Banning from talk.origins: Why and Who?

[Peter Nyikos]

As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
slip through from time to time, like on the following
thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
has posted to with intensifying frequency:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E


However, what I am mainly interested in here is the issue of when
DIG actually bans individuals from posting at all. He has long banned
people who surreptitiously post under more than one nym while pretending
to to be separate people. I've also heard tell of him banning someone
for inappropriate crossposting, but haven't seen any details on that.


However, recently, jillery has implied in no uncertain terms that
there are other grounds for DIG banning someone, but these grounds
were not spelled out and no names were given of anyone who had
been banned under them.

So, I ask the general readership [1]: have you seen DIG ever spell out
any other grounds for banning someone? And do you know the identities
of some people who have been banned for reasons other than the above?

[1] This of course includes DIG himself, but whether he responds or
not, some regulars might remember something that slips his mind.

The only time I ever queried DIG directly about this whole issue
was in the following post:

__________________________repost_________________________

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:58:41 AM UTC-4, David Iain Greig wrote:
> D. Spencer Hines <d_spenc...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Pogue Gans is so unimaginative, stupid and torpid that he doesn't even
> > understand that the fascination of Ancestor & Relative-Hunting has NOTHING
> > to do with actual biophysical-biochemical content.

> Holy crap, woodworms.

> Didn't I ban you?

If you did, what were the grounds for it? Are they still valid?

Peter Nyikos
============================= end of post archived
at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/NBQ5cWTCRgQ/LyRUqFl1QyUJ
Subject: Re: Paul Gans As Merovingian King Of Talk.Origins
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <23d1d56d-3cba-452d...@googlegroups.com>

DIG never replied, nor did he participate further on the thread.

Peter Nyikos

[dale]

the original RFC/CFV only limited crossposts to 4 by robo-mod, no other
filtering

DIG used to maintain what was considered the charter of the group, and
the procmail script used for robo-mod, last time I checked the charter
and script weren't where they were before

I have heard DIG say he is willing to give the robo-mod responsibility
up to someone else ...

would be nice to see a monthly, or other, post about the charter and
current procmail script

but once there is moderator of a moderated group you can't even get rid
of a big8 group through ISC without the mod's permission, the moderator
owns the big8 group as long as ISC exists

for instance, sci.physics.particles was dead for as long as I can
remember, still is, someone created sci.physics.particle

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
>amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
>made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
>slip through from time to time, like on the following
>thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
>has posted to with intensifying frequency:
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E
>
>
>However, what I am mainly interested in here is the issue of when
>DIG actually bans individuals from posting at all. He has long banned
>people who surreptitiously post under more than one nym while pretending
>to to be separate people. I've also heard tell of him banning someone
>for inappropriate crossposting, but haven't seen any details on that.
>
>
>However, recently, jillery has implied in no uncertain terms

If I used no uncertain terms, then I didn't imply it, by definition,
but asserted it.

Is there some sort of infectious disease going around which makes
people forget the meanings of words?

http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html

The following is not meant to be comprehensive, but representative of
posts where DIG describes who and what and why he bans. HTH but I
doubt it.

<cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni0pv...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni14...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni1g5...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni153...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni07q...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhuo2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhu7t...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhtr...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhtm3...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhr6o...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnht9r...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnht2a...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnht3...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnht8t...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhrs1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhsp3...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhsb...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhseh...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhs9h...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhr6o...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhqv3...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhqo5...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhpf7...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhnue...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhkc...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhmp2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhndq...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhkno...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhkq...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnhn66...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnho41...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni3v...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni7s...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrni7u...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnic0k...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnicut...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnifjj...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-slrnihp...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-irfa3t$vgm$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-ik2ek7$2jb8$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-ijes94$2tr5$4...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-ijerib$2tr5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-j3k8ta$1inp$3...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-j499sg$163g$2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-j5otdi$mku$2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k2gep8$nvv$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k4i2rs$2u71$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k2gd9a$mro$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k2qh4o$1ans$5...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k3huk3$44s$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k30e5o$2j0d$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k2gf4h$nvv$2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-jv9c47$hu5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-k4ifp7$ic$2...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-kmvupo$2tio$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-kl1rvd$1gtf$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-kfg94t$2sqb$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-kfeanq$2ate$5...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-kbv17q$1a6f$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<cabal-lr9146$24rf$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<dgreig-slrnnvl...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>

<dgreig-slrnnv3...@darwin.ediacara.org>


--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pivpgct6no18sjhu0...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
>>amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
>>made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
>>slip through from time to time, like on the following
>>thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
>>has posted to with intensifying frequency:
>>
>>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E
>>
>>
>>However, what I am mainly interested in here is the issue of when
>>DIG actually bans individuals from posting at all. He has long banned
>>people who surreptitiously post under more than one nym while pretending
>>to to be separate people. I've also heard tell of him banning someone
>>for inappropriate crossposting, but haven't seen any details on that.
>>
>>
>>However, recently, jillery has implied in no uncertain terms
>
>
> If I used no uncertain terms, then I didn't imply it, by definition,
> but asserted it.
>
> Is there some sort of infectious disease going around which makes
> people forget the meanings of words?
>

You'd be the wrong person to ask, apparently. There is no doubt.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Have you ever pondered the meaning and implications of self-censorship?
Could it be a bad thing? As related to impulse control it could
paradoxically result in more freedom to act competently and responsibly.
Instead of blurting whatever comes to mind, self restraint facilitates
deeper reflection and deliberation and perhaps a better course of action.
One cannot ruminate forever of course and under time constraints one is
compelled to make a decision, so the impulse control merely delays an
output, but hopefully the payoff is higher quality. You should try it
sometime.

[jillery]

Right here would have been... actually I know you don't back up your
bald assertions, so nevermind.

If it's merely apparent, there is uncertainty, ie doubt. So you're
one of the infected as well.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:Bv6dnZQqPqcao5DE...@giganews.com...

Chez Watt??

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mpkqgcl86vngdnqlk...@4ax.com...

You've made two bald assertions now.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 16:28:08 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

If there's no doubt it is conclusively demonstrated, not
apparent. But there is doubt, quite a lot of it. And it's
not even apparent.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 05, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<3ac751e5-96cc-4bfe...@googlegroups.com>):

[snip all the nonsense]

And the disgraced, demoted, Peter the Grate, duke of dimness, dumps another
load of his vile ichor... will no-one think of the children and do something
about his foulness? Why, oh, why did you do _that_ to poor Cindy Lou Who? My
God, man (monster, whatever) she was only two!

<exits, talking care to not step in the ichor. That stuff doesn’t just
smell like three-day-old roadkill skunk, it dissolves concrete. And may cause
cancer. It’s certainly rotted out Peter N’s alleged brain.>

[Jonathan]

On 5/5/2017 3:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
> amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
> made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
> slip through from time to time, like on the following
> thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
> has posted to with intensifying frequency:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E
>

This post reminds me of a sign I say posted
on the wall of my condo in the main entrance.

The sign on the wall stated the condo policy
on placing signs on the wall.

I just had to steal it, not sure why, but something
inside me said 'that sign has to go'.



s

[jillery]

FYI "bald assertions" has nothing to do with their coiffure crinosity.
Just sayin'.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gnbugc188hbao5t2b...@4ax.com...

You're just sayin.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pivpgct6no18sjhu0...@4ax.com...

I am unable to open the links from Outlook Express, the only newsreader I
use.
Instead, they open for typing a reply.

No big deal, couldn't care less
.

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 May 2017 20:53:09 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If you use an app that doesn't understand Usenet Message-IDs, you can
sometimes use GG to search for the associated message. I say
sometimes because my experience is that such searches work as often as
not.

The main point of those message-IDs is that over the years, DIG
explicitly identified numerous reasons for banning, and several
instances of acting on them, contrary to rockhead's pointless
skepticism above. There is no good reason why someone who has spent
as much time as he has in T.O. doesn't already know this.

[jillery]

Wow, nothing slips past you.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ndvugcd8c91c4o5la...@4ax.com...

Wow, more bare assertions.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ffvugcpvkpcnd90qp...@4ax.com...

Wow, another bare assertion. I suggest you wipe it.

[jillery]

Wow, more of your pointless posts.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:qeqvgcpjlig1tv3uh...@4ax.com...

More of your pointless posts.

[Peter Nyikos]

When was the last time you tried? It hasn't worked for me for over
two years now. It didn't this time, when I tried your first one:

<cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org>

"No results found" was the result, both with and without the
flanking < >.

> The main point of those message-IDs is that over the years, DIG
> explicitly identified numerous reasons for banning, and several
> instances of acting on them, contrary to rockhead's pointless
> skepticism above.

How typical of you not to quote a word, nor even to give a hint,
as to what the reasons were and who was banned.

> There is no good reason why someone who has spent
> as much time as he has in T.O. doesn't already know this.

The reason is that I only look at a few of the many threads
for weeks on end. In February I confined my attention to just
one thread. There were enough things to deal with just on
that one thread to keep me occupied for many hours each week,
as you know damn well, having argued voluminously with me
for much of that month.

And so, no thanks to you and your tight-lipped ways, I know
no more about reasons for banning or people who were banned,
than I did when I posted the OP. [There was one minor
clarification by dale, but that hardly counts.]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to have said why you
think my posts above are pointless. That you didn't suggests you know
you can't, and are making stuff up just to have something to say, no
matter how stupid it makes you sound.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised?

You must enjoy proving me right, you do it so often.

You're welcome.

Since you asked, I did a successful search just last week, and just
now with the Message-ID you say you can't get to work.

>> The main point of those message-IDs is that over the years, DIG
>> explicitly identified numerous reasons for banning, and several
>> instances of acting on them, contrary to rockhead's pointless
>> skepticism above.
>
>How typical of you not to quote a word, nor even to give a hint,
>as to what the reasons were and who was banned.

There are lots of links. The point is made even without quoted text.

>> There is no good reason why someone who has spent
>> as much time as he has in T.O. doesn't already know this.
>
>The reason is that I only look at a few of the many threads
>for weeks on end. In February I confined my attention to just
>one thread. There were enough things to deal with just on
>that one thread to keep me occupied for many hours each week,
>as you know damn well, having argued voluminously with me
>for much of that month.

You have been posting to T.O. almost continuously since 2010. So even
if what you say above is true, that doesn't excuse you from not
knowing for all those years.

So the above is a tacit admission you have no idea what you're talking
about, and are proud of it. If you stopped ejaculating your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter, you would
have a lot more time to correct that problem.

And this isn't the first time you have asked for links to Usenet
posts, so you can't claim that you didn't know you have that problem.

>And so, no thanks to you and your tight-lipped ways, I know
>no more about reasons for banning or people who were banned,
> than I did when I posted the OP. [There was one minor
>clarification by dale, but that hardly counts.]

It's replies like the above which discourage me from wasting time
discussing anything with you. It's not my fault you don't know what
you're doing. Since you have so much problems with GG, I recommend
you use a real newsreader. SteveT recently moved from GG to a real
newsreader. Perhaps he will help you.

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
> amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
> made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
> slip through from time to time, like on the following
> thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
> has posted to with intensifying frequency:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E
>
>
> However, what I am mainly interested in here is the issue of when
> DIG actually bans individuals from posting at all. He has long banned
> people who surreptitiously post under more than one nym while pretending
> to to be separate people. I've also heard tell of him banning someone
> for inappropriate crossposting, but haven't seen any details on that.
>
>
> However, recently, jillery has implied in no uncertain terms that
> there are other grounds for DIG banning someone, but these grounds
> were not spelled out and no names were given of anyone who had
> been banned under them.
>
> So, I ask the general readership [1]: have you seen DIG ever spell out
> any other grounds for banning someone? And do you know the identities
> of some people who have been banned for reasons other than the above?

Certainly. DIG has been seen to issue specific warnings like
'one more post like that and you are out'.
Nando Ronteltap for example disappeared that way,

Jan

[Burkhard]

And, sadly I still think, Madman - he gave DIG the lip after the first
warning. DIG never claimed to be anything but a benign dictator :o)

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:34:53 AM UTC-4, jillery gave people a
taste of what talk.origins would be like if she and like-minded
people were to dominate it.

It began with her usual deceit-filled [and vulgar, but that's belaboring
the obvious] supplement to the attribution line to me:

Sophomoric logic. "No uncertain terms" simply means that the
way you implied it allowed for no other reasonable interpretation.

You worked the other side of the street [1] on another thread recently
when I pointed out that you had NOT explicitly denied something I had
written, and you said a person would have to be insane not to take
your venomous reaction for a denial.

Documentation on request.

[1] Of course, that was just a piece of polemical opportunism, just
as this one in the opposite direction.

> >> >> Is there some sort of infectious disease going around which makes
> >> >> people forget the meanings of words?

No, but there is a disease of another sort that you are displaying.

NOW look who has "forgotten" the meanings of words:

"proving me right" in this case means
"giving me a chance to prove myself right," -- said "proof"
being an ostentatious display of message IDs while you
remain completely mum about which one shows what.

> You're welcome.

Inane jokes like these lull people into thinking you
are a harmless clown -- but if my experience with kindred
spirits of yours in talk.abortion is any guide, you
are as "harmless" as Batman's nemesis, The Joker.

To give your real life counterpart, you are potentially
as dangerous as James G. Keegan, Jr. who in 1992-1997 looked
like a harmless clown but by 2007 had come to completely
dominate talk.abortion.

>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni0pv...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni14...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni1g5...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni153...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrni07q...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrnhuo2...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <cabal-slrnhu7t...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>

<big snip for the sake of brevity>

> >> >> <dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <dgreig-slrnnvl...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <dgreig-slrnnvj...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> <dgreig-slrnnv3...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I am unable to open the links from Outlook Express, the only newsreader I
> >> >use.
> >> >Instead, they open for typing a reply.
> >> >
> >> >No big deal, couldn't care less
> >>
> >>
> >> If you use an app that doesn't understand Usenet Message-IDs, you can
> >> sometimes use GG to search for the associated message. I say
> >> sometimes because my experience is that such searches work as often as
> >> not.
> >
> >When was the last time you tried? It hasn't worked for me for over
> >two years now. It didn't this time, when I tried your first one:
> >
> ><cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org>
> >
> >"No results found" was the result, both with and without the
> >flanking < >.
>
>
> Since you asked, I did a successful search just last week, and just
> now with the Message-ID you say you can't get to work.

Are you planning to keep technique you used a closely guarded secret?


I used Firefox to get the results I described, pasting the
message ID into the "Search for messages" box. The same box
is found in Google Chrome, and here is a more complete display
of what I got.

Results for cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org in talk.origins Search all groups
Sorted by relevanceSort by date
Results: about 0 for cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org
No results found

Pasting in <cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org> had
the same effect except that the < > were added both places.

>
>
> >> The main point of those message-IDs is that over the years, DIG
> >> explicitly identified numerous reasons for banning, and several
> >> instances of acting on them, contrary to rockhead's pointless
> >> skepticism above.
> >
> >How typical of you not to quote a word, nor even to give a hint,
> >as to what the reasons were and who was banned.
>
>
> There are lots of links.

Displayed above, fat lot of good that does.

> The point is made even without quoted text.

Were t.o. like talk.abortion was like in 2007, half a dozen
people (at least) would act as though this last sentence
were proof beyond a reasonable doubt of everything you've
said about DIG.

As it is, NoSE [No Specific Examples] is going to be a much used
acronym from now on, where you are concerned.

>
> >> There is no good reason why someone who has spent
> >> as much time as he has in T.O. doesn't already know this.
> >
> >The reason is that I only look at a few of the many threads
> >for weeks on end. In February I confined my attention to just
> >one thread. There were enough things to deal with just on
> >that one thread to keep me occupied for many hours each week,
> >as you know damn well, having argued voluminously with me
> >for much of that month.
>
>
> You have been posting to T.O. almost continuously since 2010. So even
> if what you say above is true, that doesn't excuse you from not
> knowing for all those years.

A shameless non sequitur, but gospel truth to a number of people
here already, especially that Useful Idiot Wolffan.

> So the above is a tacit admission you have no idea what you're talking
> about, and are proud of it. If you stopped ejaculating your
> repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter, you would
> have a lot more time to correct that problem.
>
> And this isn't the first time you have asked for links to Usenet
> posts, so you can't claim that you didn't know you have that problem.

I've long known I've had the problem of Google Search coming
up with a goose egg as above. And that is the ONLY problem
that "fits" the hate driven description you spewed just now,
a surrealistic pile of crap to the end.

>
> >And so, no thanks to you and your tight-lipped ways, I know
> >no more about reasons for banning or people who were banned,
> > than I did when I posted the OP. [There was one minor
> >clarification by dale, but that hardly counts.]
>
>
> It's replies like the above which discourage me from wasting time
> discussing anything with you. It's not my fault you don't know what
> you're doing. Since you have so much problems with GG, I recommend
> you use a real newsreader. SteveT recently moved from GG to a real
> newsreader. Perhaps he will help you.

No thanks to you, J. J. Lodder came through and did what you love
not to do: he actually quoted something by DIG and named someone
I've encountered before. I always did wonder what had happened
to Nando Ronteltap.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Many thanks for this information, Jan. You did in a few lines what
jillery took hundreds of lines avoiding altogether.

One question: can you give me some idea of what kind of behavior
provoked DIG to say such things? The more specific you can be,
the better.

By the way, do YOU know how to find posts by message-ID?
Jillery posted a huge number of them [without, of course,
giving any hint as to how she came by them, nor anything like
what you've said]? If so, perhaps you could find out what is
in a half dozen or so of them.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Your sophomoric comments disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged sophomoric logic.

Of course, the actual point is why you even bother to make your
sophomoric comments in the first place. Whether I did as you claim or
not, it isn't relevant to whether DIG has or hasn't banned posters for
other reasons.

>You worked the other side of the street [1] on another thread recently
>when I pointed out that you had NOT explicitly denied something I had
>written, and you said a person would have to be insane not to take
>your venomous reaction for a denial.
>
>Documentation on request.

Of course, NOT explicitly denying something is NOT the other side of
the street.

And any documentation you provide is almost certainly NOT
documentation, but instead is merely more of your irrelevant spew you
ejaculate from your puckered sphincter.

>[1] Of course, that was just a piece of polemical opportunism, just
>as this one in the opposite direction.

It's good to see you recognize your own flaws. That's the first step
to dealing with them. Now take the next step.

>> >> >> Is there some sort of infectious disease going around which makes
>> >> >> people forget the meanings of words?
>
>No, but there is a disease of another sort that you are displaying.

So what's your excuse this time for not knowing what "implied" means?

Once again you blame me for your inability to correctly use the tools
you have been playing with for years. Grow up.

>> You're welcome.
>
>Inane jokes like these lull people into thinking you
>are a harmless clown -- but if my experience with kindred
>spirits of yours in talk.abortion is any guide, you
>are as "harmless" as Batman's nemesis, The Joker.

It's no joke that you so willingly and so often prove me right.

>To give your real life counterpart, you are potentially
>as dangerous as James G. Keegan, Jr. who in 1992-1997 looked
>like a harmless clown but by 2007 had come to completely
>dominate talk.abortion.

Your comments about talk.abortion are completely irrelevant to this
topic, this newsgroup, and anything anybody said in them. One can
only wonder why someone who presents himself as intelligent can't
figure that out.

><big snip for the sake of brevity>

Since you have zero interest in these links, you might as well have
deleted them all.

>> >> >I am unable to open the links from Outlook Express, the only newsreader I
>> >> >use.
>> >> >Instead, they open for typing a reply.
>> >> >
>> >> >No big deal, couldn't care less
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you use an app that doesn't understand Usenet Message-IDs, you can
>> >> sometimes use GG to search for the associated message. I say
>> >> sometimes because my experience is that such searches work as often as
>> >> not.
>> >
>> >When was the last time you tried? It hasn't worked for me for over
>> >two years now. It didn't this time, when I tried your first one:
>> >
>> ><cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>> >
>> >"No results found" was the result, both with and without the
>> >flanking < >.
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, I did a successful search just last week, and just
>> now with the Message-ID you say you can't get to work.
>
>Are you planning to keep technique you used a closely guarded secret?

It's not a closely-guarded secret. Google documents said technique.
It's almost certain I'm not the only one who knows how to do it. Why
do I have to wipe your ass for you?

>I used Firefox to get the results I described, pasting the
>message ID into the "Search for messages" box. The same box
>is found in Google Chrome, and here is a more complete display
>of what I got.
>
>Results for cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org in talk.origins Search all groups
>Sorted by relevanceSort by date
>Results: about 0 for cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org
>No results found
>
>Pasting in <cabal-slrni2io...@darwin.ediacara.org> had
>the same effect except that the < > were added both places.

RTFM. I did. Why can't you?

>> >> The main point of those message-IDs is that over the years, DIG
>> >> explicitly identified numerous reasons for banning, and several
>> >> instances of acting on them, contrary to rockhead's pointless
>> >> skepticism above.
>> >
>> >How typical of you not to quote a word, nor even to give a hint,
>> >as to what the reasons were and who was banned.
>>
>>
>> There are lots of links.
>
>Displayed above, fat lot of good that does.

Of course, for people who know what they're doing, it's exactly what
they would need, which is why I posted them.

>> The point is made even without quoted text.
>
>Were t.o. like talk.abortion was like in 2007, half a dozen
>people (at least) would act as though this last sentence
>were proof beyond a reasonable doubt of everything you've
>said about DIG.

Since you doubt my word, prove me wrong. Oh, wait... you don't know
how. And somehow that's my fault. Is anybody surprised?

>As it is, NoSE [No Specific Examples] is going to be a much used
>acronym from now on, where you are concerned.

I'm used to your lies and name-calling. Another one makes no
difference.

>> >> There is no good reason why someone who has spent
>> >> as much time as he has in T.O. doesn't already know this.
>> >
>> >The reason is that I only look at a few of the many threads
>> >for weeks on end. In February I confined my attention to just
>> >one thread. There were enough things to deal with just on
>> >that one thread to keep me occupied for many hours each week,
>> >as you know damn well, having argued voluminously with me
>> >for much of that month.
>>
>>
>> You have been posting to T.O. almost continuously since 2010. So even
>> if what you say above is true, that doesn't excuse you from not
>> knowing for all those years.
>
>A shameless non sequitur, but gospel truth to a number of people
>here already, especially that Useful Idiot Wolffan.

If my comment above is a non sequitur, shameless or otherwise, then so
is your pathetic excuse you posted above.

>> So the above is a tacit admission you have no idea what you're talking
>> about, and are proud of it. If you stopped ejaculating your
>> repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter, you would
>> have a lot more time to correct that problem.
>>
>> And this isn't the first time you have asked for links to Usenet
>> posts, so you can't claim that you didn't know you have that problem.
>
>I've long known I've had the problem of Google Search coming
>up with a goose egg as above. And that is the ONLY problem
>that "fits" the hate driven description you spewed just now,
>a surrealistic pile of crap to the end.

Your hate-driven surrealistic crap disqualifies you from complaining
about my alleged hat-driven surrealistic crap. Tu quoque back atcha,
bozo.

>> >And so, no thanks to you and your tight-lipped ways, I know
>> >no more about reasons for banning or people who were banned,
>> > than I did when I posted the OP. [There was one minor
>> >clarification by dale, but that hardly counts.]
>>
>>
>> It's replies like the above which discourage me from wasting time
>> discussing anything with you. It's not my fault you don't know what
>> you're doing. Since you have so much problems with GG, I recommend
>> you use a real newsreader. SteveT recently moved from GG to a real
>> newsreader. Perhaps he will help you.
>
>No thanks to you, J. J. Lodder came through and did what you love
>not to do: he actually quoted something by DIG and named someone
>I've encountered before. I always did wonder what had happened
>to Nando Ronteltap.

Of course, Lodder paraphrased, and documented nothing. For all you
know, he made it up. But you make up undocumented assertions all the
time, so it's no surprise you think what he posted is meaningful. Be
sure to give your strange bedfellow an especially sloppy kiss for his
hard work.

[jillery]

Instead of whining and trying to get others to do what you should be
able to do yourself, why don't you do a search on "DIG and ban" or
similar. IOW grow up.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>

[snip]

>>
>> Documentation on request.
>
>
> Of course, NOT explicitly denying something is NOT the other side of
> the street.
>
> And any documentation you provide is almost certainly NOT
> documentation, but instead is merely more of your irrelevant spew you
> ejaculate from your puckered sphincter.
>

You might want to check the turntable. The record seems to be skipping.

>
>> [1] Of course, that was just a piece of polemical opportunism, just
>> as this one in the opposite direction.
>
>
> It's good to see you recognize your own flaws. That's the first step
> to dealing with them. Now take the next step.
>

I'm going to take a moment to savor the irony here.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:JYGdneFKn6ArSYjE...@giganews.com...

I've been doing that for a few years now.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 10:36:49 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Me too. A difference between me and the two of you is I back up my
claims.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 10:28:54 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> continues to ape his strange bedfellow's
trolling:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> Documentation on request.
>>
>>
>> Of course, NOT explicitly denying something is NOT the other side of
>> the street.

You conveniently ignored the above. Is anybody surprised?

>> And any documentation you provide is almost certainly NOT
>> documentation, but instead is merely more of your irrelevant spew you
>> ejaculate from your puckered sphincter.
>>
>You might want to check the turntable. The record seems to be skipping.

rockhead's repetitive spew from his puckered sphincter needs nothing
more than repetitive replies to document it.

>>> [1] Of course, that was just a piece of polemical opportunism, just
>>> as this one in the opposite direction.
>>
>>
>> It's good to see you recognize your own flaws. That's the first step
>> to dealing with them. Now take the next step.
>>
>I'm going to take a moment to savor the irony here.

Apparently you accepted the job as rockhead's apologist. I suppose
someone has to do it. At least you won't lack for material.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f40chct1vqk3o0dth...@4ax.com...

Back that one up then.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a80chcdet3505nek1...@4ax.com...

I bet you wouldn't.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:55:34 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Right here would have been a good place for you to have said how you
think I could back it up. I can't provide what you assume doesn't
exist.

BTW, when did you back up YOUR claim above, that you've been "savoring
the irony here" for a few years now. FYI it's hard to savor for years
something that existed only awhile ago. Or do you claim
foreknowledge? If so, back that one up, too.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 12:08:51 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

To quote someone whom you hold in high regard, back than one up then.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ff3chchtoso08eorn...@4ax.com...

Right here would have been a good place for you to realize you can't back a claim up, then you can't back a claim up.
I made a personal claim, the evidence is in my testimony. However, you made an implied claim about me, that I don't backup my claims. That requires backing up. If I were you, I'd seriously consider backing up.

>
> BTW, when did you back up YOUR claim above, that you've been "savoring
> the irony here" for a few years now. FYI it's hard to savor for years
> something that existed only awhile ago. Or do you claim
> foreknowledge? If so, back that one up, too.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have said why the two claims are comparable, and why you assumed that I referred to what existed only awhile ago. Or do you claim foreknowledge?

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5h3chcptlnfkrmios...@4ax.com...

Is anyone surprised at seeing this spewed out of Jillery's ass?

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 13:08:36 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Your spewing ass disqualifies you from complaining about Jillery's
alleged spewing ass.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 13:01:45 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

So you have no intention of making yourself clear. Is anybody
surprised?

>I made a personal claim,

The above is a meaningless statement. You didn't just express an
opinion. You asserted without basis that you did a specific behavior
for years about unspecified events, also not in evidence.

>the evidence is in my testimony.

Of course it's not. Your claim of self-evidence only shows you're too
dishonest and/or lazy and/or incompetent to explain what you're
talking about.

>However, you made an implied claim about me, that I don't backup my claims. That requires backing up. If I were you, I'd seriously consider backing up.

Since you didn't back up your claim above, it is sufficient for that
purpose.

>> BTW, when did you back up YOUR claim above, that you've been "savoring
>> the irony here" for a few years now. FYI it's hard to savor for years
>> something that existed only awhile ago. Or do you claim
>> foreknowledge? If so, back that one up, too.
>
>Right here would have been a good place for you to have said why the two claims are comparable,

Already done.

>and why you assumed that I referred to what existed only awhile ago. Or do you claim foreknowledge?
>If so, back that one up, too.

Nope. If you didn't refer to what existed only awhile ago, then your
comment is an unresponsive non sequitur, and can be rightfully
dismissed for that reason.

Apparently you enjoy shooting off your mouth and your foot at the same
time.

[Oxyaena]

It's physically and mentally impossible for a 70 year old mathematics
professor who evidently hasn't mentally matured past the toddler stage
of development to "gorw up". If he hasn't matured by the age of 70, then
there's no hope for him. He's a lost cause.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -
Theodosius Doubzhansky

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he
would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the
New, he would be insane."
—Robert G. Ingersoll

"If Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress?" -
Mark Twain

"Sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal." - Alexander
the Great

"Diplomacy, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country." - Ambrose
Burns

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 9:34:54 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
<snip>

> >
> It's physically and mentally impossible for a 70 year old mathematics
> professor who evidently hasn't mentally matured past the toddler stage
> of development to "gorw up". If he hasn't matured by the age of 70, then
> there's no hope for him. He's a lost cause.
>

Just replace "mathematics professor" with "Real estate developer" and you've summarized current American politics.

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 09:32:09 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>It's physically and mentally impossible for a 70 year old mathematics
>professor who evidently hasn't mentally matured past the toddler stage
>of development to "gorw up". If he hasn't matured by the age of 70, then
>there's no hope for him. He's a lost cause.

You're almost certainly correct. The problem is made worse in that
his irrational immaturity has infected his strange bedfellows. Some
might say that makes him a social disease.

[jillery]

The two actors to whom you allude have much in common.

[Oxyaena]

Funny. Peter and Trump are interchangeable it appears, yet Peter has
delusions of eloquence whilst Trump is an anti-intellectual, but both
are megalomaniacal, paranoid narcissists with delusions of grandeur and
persecution.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -
Theodosius Doubzhansky

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he
would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the
New, he would be insane."
—Robert G. Ingersoll

"If Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress?" -
Mark Twain

"Sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal." - Alexander
the Great

"Diplomacy, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country." - Ambrose

Bierce

[Oxyaena]

The virus, the disease I have taken to calling "Peter Nyikos Mental
Degeneration Syndrome" or "PNMDS" for short, has recently been
increasing in frequency, with several different posters falling victim
to this curious, unexplained illness. The virus seems to have originated
from one 70 year old mathematician from Columbia, South Carolina.
Symptoms of PNMDS, cause unexplained but source of the disease known,
include delusions of grandeur, paranoid sociopathic tendencies,
megalomania, severe narcissism, delusions of persecution et cetera.

There is no known cure at the moment. More research should be taken into
this abomination of a disease, PNDMS.

--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -
Theodosius Doubzhansky

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he
would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the
New, he would be insane."
—Robert G. Ingersoll

"If Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress?" -
Mark Twain

"Sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal." - Alexander
the Great

"Diplomacy, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country." - Ambrose

Bierce

[Oxyaena]

This point rings a little hollow, given you have yet to give any
definitive answers regarding your misguided preference for DP over
abiogenesis, despite years of "discussion" over this.

>
> One question: can you give me some idea of what kind of behavior
> provoked DIG to say such things? The more specific you can be,
> the better.

I`m surprised he hasn't banned you yet, since all you do is spam t.o.
with your paranoid screeds against Jillery, me, and everyone else you
happen to have a feud with.

>
> By the way, do YOU know how to find posts by message-ID?
> Jillery posted a huge number of them [without, of course,
> giving any hint as to how she came by them, nor anything like
> what you've said]? If so, perhaps you could find out what is
> in a half dozen or so of them.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Do it your damn self. Are you just one of those parasitic-types of
people, leeching away from others' hard work while you just sit on your
ass doing nothing, or are you actually capable of doing anything beyond
insulting anyone who passes by?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 21, Oxyaena wrote
(in article <ofsltr$tv7$2...@news.albasani.net>):

> On 5/21/2017 11:14 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 9:34:54 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > It's physically and mentally impossible for a 70 year old mathematics
> > > professor who evidently hasn't mentally matured past the toddler stage
> > > of development to "gorw up". If he hasn't matured by the age of 70, then
> > > there's no hope for him. He's a lost cause.
> > Just replace "mathematics professor" with "Real estate developer" and
> > you've summarized current American politics.
> Funny. Peter and Trump are interchangeable it appears, yet Peter has
> delusions of eloquence whilst Trump is an anti-intellectual, but both
> are megalomaniacal, paranoid narcissists with delusions of grandeur and
> persecution.

hey! the Mango Mussolini is an orangutan. Note the orange hair, small hands,
short attention span. He is, though, at least the spawn of creatures native
to this planet. Peter the Grate is, as it says itself, Not Of This Earth. Its
ancestors came to the Earth on a spacecraft a long time ago. It’s an
illegal alien and should be deported back to whence it came, forthwith!

[David Iain Greig]

On 2017-05-05, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> As the mainstay of the robo-moderator, DIG indirectly "bans" a huge
> amount of spam. Presumably he also deletes spam that somehow
> made it past the robo-moderator. Still, some spam seems to
> slip through from time to time, like on the following
> thread which the spammer, "BIG CC," revived in February and
> has posted to with intensifying frequency:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/GbuOFPIJO8E
>
>
> However, what I am mainly interested in here is the issue of when
> DIG actually bans individuals from posting at all. He has long banned
> people who surreptitiously post under more than one nym while pretending
> to to be separate people. I've also heard tell of him banning someone
> for inappropriate crossposting, but haven't seen any details on that.
>
>
> However, recently, jillery has implied in no uncertain terms that
> there are other grounds for DIG banning someone, but these grounds
> were not spelled out and no names were given of anyone who had
> been banned under them.
>
> So, I ask the general readership [1]: have you seen DIG ever spell out
> any other grounds for banning someone? And do you know the identities
> of some people who have been banned for reasons other than the above?
>

> [1] This of course includes DIG himself, but whether he responds or
> not, some regulars might remember something that slips his mind.
>

Well basically there's nymshifting, spamposting, attempting to evade
a filter, and what I've dubbed the Senatus consulta - "the Moderator shall
ensure that the newsgroup come to no harm".

Ed Conrad's gone for being many of the above, for example. I also basically
banned the entire country of China, and most of India, as to a couple of
orders of magnitude, 100.0% of all mail from those networks is spam.

Oh being clearly mentally ill is also grounds, but that's a judgement call,
really. Thinaxodoofus for example also qualifies. Malignant trolling,
also a judgement call. Spoofing another poster's handle, we had some of
that a couple times.

Basically 'persistantly violating Nettiquette' as in Emily Postnews. Archaic
I suppose, as 'nettiquette' is a dead letter in most of the Internet.

I'm basically letting the group run on autopilot, I'm sorry. People
needing action really have to email me. :(

I keep seeing you on a suggest friend on FB, PN. I met someone who knows
you years ago at a Kurosawa film festival. He said you're actually quite
nice IRL.

--D.

--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum

[jillery]

Thank you for your reply to that post. I hope it satisfies that
poster's pointless skepticism.

WRT netiquette as a standard, it goes without saying a problem with
that is in applying it evenhanded, so as to avoid exacerbating the
very situations one hopes to eliminate.

Finally, it should go without saying charisma is unaffected by many
mental disorders.

[Peter Nyikos]

This belated reply has suddenly become timely. I've had an awful
lot of trouble signing in to Google Groups on the computer I most
often use, and have had to set up two new accounts there just to keep
posting there. Hopefully this time the new account will keep working
even after a reboot; it didn't the first time.

I am posting this from another computer on which the old account
is still usable, so don't be surprised at seeing posts by me from
two different e-mail addresses for the foreseeable future.

Thanks for the comment about FG and Kurosawa -- "Ikiru" is my absolute
favorite movie of all time, with the Russian black and white version
of "Crime and Punishment" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" close runner-ups.
"The Seven Samurai," also by Kurosawa, is high up on the list too.

[But as for the highly over-rated "Citizen Kane," I wouldn't even rank
it in the top 25.]

Continued at the end of this post. [So I'm both top-posting and
bottom-posting here.]

Yes, I am quite a nice person in the big outside world, but then
I only run into scoundrels outside the Internet about once a year.
But scoundrels here in t.o. are, alas, fairly numerous, and some
of them stick to me like leeches in thread after thread.

What you see from me in t.o. follows the old caption that frequently
appeared in the comic strip "The Phantom" in the fifties and
early sixties:

"With roughnecks, the Phantom is rough."
-- old jungle saying

Or as "el cid" put it shortly after I returned to t.o. after almost
a decade of absence and shortly before his death,

If you push Peter, he will push back.

Peter Nyikos

[Jonathan]

Dear Peter.

You have repeatedly dismissed or claimed my posts about
complexity science as nonsense, and without even once
giving any support for your claims.

Like most here, you simply wave your hands and say it's
all hooey, without so much as the courtesy of referring
to what your dismissing, much less why.

So I decided it's time for you to demonstrate your
knowledge of complexity science is sufficient to
criticize my posts, or for that matter whether
you even have a beginner's knowledge.

But you ran away and hid.

I tried to think of the very easiest and most basic question
/I could think of/ concerning complexity science, the one
question any student must know to keep from failing the
class.

Complexity Science is all about complexity.

So, define the term complexity?

That's it, it doesn't get any easier, I suppose I could
ask you to define 'science' instead, but I didn't want
to be demeaning.

I've even given the definition here numerous times and
in numerous ways from very esteemed sources.

AND THIS IS AN OPEN BOOK QUESTION~

This is like asking someone that professes a knowledge
of physics to define F=MA. If they can't the physics
teacher shouldn't even give the student a grade at all
only incomplete, didn't show up.


Define complexity?

If you can't, you aren't qualified for these discussions.

I await your response, or I await your apology for
criticizing others from a position of ignorance.
I have a math degree from a top ten math dept
and you can't fool me with double talk.

And if you do manage to answer correctly, be
prepared for the next natural question the
definition clearly begs.

Do you want to talk math of not?

Are you afraid to mix it up with me on mathematics
'Professor' Nyikos?

Remember, hooey should be exceedingly easy to refute
if it is nonsense.

[John Stockwell]

You don't actually have any science or math in your posts,
so your posts are not even wrong.

[Peter Nyikos]

I didn't need to; Richard Norman kept your feet to the fire,
and you made ridiculous claims in return about how complexity
theory will hold the key to peace in the Middle East, etc.

Richard has been gone for most of the year and it is possible
that he has passed away. Does this possibility make you happy or sad?

> Like most here, you simply wave your hands and say it's
> all hooey,

Complexity theory is NOT hooey. It is your grandiose claims for
it, for your supposed mastery of it, and your unwillingness
to engage Richard about the subject in
more than a superficial way that is hooey.

> without so much as the courtesy of referring
> to what your dismissing, much less why.

You show no courtesy to others; why should we show more
courtesy to you than you deserve?

You are so full of yourself that you claimed you
would not take any mathematician seriously if he
couldn't define "the integral".

You ran away from a reply by me that began addressing this
snobbery by asking you what you meant by "the integral".

The Riemann Integral? The Riemann-Stieltjes Integral?
The Lebesgue Integral? The Lebesgue-Stieltjes Integral?
The Denjoy Integral?

Any Master's degree student who had a decent graduate course
in measure theory would have learned about at least two
of these and wouldn't talk about "The Integral" as though
that were an unambiguous term.

I then lit into you for your insufferable snobbishness,
explaining why of course I wouldn't expect a mathematician
to regurgitate the usual definition of any of these integrals.

> So I decided it's time for you to demonstrate your
> knowledge of complexity science is sufficient to
> criticize my posts, or for that matter whether
> you even have a beginner's knowledge.
>
> But you ran away and hid.

No, it was you who ran away and hid from my reply
to your arrogant reply to Hemidactylus which
began with the words "cha-ching!"

In there, I gave your sophomoric challenge the attention
it deserved.

>
> I tried to think of the very easiest and most basic question
> /I could think of/ concerning complexity science, the one
> question any student must know to keep from failing the
> class.
>
> Complexity Science is all about complexity.
>
> So, define the term complexity?

It's a trick question as I knew from the beginning, and said
so in the reply that your are fleeing from. You know damn well there is no
universal definition of complexity. [Just as there is no universal
definition of "The Integral".]

But I also said that I suspect that in
your know-it-all arrogance, you've arbitrarily decided on one
definition as THE correct one, and so anyone who innocently
gives one answer without pointing out that it is a trick
question, will be summarily dismissed by you as not
worth talking to.

Now go ahead and run away from this post. I wouldn't put
it past you to barge in on a random thread in the future
and do a clone of the post you've done here.

HLVB

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

[Jonathan]

On 10/26/2017 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/23/2017 11:21 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>

>>> Or as "el cid" put it shortly after I returned to t.o. after almost
>>> a decade of absence and shortly before his death,
>>>
>>> If you push Peter, he will push back.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>



>> Dear Peter.
>>
>> You have repeatedly dismissed or claimed my posts about
>> complexity science as nonsense, and without even once
>> giving any support for your claims.





>
> I didn't need to; Richard Norman kept your feet to the fire,

I thought so, you can't define the term complexity.
Wow, and you have the nerve to claim anything
about the science at all.

Norman never managed to grasp the difference between
a non linear equation and non linear behavior.
His knowledge was skin deep at best.

> and you made ridiculous claims in return about how complexity
> theory will hold the key to peace in the Middle East, etc.
>

So, that's your one and only specific refutation?
Are you serious?

Well I replied in that post with this very reputable
cite from Columbia University, care to read it
and see how my claim was correct?

It says complexity science is ideally suited for
dealing with intractable conflicts, which the Middle East
most certainly qualifies, a child could see this.



Big Ideas on Complexity Science & Sustainable Peace

The following is one series of talks from March 2015, curated
and hosted on Columbia campus as part of our Annual
Sustaining Peace Event.


Complexity, Intractability and Social Change

Peter T. Coleman (+ Bio)

Intractable conflicts are those conflicts that persist
over time and space. They draw us in and we seem to
remain trapped in their grip despite efforts of many
to resolve them. Examples are easy to identify – from
national and international conflicts to a longstanding
family feud. In his 10-minute talk, Dr. Peter Coleman
will share a new way of thinking about and engaging in
intractable conflict – through the lens of complexity science
and dynamical systems theory.

Peace is a Pattern: Simple Rules for Sustainable Peace

Glenda Eoyang (+ Bio)

In complex adaptive systems, including human social systems,
patterns emerge when diverse agents follow the same short list
of simple rules. In her talk, Dr. Glenda Eoyang will explore
some of these simple rules and the emergent patterns they create
in both the natural and human worlds. She’ll then explore the
question “How can we use simple rules to see, understand,
and influence patterns for sustainable peace?”
http://ac4.ei.columbia.edu/resources/2015-talk-series-big-ideas-on-complexity-science-and-sustainable-peace/


I can find more cites if the above in insufficient.

> Richard has been gone for most of the year and it is possible
> that he has passed away. Does this possibility make you happy or sad?
>

Sad of course, I have been hoping he'd return.
And sadder still that he never understood the
true simplicity and elegance of nature as
seen through the concepts of complexity and
especially emergence.

That is my only goal here ya know, to spread
these ideas, but the resistance to new ideas
here is astonishing.

Even the Vatican is more accepting and versed
in complexity science than anyone in this ng.
This ng is that far behind.


For instance...

the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Complexity and Analogy in Science: Theoretical,
Methodological and Epistemological Aspects
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/complexity.html

>
>> Like most here, you simply wave your hands and say it's
>> all hooey,
>
> Complexity theory is NOT hooey. It is your grandiose claims for
> it, for your supposed mastery of it, and your unwillingness
> to engage Richard about the subject in
> more than a superficial way that is hooey.
>

I spent hours trying to get through to him, many hours.
His problem was easy to see, he perceived complexity
science concepts as just another set of tools to
add to the existing reductionist objective sciences.

That's not correct, and can you possible grasp what
I'm about to say? It's not a minor point.

Conventional science has been built upon a constructionist
approach, starting with things like the four forces
and genetics and so on as our fundamental concepts
upon which all is built. Upward causation.

Complexity Science does NOT. The fundamental laws of
the universe and nature are being built upon the
OUTPUT SIDE.

The laws of nature are derived from /collective properties/
NOT part properties.

From the concepts of emergence.

As such it's an entirely different world view. As different
as objective from subjective.

He never got that. It's a new form of science, not just
a new science.

>
>> without so much as the courtesy of referring
>> to what your dismissing, much less why.
>
> You show no courtesy to others; why should we show more
> courtesy to you than you deserve?
>

When mindlessly attacked, as you have, I hit back
and taunt you to reply in an educated manner which
you have yet to do, only dodge to cover your
ignorance on this subject.

You don't know how to define complexity, that's fine
there's no shame in that, but pretending you do or
dodging is unworthy of anyone claiming to be
interested or knowledgeable about science.

> You are so full of yourself that you claimed you
> would not take any mathematician seriously if he
> couldn't define "the integral".
>

You misquote me, that's dishonest. I said I wouldn't
take anyone that claims a knowledge of calculus
seriously that doesn't know about the integral.

> You ran away from a reply by me that began addressing this
> snobbery by asking you what you meant by "the integral".
>
> The Riemann Integral? The Riemann-Stieltjes Integral?
> The Lebesgue Integral? The Lebesgue-Stieltjes Integral?
> The Denjoy Integral?
>

That's a dodge, you know what I meant.

> Any Master's degree student who had a decent graduate course
> in measure theory would have learned about at least two
> of these and wouldn't talk about "The Integral" as though
> that were an unambiguous term.
>

It's worst than I thought. Are you really a math professor?
This is about as basic as it get with mathematics yet
you quibble over a simple question.


WOLFRAM MATH WORLD

Integral

An integral is a mathematical object that can be interpreted
as an area or a generalization of area. Integrals, together
with derivatives, are the fundamental objects of calculus.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html


Integral
From Wikipedia,

In mathematics, an integral assigns numbers to functions in a
way that can describe displacement, area, volume, and other
concepts that arise by combining infinitesimal data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral



Was that really that difficult a question?
A high school freshman would know what
I meant by integral.

> I then lit into you for your insufferable snobbishness,
> explaining why of course I wouldn't expect a mathematician
> to regurgitate the usual definition of any of these integrals.
>

Again you deliberately misquote me for a cheap debate win.
I said I wouldn't respect the opinion of say, a physicist
that can't define F-MA?

Would you? Don't dodge, answer the question.

So why should I respect your opinion wrt complexity
science when you can't define complexity???

>
>> So I decided it's time for you to demonstrate your
>> knowledge of complexity science is sufficient to
>> criticize my posts, or for that matter whether
>> you even have a beginner's knowledge.
>>
>> But you ran away and hid.
>
> No, it was you who ran away and hid from my reply
> to your arrogant reply to Hemidactylus which
> began with the words "cha-ching!"
>
> In there, I gave your sophomoric challenge the attention
> it deserved.
>

Yet your inability to answer the question, which anyone
professing knowledge of this science could do in
a dozen words shows it's you that is sophomoric
by dodging and dodging with one excuse after another.

>>
>> I tried to think of the very easiest and most basic question
>> /I could think of/ concerning complexity science, the one
>> question any student must know to keep from failing the
>> class.
>>
>> Complexity Science is all about complexity.
>>
>> So, define the term complexity?
>
> It's a trick question

Not if the underlying concept is understood.

> as I knew from the beginning, and said
> so in the reply that your are fleeing from. You know damn well there is no
> universal definition of complexity. [Just as there is no universal
> definition of "The Integral".]

Did I say universal definition? I'll accept a definition
in terms of any discipline at all. Just trying to see
if you have any idea at all what the words means.

It appears you wouldn't know even where to begin.
This isn't about gotcha, but about discussing
a basic working knowledge of the core concept.

That is lacking in this ng, which is why I harp on it.

>
> But I also said that I suspect that in
> your know-it-all arrogance, you've arbitrarily decided on one
> definition as THE correct one, and so anyone who innocently
> gives one answer without pointing out that it is a trick
> question, will be summarily dismissed by you as not
> worth talking to.
>

I would respect and respond in kind to any genuine attempt
to debate this concept, a concept that happens to be
redefining much of science and the future.

This is not about nit-picking, but about discussing
this concept. But you won't yet still claim my
opinions are all wrong.

As long as you claim my opinions are absurd without
demonstrating even a beginners knowledge of the subject
I'll continue to point that fact out to the group.

It's not fair or honest to dispute opinions from
a position of ignorance.

But if you were to enter into a real discussion over
the topic I'd be happy to stick just to the concepts
and have a nice honest discussion or debate.

All I want to talk about is the concepts. But it seems
no one here does, they just wish to dismiss without
having the first idea what they're talking about.

That's difficult to respect or accept.

> Now go ahead and run away from this post. I wouldn't put
> it past you to barge in on a random thread in the future
> and do a clone of the post you've done here.
>

You're the one dodging, I'm waiting for a response
from you that has anything to do with math or
science, but so far you're replies are empty
of content.

[Jonathan]

On 10/26/2017 5:42 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

>>
>>
>> Dear Peter.
>>
>> You have repeatedly dismissed or claimed my posts about
>> complexity science as nonsense, and without even once
>> giving any support for your claims.
>
> You don't actually have any science or math in your posts,
> so your posts are not even wrong.
>

My opinions are steeped in mathematical concepts
the problem is you don't understand the concepts
so you don't recognize their presence.

For instance, below is a post from yesterday explaining
my definition of God. The opinion is entirely based
on the latest complexity mathematics. I provide
a very detailed cite explaining the concepts my
opinion is based upon at the bottom.

Can you critique this opinion in a serious way.
Thing is, you'd have to have a basic knowledge
of emergence as explained by the cite to
grasp what I'm talking about.

Let me know which statements you disagree with
and why you disagree, anything less wouldn't
be considered adult conversation, much less
educated.

I'll repost it below....




On 10/25/2017 6:56 PM, John Bode wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:40:05 AM UTC-5,
joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I stated in the first sentence of the Dresden topic that I hated to
start the topic but had to because my replies to THAT message were not
posting in the original topic. And I haven't abandoned any other topic,
and too bad, once again, that my critic didn't support any of his
criticisms, which indicates he can't.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Well, the ball' in your court: I'll ask again,Can you show that any
>> christian evolutionist in TO is an atheist?
>>
>
> This is Ray World, where words mean what Ray says they mean. Per
> Ray, all evolutionists of every stripe are atheists *by definition*.
>
> You only *think* you believe in God, but because you accept
> that evolution can be part of God's toolbox, you really don't.
>



He's wrong about that, evolution, and science in general are
entirely compatible with a belief in God.




> In Ray World, it is logically *and* physically impossible to be a
Christian
> *and* to accept even the most pedestrian consequences of evolutionary
> theory (species change over time). Just like an Orthodox Jew can't put
> bacon on a cheeseburger, a Ray Christian cannot put evolution on their
> Christianity. It's treif.
>
> Q. Effing. D.
>




Do you believe in God?
How do you define God?
And why does the belief in God not contradict
science?

Everyone is tossing around all these terms without
clearly defining what they mean, and there's nothing
scientific about that.

I believe the concept of emergence defines God
quite nicely.

The basic definition of emergence is an irreducible
and supervenient downward causal power.

Irreducible means the emergent property can't be
seen in the components, the property remains
'mysterious' from an objective view.

Supervenient means the property canalyzes or
guides the system towards the better or more
adaptive solution.

Downward of course means the system is primarily
driven by larger scales and forces, not determined
by the part properties.

In other words, the universe is driven by top down
or collective properties displaying clearly
'purposeful' activity. As described by the analogy
below...



Systems scientist Peter Corning also says that living systems
cannot be reduced to underlying laws of physics:


Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact
“generate” anything. They serve merely to describe regularities
and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be
very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal
agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not).

But that aside, the game of chess illustrates ... why any laws
or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient.
Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict
“history” – i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed,
you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game.

Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game.
It also includes the players and their unfolding,
moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number
of available options at each choice point. The game of chess
is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained
and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics.

Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also
shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences.
It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an
organized, “purposeful” activity.

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



Collective intelligence, or wisdom, is an ideal example
of an emergent property, and the importance of such
can't be diminished when looking at the evolutionary
path, it's the more important or primary guiding force.

As are emergent properties for any evolving system.

So, one can easily assert that an emergent intelligence, such
as wisdom, or any collective activity, qualifies as
intelligent design. But of course the 'intelligence' doing
the top down designing, or guiding, emerges from within life
not from some strawman wise old man out there waving a
magic wand.


As Emily said so well, cause and effect exists, but
guided by an internal 'heart' or driving force
that comes from within.


"God made no act without a cause
Or heart without an aim
Our inferences are premature
Our premises to blame."



And Einstein agreed


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



The concept of intelligent design,but an internal emergent
property, is winning this debate over deterministic science
in terms of explaining creation and evolution.

One day you'll read this book with an open mind
and for the first time see the true simplicity and
elegance of nature and God.



Emergence Taxonomy
http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf




Jonathan



s

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:35:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2017 11:21 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

You claimed to want to talk math, jonathan. Yet you
reveal below that you only want to talk AROUND math,
not about it.

> > You are so full of yourself that you claimed you
> > would not take any mathematician seriously if he
> > couldn't define "the integral".
> >
>
>
>
> You misquote me, that's dishonest. I said I wouldn't
> take anyone that claims a knowledge of calculus
> seriously that doesn't know about the integral.

I wasn't quoting, and by your own standards you are being
dishonest.

What you wrote was:

Are you comfortable talking to some mathematician
about math who can't define the Integral?

Well I find it as wasteful as talking to someone
about complexity science that can't define complexity.

This was posted on August 31, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-4
on a thread you started with a slanderous OP:
"OT: Pres Trump Declares his Love for the Furher - SIEG HEIL~"

>
>
>
> > You ran away from a reply by me that began addressing this
> > snobbery by asking you what you meant by "the integral".
> >
> > The Riemann Integral? The Riemann-Stieltjes Integral?
> > The Lebesgue Integral? The Lebesgue-Stieltjes Integral?
> > The Denjoy Integral?
> >
>
>
> That's a dodge, you know what I meant.

Liar. I had no idea you meant something that does not
ever qualify as a definition.

Or would you prefer "Lunatic who thinks he can read minds" to "Liar"?

>
> > Any Master's degree student who had a decent graduate course
> > in measure theory would have learned about at least two
> > of these and wouldn't talk about "The Integral" as though
> > that were an unambiguous term.
> >
>
>
> It's worst than I thought. Are you really a math professor?

Of course I am. Do you really have a degree in math?
Might that degree be "High school graduate, with a
course in baby calculus"?

> This is about as basic as it get with mathematics yet
> you quibble over a simple question.
>
>
> WOLFRAM MATH WORLD
>
> Integral
>
> An integral is a mathematical object that can be interpreted
> as an area or a generalization of area. Integrals, together
> with derivatives, are the fundamental objects of calculus.
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html
>
>
> Integral
> From Wikipedia,
>
> In mathematics, an integral assigns numbers to functions in a
> way that can describe displacement, area, volume, and other
> concepts that arise by combining infinitesimal data.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral

Both of these are popularizations that talk around the
concept and do not come anywhere close to defining it.
And you DID say "...define the Integral".

> Was that really that difficult a question?
> A high school freshman would know what
> I meant by integral.

Yeah, he'd know that it is a thingie which uses a tall
skinny S followed by some symbols.

On the other hand, a high school senior taking AP
calculus would smile at how Wofram Math and Wikipedia
had to dumb down the concept to the middle school level.

Did your parents send you to an Ivy League school? If
so, they should sue that university for not educating you
properly.

>
>
>
> > I then lit into you for your insufferable snobbishness,
> > explaining why of course I wouldn't expect a mathematician
> > to regurgitate the usual definition of any of these integrals.
> >
>
>
>
> Again you deliberately misquote me for a cheap debate win.

I am quoting you from August, you dishonest jerk.
Look up that post if you don't believe me.

> I said I wouldn't respect the opinion of say, a physicist
> that can't define F-MA?

Shameless misdirection.

>
> Would you? Don't dodge, answer the question.
>
> So why should I respect your opinion wrt complexity
> science when you can't define complexity???

You'd disqualify any REAL definition as one, by the
looks of it.

> >> So I decided it's time for you to demonstrate your
> >> knowledge of complexity science is sufficient to
> >> criticize my posts, or for that matter whether
> >> you even have a beginner's knowledge.
> >>
> >> But you ran away and hid.
> >
> > No, it was you who ran away and hid from my reply
> > to your arrogant reply to Hemidactylus

Correction: you were replying to a post I made in reply
to Hemidactylus. My memory was confused by my recall of your juvenile
taunt, "I told you, Hemidactylus, he would dodge."
despite it being a reply to me.

which
> > began with the words "cha-ching!"
> >
> > In there, I gave your sophomoric challenge the attention
> > it deserved.

<snip arrogant babble by you>

>
> >>
> >> I tried to think of the very easiest and most basic question
> >> /I could think of/ concerning complexity science, the one
> >> question any student must know to keep from failing the
> >> class.

If you had such incompetent teachers in the university that
they would give a student a failing grade for missing ONE
question, your parents should sue HIM (or HER ) as the case may be.
They might even lose their tenure.

> >> Complexity Science is all about complexity.
> >>
> >> So, define the term complexity?
> >
> > It's a trick question
>
>
>
> Not if the underlying concept is understood.
>
>
>
> > as I knew from the beginning, and said
> > so in the reply that your are fleeing from. You know damn well there is no
> > universal definition of complexity. [Just as there is no universal
> > definition of "The Integral".]
>
>
>
> Did I say universal definition? I'll accept a definition
> in terms of any discipline at all.

You mean "I'll accept a popularization...." REAL definitions are too
cramping for someone who claims to want to talk mathematics
when he really only wants to talk AROUND mathematics.


Remainder deleted. There is only so much insufferable
know-it-all behavior I can stomach at one sitting.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

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

[Jonathan]

On 10/27/2017 9:07 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:35:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/26/2017 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2017 11:21 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>

Funny how you snipped your only attempt at a rebuttal
claiming my opinions are hogwash using my statement
about how these concepts could be used for things like
Middle East peace.

You said that claim proved I'm all wet, yet Columbia Univ
would agree with me.

I'll repost it and expect you to retract your false
claim. If you have a single bit of honesty you'd
admit your criticism was entirely wrong.

You wrote as if this makes all I say hooey.

> and you made ridiculous claims in return about how complexity
> theory will hold the key to peace in the Middle East, etc.
>

> You claimed to want to talk math, jonathan. Yet you
> reveal below that you only want to talk AROUND math,
> not about it.
>

How so, I constantly try to get you to talk about
the core concept of the science you profess to
know all about, yet you find more excuses than
Jillery to dodge and weave your way from discussing
anything aside from your mastery of grade school
personal attacks.

Define Complexity, or admit your criticism of my
posts are from a position of ignorance.

You can't do it, you don't even know where to start.
Yet you sit there and makes claims you can't back up.

>
>>> You are so full of yourself that you claimed you
>>> would not take any mathematician seriously if he
>>> couldn't define "the integral".
>>>

Would you? No one would, it's such a core concept
to calculus and math in general.

You dodged my question, would you take a physicist
seriously that didn't understand F=MA?

Answer that question?

>>
>>
>>
>> You misquote me, that's dishonest. I said I wouldn't
>> take anyone that claims a knowledge of calculus
>> seriously that doesn't know about the integral.
>
> I wasn't quoting, and by your own standards you are being
> dishonest.
>
> What you wrote was:
>
> Are you comfortable talking to some mathematician
> about math who can't define the Integral?
>
> Well I find it as wasteful as talking to someone
> about complexity science that can't define complexity.
>

The analogy holds, if one can't define the core concept
of some science, their opinions on the subject aren't
worth the pixels they're written on.

> This was posted on August 31, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-4
> on a thread you started with a slanderous OP:
> "OT: Pres Trump Declares his Love for the Furher - SIEG HEIL~"
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You ran away from a reply by me that began addressing this
>>> snobbery by asking you what you meant by "the integral".
>>>
>>> The Riemann Integral? The Riemann-Stieltjes Integral?
>>> The Lebesgue Integral? The Lebesgue-Stieltjes Integral?
>>> The Denjoy Integral?
>>>

It was an analogy.

Peter, if someone can't define the general term integral
it's rather doubtful they can define any of it's
specific forms.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?

If you can't define the general meaning of the term
complexity any of the specific uses would be utterly
beyond your grasp.

>>
>>
>> That's a dodge, you know what I meant.
>
> Liar. I had no idea you meant something that does not
> ever qualify as a definition.
>
> Or would you prefer "Lunatic who thinks he can read minds" to "Liar"?
>
>>
>>> Any Master's degree student who had a decent graduate course
>>> in measure theory would have learned about at least two
>>> of these and wouldn't talk about "The Integral" as though
>>> that were an unambiguous term.
>>>

Talk about desperate. Peter, here's a sample from
those idiots over at Harvard Mathematics Dept.

And on the very first day in this intro course, the
VERY FIRST QUESTION they pose to the students is this....



"Here are some problems that TFs have used on the first day
of class to get students thinking."

* Bottle calibration problem - frequently used to start Xa and 1a
* For a Math 1b course in which the first topic was applications of
integration:

The definite integral is defined to be:

(a) a limit of a Riemann sum
(b) the difference in the evaluation of an antiderivative
at the interval endpoints
(c) an area
(d) all of the above

http://www.math.harvard.edu/calculus/tfhandbook/index.php/Main_Page/




If someone can't deal with such a basic introductory question
like that, it's pretty damn hard to respect their opinions
on mathematics.

I mean this is embarrassing to witness from anyone claiming
a love of mathematics.

But if it makes you happy I'd be glad to discuss any form of
integral your heart desires, even though you're clearly
just trying to change the subject to cover you ignorance
of the concept I'm asking you to define, so that your
criticisms of my posts have a shred of credibility.

>>
>>
>> It's worst than I thought. Are you really a math professor?
>
> Of course I am. Do you really have a degree in math?
> Might that degree be "High school graduate, with a
> course in baby calculus"?
>
>> This is about as basic as it get with mathematics yet
>> you quibble over a simple question.
>>
>>
>> WOLFRAM MATH WORLD
>>
>> Integral
>>
>> An integral is a mathematical object that can be interpreted
>> as an area or a generalization of area. Integrals, together
>> with derivatives, are the fundamental objects of calculus.
>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html
>>
>>
>> Integral
>> From Wikipedia,
>>
>> In mathematics, an integral assigns numbers to functions in a
>> way that can describe displacement, area, volume, and other
>> concepts that arise by combining infinitesimal data.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral
>
> Both of these are popularizations that talk around the
> concept and do not come anywhere close to defining it.
> And you DID say "...define the Integral".
>

Still trying to change the subject to cover your
ignorance of complexity science. It's like me
claiming you don't know anything about math
since you can't answer questions about sociology.

>> Was that really that difficult a question?
>> A high school freshman would know what
>> I meant by integral.
>
> Yeah, he'd know that it is a thingie which uses a tall
> skinny S followed by some symbols.
>
> On the other hand, a high school senior taking AP
> calculus would smile at how Wofram Math and Wikipedia
> had to dumb down the concept to the middle school level.
>
> Did your parents send you to an Ivy League school? If
> so, they should sue that university for not educating you
> properly.
>

Just more of your true speciality, grade school
personal attacks. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>
>>
>>
>>> I then lit into you for your insufferable snobbishness,
>>> explaining why of course I wouldn't expect a mathematician
>>> to regurgitate the usual definition of any of these integrals.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again you deliberately misquote me for a cheap debate win.
>
> I am quoting you from August, you dishonest jerk.
> Look up that post if you don't believe me.
>
>
>
>> I said I wouldn't respect the opinion of say, a physicist
>> that can't define F-MA?
>
> Shameless misdirection.
>

It's an analogy, it that beyond you also?

If one can't define the core concept of some
science, they can't claim to be knowledgeable
about that science. That's all I meant, and
you know it, a child could see that.

You can't define the core concept of complexity
science so your criticisms of me are equally
ignorant.

>
>>
>> Would you? Don't dodge, answer the question.
>>
>> So why should I respect your opinion wrt complexity
>> science when you can't define complexity???
>
> You'd disqualify any REAL definition as one, by the
> looks of it.
>

You haven't even attempted to offer anything at all
concerning complexity science, not a thing.

How about this, you pick a core aspect of complexity
science and show some, even a tiny bit, of working
knowledge? Anything at all?

Your reply is entirely empty of content.

You've proved to the ng you're entirely clueless
about complexity science as you've failed to demonstrate
you can even define it's title.

Ray gives more cogent replies.