>
> The above says NOTHING about YOUR religious beliefs, beyond your not
> being a YEC. [Well, du-u-u-u-h!]

Only to a lying asshole as yourself. I am just talking matter-of-factly
about my religious beliefs when they are the topic of discussion. Why
lie about something as obvious as that? There is no indication that I
am hiding anything when you read the post.

You are just an lying assoholic that for whatever reason has to lie
about someone elses religious beliefs as projection for your own bogus
and dishonest claims. How does what you are complaining about here
measure up to your own claims about being a church going agnostic, and
your stupid defense of Pascal's wager? Those are bogus religious
beliefs, and you are obviously not being honest about your religious
beliefs. How honest can a church going agnostic who supports Pascal's
wager be? In my instance there is nothing for me to be dishonest about?
Projection is just a way of life for you.

>
>
>> This should end the assoholic behavior regarding my religious beliefs,
>> but Nyikos is just a lying asshole, and will likely continue to be one.
>
> Any time anyone claims you are a normal adult, I will show
> them this stupefyingly irrational comment of yours.

Look above for examples of your assoholic behavior.

Why be an assoholic? You should quit before you get even worse. We
have seen even worse, so you know what I am talking about.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Oh boy, now there's a veiled threat. This is one reason why I have little sympathy for this deluded poster.

[RonO]

What veiled threat? Nyikos has been worse, there is absolutely no doubt
about that. You just have to go to the last thread before he took his
posting break from me.

Put Nyikos out of his misery and tell him why you are running from the
Top Six. Torturing the poor guy like you are doing is sad.

You could set Nyikos straight, but you allow him to keep lying about the
situation. You know that you could help him out, so why can't you do
that? There is absolutely no doubt that you are running from the Top
Six, so just tell him why you can't face the Top Six, but you can still
go back to the ID perps for second rate denial junk.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Since it is Independence Day, this is especially for you, Ron.

"It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion."

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/on-independence-day-remember-thomas-jeffersons-embrace-of-intelligent-design-2/

[RonO]

Why keep running from the Top Six and go back to the ID perps for the
second rate junk that didn't make the Top Six? Really, Glenn this is
second rate junk by the ID perp's own standards. Jefferson was a Diest
and my guess is that he would be like Denton at this time. Denton has
no issue with the Top Six. He doesn't even think that the gaps matter,
and that things unfolded after the Big Bang.

You should tell Nyikos why you have to run from the Top Six so that he
doesn't have to be such a lying loser. You are just torturing the poor
asshole, because he can't stop himself.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Don't you like your asshole?

[RonO]

You two are asshole buddies, so why not tell Nyikos why you have to run
from the Top Six. You are only torturing the guy by not cluing him in.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

So you like to watch?