Intelligent Design: Something you never thought of!

[JTEM is my hero]

Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!

We're talking irreducible complexity here!

Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!

Good day. I say, good day!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!
>
> We're talking irreducible complexity here!
>
> Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
> your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
>
> Good day. I say, good day!

Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.


--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[JTEM is my hero]

Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Yawn

So it's true! Sarcasm really is wasted on the stupid!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[John Harshman]

I'm pretty sure that was just naked trolling. I don't think JTEM is
really a creationist at all. It's nothing more than a cry for attention,
a sort of perverse Loki post.

[erik simpson]

The existence of JTEM is evidence against intelligent design.

[JTEM is my hero]

erik simpson wrote:

> The existence of JTEM is evidence

Sometimes you pretend to be an atheists, other times you
admit to your unwavering faith in JTEM... you believe in
JTEM... you believe in JTEM... you're a JTEM believer, and
a Homecoming Queen only absent the Homecoming and
the Queen parts.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:

YHBBT. YB. HTH.
>
--

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

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:18:29 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

His expertise is in self-parody.

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

[erik simpson]

Even google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
Enlighten me. Please.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:28?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <athe...@gmail.com>:
>> >On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
>> >
>> >> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> >>> Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!
>> >>>
>> >>> We're talking irreducible complexity here!
>> >>>
>> >>> Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
>> >>> your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
>> >>>
>> >>> Good day. I say, good day!
>> >> Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
>> >
>> >Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
>> >far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
>> >wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
>> >people have done so since.
>> >
>> YHBBT. YB. HTH.
>> >

>Even google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
>Enlighten me. Please.
>

You Have Both Been Trolled. You Bit. Hope This Helps.

YHBT was fairly common here at one time; the second "B" was
my addition to cover both posts responding/referring to the
JTEM idiot. :-)

[erik simpson]

Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear,
I will try hard to hold my peace with them as well.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:48:42 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> His expertise is in self-parody.

While you have no redeeming qualities what so ever.

It's no wonder you're so jealous!






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> You Have

There you go, COURAGEOUSLY agreeing with yourself... as always.

You're so brave.

Can't look stupid if the only one ever looking at you is you, right?

Right?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:48:42 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not responding to willful stupidity looks exactly the same as not
responding to recognized facts. Non-response is how willful stupidity
thrives.

[jillery]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>mine, although Peter is not.

Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>mine, although Peter is not.
>
>
>Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>as froup policy.
>

Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.

[WolfFan]

On Mar 3, 2023, erik simpson wrote
(in article<ee5019ff-3c38-468a...@googlegroups.com>):

The existence of JTEM is proof against the existence of intelligent trolling.

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 18:09:10 -0500, WolfFan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 3, 2023, erik simpson wrote
>(in article<ee5019ff-3c38-468a...@googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:17?AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> > On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
>> >
>> > > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> > > > Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!
>> > > >
>> > > > We're talking irreducible complexity here!
>> > > >
>> > > > Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
>> > > > your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
>> > > >
>> > > > Good day. I say, good day!
>> > > Yawn<https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
>> > Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
>> > far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
>> > wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
>> > people have done so since.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>
>> The existence of JTEM is evidence against intelligent design.
>
>The existence of JTEM is proof against the existence of intelligent trolling.

Seconded. There might be a difference between stupidity by choice and
habitual stupidity, but that distinction wouldn't inform this case.

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>>mine, although Peter is not.
>>
>>Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>>as froup policy.
>>
>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.

When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
>>>
>>>Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>>>as froup policy.
>>>
>>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
>
>
>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
>

Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.

>
>also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>you have done regularly in the past.
>

Thank you for your opinion.

[jillery]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
>>>>
>>>>Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>>>>as froup policy.
>>>>
>>>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
>>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
>>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
>>
>>
>>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done

>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,

>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>>you have done regularly in the past.
>>
>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
>subjective opinions.

>Thank you for your opinion.

What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?

Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?

If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?

If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.

[Öö Tiib]

Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.

> Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
> lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>
> If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
> in the past?
>
> If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
> words.
>

Bob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
fully entitled. I simply disagree.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared

[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
addressed]

>
>>Thank you for your opinion.
>
>
>What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
>specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
>words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
>friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
>killfiles?
>

The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; I
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.

But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.

>
>Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
>to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
>posters you named?
>

Of course not; I've even said so.

>
> Do you deny that as more posters follow your
>lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>

That would be nice.

>
>If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
>in the past?
>

Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.

>
>If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
>and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
>words.
>

My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.

Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.

[erik simpson]

For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion
to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply
skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
easy. I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find
it important, that's OK too.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:44:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:25:20?AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following

>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

>For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
>I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion
>to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply
>skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
>easy. I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
>the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find
>it important, that's OK too.
>

Your choice is indeed valid, and I've used it (sort of) for
those posters whose posts I read occasionally, but who
generally post garbage; I can usually tell which category a
particular post falls into. At the risk of drawing
saturation fire, I'll even name one - Peter the Grate.

As for the ongoing debates involving idiots I have
killfiled, I use a method similar to yours for others'
responses to them: If I open a post by someone whose posts
*do* interest me, the header usually shows the poster to
whom they're responding, and I generally filter on that
without reading the post unless the subject itself interests
me. As for what others may do, I agree with you; that's
their business. Killfiles simply save me time.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Seconded. There might be a difference between stupidity by choice and
> habitual stupidity

Like how you dig in your heels and refuse to budge on ANY stupid thing
you say... Einstein describing the Multiverse but failing to use that term
means it never happened... everything you ever said about Naledi...

There's a reason you cower behind these sock puppet, talking to yourself,
and it's not because you're intelligent or brave.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711028378582581249

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/7/23 8:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
[huge snip]

> Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
> don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
> disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
> pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.

Killfiles serve me. Currently, I only have Glenn killfiled, and then
with the result of marking his posts as read, so I can go back and read
them if I'm particularly bored, or if another poster reveals he said
something of interest. I haven't considered killfiling JTEM because
there is nothing about him which is worth considering. I simply don't
read his posts.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:28:11 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 3/7/23 8:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>[huge snip]
>
>> Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
>> don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
>> disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
>> pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
>
>Killfiles serve me. Currently, I only have Glenn killfiled, and then
>with the result of marking his posts as read, so I can go back and read
>them if I'm particularly bored, or if another poster reveals he said
>something of interest. I haven't considered killfiling JTEM because
>there is nothing about him which is worth considering. I simply don't
>read his posts.
>

I used to just not read JTEM, Glenn, the Calmoron, and a few
others, but I decided that killfiling them was more
efficient, and if anyone took my lack of response to their
idiocies as agreement that was their problem, not mine, and
was a good indication of their intelligence.

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for
yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without
resorting to obvious misrepresentations?

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:44:13 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
>I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion
>to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply
>skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
>easy.

Exactly so.

>I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
>the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find
>it important, that's OK too.

Your comment is a pointless mischaracterization. Nobody has expressed
such a view. Even if someone wanted to as you say above, it would be
impossible. Is it your intent to ape the behavior of those poster you
find objectionable?

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:24:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
>killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
>reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
>fully entitled. I simply disagree.

Again incorrect. I stated no opinion about the use of killfiles.
Instead, I remarked about your regular advocacy of them. There's a
difference. Or do you really believe you can't use killfiles without
encouraging others to use them as well?

That's two misrepresentations within minutes of each others. Given
your past replies to me, you will soon use other troll tactics.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise? Your comments below
misrepresent what I posted.

>Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
>and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
>joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
>and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
>postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
>Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
>(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
>
>> Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
>> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
>> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
>> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
>> lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>>
>> If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
>> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
>> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
>> in the past?
>>
>> If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
>> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
>> words.
>>
>Bob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
>raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
>interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

If that really was your intent, you would more clearly express it if
you wrote "Killfiles are my friend (TM)". Even you should be able to
recognize the difference.

>But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
>there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
>you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
>so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
>(subjective) preference.

You and your friends seem determined to misrepresent what I actually
posted. I have become quite used to it.

>>Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
>>to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
>>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
>>posters you named?
>>
>Of course not; I've even said so.
>>
>> Do you deny that as more posters follow your
>>lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>>
>That would be nice.
>>
>>If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
>>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
>>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
>>in the past?
>>
>Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
>preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.

I neither expressed nor advocated any preferences. You did. There's
a difference.

>>If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
>>and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
>>words.
>>
>My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
>their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
>no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
>
>Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
>don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
>disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
>pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.

Maybe someday you will actually post an honest response to me, but
today is not that day.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 11:55:25 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> Seconded. There might be a difference between stupidity by choice and
>> habitual stupidity
>
>Like how you dig in your heels and refuse to budge on ANY stupid thing
>you say... Einstein describing the Multiverse but failing to use that term
>means it never happened... everything you ever said about Naledi...
>
>There's a reason you cower behind these sock puppet, talking to yourself,
>and it's not because you're intelligent or brave.

Too bad you don't even try to prove your stupid lies.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:17:26 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Y'all can stop aping aping PeeWee Peter now. He's back.

[Öö Tiib]

My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.

> Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.
>

Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?

>> Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.
>>
>Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
>you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.

You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
entirely on his expressed comments.

OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.

And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.

[Öö Tiib]

I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others
opinions can't be different.

> >> Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.
> >>
> >Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
> >you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
>
> You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
> your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
>
> Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
> post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
> entirely on his expressed comments.
>
> OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
> I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
> incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.
>
> And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
> nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
> To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
> this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.
>

I can't demonstrate relations of Bob's opinions with anything as those
are in his mind. I can only demonstrate facts that happened:
...
Erik to Bob: "Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to

feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear, I will try hard
to hold my peace with them as well."

Bob to Erik: "Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and

JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not."

You then took Bob's words only, erased all context and said those
were meant as separate suggestion of ultimate "froup policy".
Again I can not demonstrate what motivated you as those
reasons are within your mind.

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

So "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka
pointless noise? Got it.

>> >> Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.
>> >>
>> >Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
>> >you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
>>
>> You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
>> your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
>>
>> Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
>> post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
>> entirely on his expressed comments.
>>
>> OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
>> I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
>> incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.
>>
>> And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
>> nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
>> To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
>> this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.
>>
>I can't demonstrate relations of Bob's opinions with anything as those
>are in his mind. I can only demonstrate facts that happened:

Yes, please demonstrate facts.

>...
>Erik to Bob: "Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to
>feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear, I will try hard
>to hold my peace with them as well."
>Bob to Erik: "Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and
>JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not."
>
>You then took Bob's words only, erased all context

Once again, I erased no context. Erik's previous comments don't
inform Casanova's phrase "Killfiles are your friends (TM)". This
quoted phrase the *only* context relevant to my point.

Worse, you don't even try to "demonstrate" how you, Öö Tiib, think
Erik's previous comments applies to my point. I corrected you before
about this. Now you're just trolling.

> and said those
>were meant as separate suggestion of ultimate "froup policy".

Your "ultimate" misrepresentation aside, you refer to my reasoned and
reasonable conclusion based on Casanova's oft-expressed words to
advocate that others use killfiles against expressly named posters but
not others. At most, you arguing against me expressing my opinion.
Apparently that's something you allow yourself and others but not me.
I'm used to that, too.

>Again I can not demonstrate what motivated you as those
>reasons are within your mind.

You don't even try to demonstrate any reasons within *your* mind.

>> >> >Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
>> >> >and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
>> >> >joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
>> >> >and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
>> >> >postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
>> >> >Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
>> >> >(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
>> >> >> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
>> >> >> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
>> >> >> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
>> >> >> lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
>> >> >> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
>> >> >> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
>> >> >> in the past?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
>> >> >> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
>> >> >> words.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Bob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
>> >> >raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
>> >> >interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.

You're doing a good job of demonstrating that I'm the only adult
posting to this topic. Stop before you destroy what remaining
credibility you have. Or is it your intent to spam this nonsense
until others blame me for it? That's another common troll tactic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appeared

It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
>
>also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>you have done regularly in the past.
>

Thank you for your opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)

And since you apparently accept the rest of my response, I
believe this issue is closed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:15:33 -0500, the following appeared

I disagree, but your opinion is again noted. And as I'm not
interested in further "You said" "No, *you* said!" worthless
wastes of time, enjoy yourself with the trolls.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

One more time, look at my reply to your previous post:
*************************************

>>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>>you have done regularly in the past.
>>
>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
>subjective opinions.

>Thank you for your opinion.

*************************************
The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are
your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that
post.

Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do.

>And since you apparently accept the rest of my response, I
>believe this issue is closed.

I suppose, if showing that you misrepresented the facts was your only
point.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:55:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Don't make claims you know you can't/won't back up. That's what
trolls do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

OK, I went back and checked, and you are correct.

From the above, I intended to split your comment and respond
to each part separately, as shown here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
>>>>>>

>>>>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
>>>>>subjective opinions.
>>>>

>>>>>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for your opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:09:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

No need to spam your comments; the copy above proves your
misrepresentation is factually incorrect, as my reply below shows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>>One more time, look at my reply to your previous post:
>>*************************************

>>>>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
>>>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
>>>>
>>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
>>>subjective opinions.
>>

>>>Thank you for your opinion.

>>*************************************
>>The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are
>>your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that
>>post.
>>

>>Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I predicted, you conveniently ignore the above correction. Quelle
surprise.

>Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
>it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.

You did exactly as you described above, which obfuscated my comments.
And I removed your obfuscation by restoring the original format of my
comments. Don't like that I removed your obfuscation of your
comments? Then don't obfuscate my comments. Not sure how even you
can't figure that out.

In summary:

Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless
wastes of time".

Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
wastes of time".

Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of
time".

Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".

That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".

Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 18:03:19 -0500, the following appeared

Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
acceptance of culpability in this instance.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:37:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

>>As I predicted, you conveniently ignored the above correction. Quelle

>>surprise.
>>
>>
>>>Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
>>>it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.
>>
>>
>>You did exactly as you described above, which obfuscated my comments.
>>And I removed your obfuscation by restoring the original format of my

>>comments. Don't like that I removed your obfuscation of my

>>comments? Then don't obfuscate my comments. Not sure how even you
>>can't figure that out.
>>
>>In summary:
>>
>>Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless
>>wastes of time".
>>
>>Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
>>wastes of time".
>>
>>Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of
>>time".
>>
>>Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
>>subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
>>
>>That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
>>wastes of time".
>>
>>Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
>>
>Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
>acceptance of culpability in this instance.

You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.

[Öö Tiib]

Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool
and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.
So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.

The physical fact remains that you erased all context that is not
misrepresentation.
Erik mentioned difficulties not to reply to certain posters and suggesting
a tool to him made perfect sense to me (despite I don't use it). Also why
you talk so lot about reiterating precisely same set of names as Erik
if "Killfiles are your friends (TM)" was the *only* context relevant to
your point?

> Worse, you don't even try to "demonstrate" how you, Öö Tiib, think
> Erik's previous comments applies to my point. I corrected you before
> about this. Now you're just trolling.
>

I can not even understand what difficulties you face to see the clear
relation.

> > and said those
> >were meant as separate suggestion of ultimate "froup policy".
> Your "ultimate" misrepresentation aside, you refer to my reasoned and
> reasonable conclusion based on Casanova's oft-expressed words to
> advocate that others use killfiles against expressly named posters but
> not others. At most, you arguing against me expressing my opinion.
> Apparently that's something you allow yourself and others but not me.
> I'm used to that, too.
>

And again Bob Casanova described his killfile usage pattern in context
of posters that Erik named. He did not list all his killfile contents or
something.

Labeling other people (me included) and their words with various
negative adjectives is your habit. I do not see it as "adult".

[jillery]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Except that no one, including myself, disagreed with that opinion.
This is why your comment is pointless noise.

Once again you troll a factually incorrect Casanova claim. I have
*zero* objection to people using killfiles. I have used them myself,
both virtually as Erik mentions and in fact as Casanova mentions.

Instead, my point in this thread is about Casanova's repeated advocacy
of using killfiles. There's a difference. Not sure how even you
*still* don't understand this.

I acknowledge that noting your pointless noise hurts your feelings. As
a constructive suggestion, consider stop trolling your pointless
noise. Until then:

<snip remaining pointless noise>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared

Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjective
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.

[Öö Tiib]

So writing true sentence with what no one disagrees in text was
horrible troll and offense. That is literally ridiculous. :)

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> Killfiles serve me. Currently, I only have

Wow. How deep into narcissism did you have to go before you
thought THIS post was a good idea?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711356336312582144

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> I used to

You're a coward, a pussy. You post here in order to pretend that
you're not a drool soaked imbecile, and you desperately avoid
anything that shatters your delusion.

...and those are your good qualities!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711356336312582144

[jillery]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>>>>In summary:
>>>>
>>>>Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless
>>>>wastes of time".
>>>>
>>>>Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
>>>>wastes of time".
>>>>
>>>>Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of
>>>>time".
>>>>
>>>>Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
>>>>subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
>>>>
>>>>That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
>>>>wastes of time".
>>>>
>>>>Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
>>>>
>>>Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
>>>acceptance of culpability in this instance.
>>
>>
>>You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
>>apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
>>
>Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjective
>opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
>seems fair.

So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.

[jillery]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:17:23 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Your "horrible" adjective aside, my understanding is English isn't
your native language. That cuts you only so much slack. Based on
your comments above, you have no idea what your talking about. Stop
your stupid trolling, if only to preserve what little credibility you
have left.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-03-10 04:17:23 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:

> On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 17:40:23 UTC+2, jillery wrote:

>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:>> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:>

>> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>> >>

>> wrote:> >>> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery

>> wrote:> >> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib

>> <oot...@hot.ee>> >> >> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023
>> at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:> >> >> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32

>> -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>> >> >> >> wrote:> >> >> >> >On

When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a
technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
posts for a while.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 02:25:48 -0500, the following appeared

Your opinions regarding the appropriate inferences to be
taken from what I posted do not define reality, but please
elucidate exactly where in this thread you imagine I did
those. Thanks.

Oh, and BTW, and at the risk of again being accused of
spamming, I dug a bit further into that issue of snippage,
and discovered that I did indeed post as I intended; the
exchange is here:
(Message-ID: <gt9c0ihr1t1herrhn...@4ax.com>)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
>

Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
>
>also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>you have done regularly in the past.
>
Thank you for your opinion.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, when I got your further response it had been
changed to this (includes my further reply):
(Message-ID: <u5oe0id7q0nhdmktb...@4ax.com>)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>
>>>When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
>>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
>>>you have done regularly in the past.
>>>
>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
>>subjective opinions.
>
[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
addressed]
>

>>Thank you for your opinion.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your original post was mysteriously recombined, and both
parts of my reply now appeared below it, which is why I
thought part of your original reply had been snipped. I
suppose I still owe you an apology for failing to read more
closely, but we all make mistakes.

[erik simpson]

As you see, jillery has two modes: triggered and not(yet)-triggered. Once triggered
posting anything in that thread is sticking your face in the fan. It's over here.

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:30:17 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:35:23?AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> On 2023-03-10 04:17:23 +0000, ? Tiib said:

>> When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a
>> technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
>> I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
>> policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
>> else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
>> posts for a while.
>>

>As you see, jillery has two modes: triggered and not(yet)-triggered. Once triggered
>posting anything in that thread is sticking your face in the fan. It's over here.

And so mob mentality perpetuates its unbroken, unrelenting and
decades-long chain of willfully stupid lies about jillery. And it's
all jillery's fault. Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad. So very bad.

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:18:59 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

As I have already done so, would it do any good to do it again?

>Oh, and BTW, and at the risk of again being accused of
>spamming, I dug a bit further into that issue of snippage,
>and discovered that I did indeed post as I intended; the
>exchange is here:

That's what I said, and you denied.

>So your original post was mysteriously recombined,

Nothing mysterious about it, as I previously explained it, as you well
know.

>and both
>parts of my reply now appeared below it, which is why I
>thought part of your original reply had been snipped. I
>suppose I still owe you an apology for failing to read more
>closely, but we all make mistakes.

I have zero expectation of you or any other poster ever apologizing to
me for anything. Instead, what you "owe" the froup is an apology for
repeatedly claiming I did something I did not do, as well as falsely
claiming I opposed the use of killfiles, as well as evading the issue
of you regularly advocating the use of killfiles against named
individuals. Apparently your mileage varies.

But your willfully stupid troll has accomplished its expected outcome,
to raise the ire of the mob against me. Given past history, I expect
you and the other trolls will congratulate each other over it. I'm
used to that, too.

[*Hemidactylus*]

erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:25:20 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

>>> On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared

>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared

>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>

>>> Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
>>> and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
>>> joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
>>> and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
>>> postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
>>> Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
>>> (by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
>>>
>>>> Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
>>>> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
>>>> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
>>>> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
>>>> lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
>>>>
>>>> If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
>>>> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
>>>> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
>>>> in the past?
>>>>
>>>> If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
>>>> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
>>>> words.
>>>>
>>> Bob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
>>> raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
>>> interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
>>>

>> Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
>> killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
>> reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
>> fully entitled. I simply disagree.

>>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>

> For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
> I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion
> to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply
> skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
> easy. I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
> the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find
> it important, that's OK too.
>
I merely flag JTEM and equally obnoxious Beasley as pink and ignore or
delete posts/threads that appear as that fitting color. PN is grey (not a
dig at his age). I am green if mentioned by anyone. My reader can mark as
read and delete read, but that winds up nuking stuff I’ve read and want to
come back to later. Color coding keeps me usually from even clicking on the
pink offenders unless I’m really bored. When I see a grey/green combo I
know something is up.

I guess color coding posters to ignore is tantamount to being in legion
with the devil or a strange bedfellow or whatever the fuck…don’t care. Not
going down that tit for tat triggerfest rabbit hole of futility…again.

JTEM and Beasley have repeatedly shown themselves to be worthless wastes of
screen space. Yes I named them. Hi pinkies.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>> mine, although Peter is not.
>>
>>
>> Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>> opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>> as froup policy.
>>
> Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
> myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
> trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
> all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
>

I would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the
level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain
coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to
others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless
cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the
benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls.
That would never happen here thank goodness.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool
> and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.
> So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
> valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
>

Bob might encourage others to use killfiles in a way others agree with and
if certain posters here are more commonly targeted by such uses of
killfiles or just ignoring the posters existence (which I should do better
at myself in the case of one of these egregious jackass trolls), that would
be a very horrible thing because every word uttered is sacred and cannot be
ignored or aborted. Using condoms against the words of other posters
violates Catholic doctrine or something and we can’t have that.

So I suppose Bob should keep his killfile contents to himself or he’s
encouraging birth control or abortion or some other great evil against the
worded world.

I say encourage such word condom usage is a great means to prevent trollish
social diseases from spreading too greatly.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a
> technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
> I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
> policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
> else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
> posts for a while.
>

Just don’t encourage others to do the same. That would be very very bad,
like encouraging killfiles.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The irony it burns.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:08:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

I'm not even sure what all that means, but I'll defend to
the death your right to say it. :-)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 18:30:04 -0500, the following appeared

The references to posts snipped; that's becoming
characteristic of you.

>
>That's what I said, and you denied.
>

Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.

>
>>So your original post was mysteriously recombined,
>
>
>Nothing mysterious about it, as I previously explained it, as you well
>know.
>

No, I don't. Cite?

Your assumption that I "know" something is indicative of
nothing good about your mental state.

>
>>and both
>>parts of my reply now appeared below it, which is why I
>>thought part of your original reply had been snipped. I
>>suppose I still owe you an apology for failing to read more
>>closely, but we all make mistakes.
>
>
>I have zero expectation of you or any other poster ever apologizing to
>me for anything. Instead, what you "owe" the froup is an apology for
>repeatedly claiming I did something I did not do, as well as falsely
>claiming I opposed the use of killfiles, as well as evading the issue
>of you regularly advocating the use of killfiles against named
>individuals. Apparently your mileage varies.
>
>But your willfully stupid troll has accomplished its expected outcome,
>to raise the ire of the mob against me. Given past history, I expect
>you and the other trolls will congratulate each other over it. I'm
>used to that, too.
>

You have an inflated opinion of your significance and
importance. You should work on that.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:26:51 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Well said; congratulations! :-)

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:30:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a
>technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
>I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
>policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
>else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
>posts for a while.

"constant"? "everyone"? To quote someone you regard so highly
"You're not that stupid".

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 18:30:04 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>>But your willfully stupid troll has accomplished its expected outcome,
>>to raise the ire of the mob against me. Given past history, I expect
>>you and the other trolls will congratulate each other over it. I'm
>>used to that, too.
>>
>You have an inflated opinion of your significance and
>importance.

My prediction already came true, with you participating.

>You should work on that.

You first.

[jillery]

So you choose to join the willfully stupid mob. Quelle surprise.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well:
https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 03:40:05 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

I give you brownie points for being the first to admit it's just
business as usual.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thanks Karen.

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
>don't trust you, but I don't trust you.

Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 04:44:20 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Thanks Karen.

Anytime, Bozo.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
>>don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
>
>
>Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
>actual intentions.
>

My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
>>>don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
>>
>>
>>Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
>>actual intentions.
>>
>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
>are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
>guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.

Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.

You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.

[erik simpson]

I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:29:16 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
>>>>don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
>>>actual intentions.
>>>
>>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
>>are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
>>guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
>
>
>Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
>accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
>and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
>expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
>

I don't think you're a "terrible person", I simply think
your an idiot. And what "accusation" did I post? Unless, of
course, your accusations of me are spurious...?

>
>You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
>inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
>Trump.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

It also wasn't your fault. Mention of killfiles seems to be
a hotbutton for some; she's commented negatively on their
use in the past.

In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
isn't, but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what a

terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you

do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
no such thing, draw your own conclusions.

[erik simpson]

Indeed. A short fuse is apparent.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not sure why you throw yourself under the bus. For the record, I
haven't said or implied you started "this entire row". To the
contrary, I made it explicitly clear multiple times that my objection
was to Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles, and not his personal
use of them, nor anybody else's use of them.

My post above is a direct reply to Casanova's direct reply to me, and
so what you and Hemidactylus think about it doesn't matter, except to
the degree that you and he have chosen to pile your own irrelevant and
baseless negative opinions about me on top of Casanova's, to create
only the latest of many T.O. mindless mobs I have endured.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 17:04:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:29:16 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
>>>>>don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
>>>>actual intentions.
>>>>
>>>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
>>>are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
>>>guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
>>
>>
>>Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
>>accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
>>and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
>>expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
>>
>I don't think you're a "terrible person", I simply think
>your an idiot.

This is another classic troll comment, to make a pointless pedantic
distinction. Your choice de jour of asinine accusations don't alter
the nature of your mindless troll. To the contrary, this only
emphasizes it.

In a similar spirit, it's "you're". Ok, idiot?

>And what "accusation" did I post? Unless, of
>course, your accusations of me are spurious...?

This is another classic troll comment, to pretend you don't do what
you do, and instead accuse me of it. Just one of the many accusations
you have posted in just this topic is still preserved in the quoted
text above. To refresh your convenient amnesia:

"It's not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust you."

I suppose you might pedantically claim that's not an accusation, but
merely your sincere opinion. Either way, it is an unambiguously
negative remark against me personally. It is also baseless and
completely irrelevant to anything anybody said in this topic aka
mindless made-up crap aka a classic troll comment.

>>You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
>>inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
>>Trump.

Apparently your mileage varies.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:43:51 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

In this topic I have corrected Casanova et al several times about
this. They continue to misrepresent what I actually wrote. That
makes their misrepresentations outright lies, yet another common troll
tactic.

I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.

>> In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
>> isn't,

Is that supposed to be an apology?

>but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
>> above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what a
>> terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
>> do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
>> no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
>> >

>Indeed. A short fuse is apparent.

Your comment above illustrates how you enable trolls. What you
characterize as a "short fuse" is instead a rational response to
unrelenting, repeated, and purposeful lighting the fuse by those you
enable, a point you, Erik Simpson, have repeatedly ignored, to your
discredit. Your willful blindness puts the lie to your act as a
reasonable adult.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
> made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
> I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
> Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
>

Was Casanova advocating the *use* of killfilles?

He said from a couple posts: “Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn
and JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not.”
[…]
“…I don't even killfile all trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any
of my time at all, not even the time to read the name of the author.”

And you responded to the above:
“When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to see.”

Whether or not Bob was advocating the use of killfiles, “the implication is
others should killfile them also” sounds at least implicitly about killfile
usage *per se*. If others use killifiles to keep Bob from seeing trolls,
thats…usage. So you were talking about a collective use of killfiles, where
Bob may have been advocating for that way or means of using killfiles for
building herd immunity.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 12:35:01 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
>> made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
>> I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
>> Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
>>
>Was Casanova advocating the *use* of killfilles?

That would be a reasoned and objective interpretation of his comments.

>He said from a couple posts: “Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn
>and JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not.”
>[…]
>“…I don't even killfile all trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any
>of my time at all, not even the time to read the name of the author.”
>
>And you responded to the above:
>“When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to see.”
>
>Whether or not Bob was advocating the use of killfiles, “the implication is
>others should killfile them also” sounds at least implicitly about killfile
>usage *per se*. If others use killifiles to keep Bob from seeing trolls,
>thats…usage. So you were talking about a collective use of killfiles, where
>Bob may have been advocating for that way or means of using killfiles for
>building herd immunity.

More accurately, I was talking about the advocacy of the collective
use of killfiles. Your failure to include "advocacy" in your
description illustrates the collective willful blindness from which
the mob suffers.

I acknowledge Casanova may wish to advocate some other nuanced point
different from what I described. If what I described was in error,
and had Casanova chose to elaborate on that error, this topic might
have developed into something more interesting.

But that's not how this topic evolved. Instead, Casanova chose to
exercise his inner child and lie about what I actually wrote and what
I actually believe. This suggests that what I described is closer to
what Casanova actually means than he's prepared to admit.

Whether collective use of killfiles is a means of building herd
immunity, is an arguable point that deserves a separate topic. To
discuss it in this topic would dishonestly obfuscate the willful
stupidity without acknowledging it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

But Bob if advocating in such a way is a vaxxer. I prefer, due to downsides
of my available vaccine, natural immunity built from direct exposure to the
pathogens. If I notice the trollogen via pink flags I can merely ignore
them. Advocating against widespread use of vaccines or preemptive pink
flags would be…

Or maybe killfiles work more like masks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 05:23:19 -0400, the following appeared

And I will type this *really* slowly, so even you can
understand: "In the past" is not limited to this topic.

>
>>> In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
>>> isn't,
>
>
>Is that supposed to be an apology?
>

No, a correction. Perhaps you could learn the difference.

>
>>but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
>>> above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what a
>>> terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
>>> do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
>>> no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
>>> >
>>Indeed. A short fuse is apparent.
>
>
>Your comment above illustrates how you enable trolls. What you
>characterize as a "short fuse" is instead a rational response to
>unrelenting, repeated, and purposeful lighting the fuse by those you
>enable, a point you, Erik Simpson, have repeatedly ignored, to your
>discredit. Your willful blindness puts the lie to your act as a
>reasonable adult.
>

When multiple individuals observe a trait, perhaps you might
want to self-examine. Or is it simply "Oh, look! Everyone is
out of step except Johnny!"? Or in this case, jillery.

[erik simpson]

According to you:

"Not responding to willful stupidity looks exactly the same as not
responding to recognized facts. Non-response is how willful stupidity
thrives."

Not exactly the friendliest advice. In fact, it sounds pretty hostile. You
frequently don't seem to realize what you sound like and come out swinging
if you're called on it. If this is "mob piling on", so be it.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:36:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:08:05 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
><ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared

>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>

>>>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
>>>>> mine, although Peter is not.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
>>>> opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
>>>> as froup policy.
>>>>
>>> Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
>>> myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all

>>> trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
>>> all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
>>>

>>I would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the
>>level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain
>>coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to
>>others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless
>>cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the
>>benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls.
>>That would never happen here thank goodness.
>>
>I'm not even sure what all that means, but I'll defend to
>the death your right to say it. :-)

Does that also apply to the right *not* to say something?

>>

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:18:14 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:20:26?AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

[...]

>> My post above is a direct reply to Casanova's direct reply to me, and
>> so what you and Hemidactylus think about it doesn't matter, except to
>> the degree that you and he have chosen to pile your own irrelevant and
>> baseless negative opinions about me on top of Casanova's, to create
>> only the latest of many T.O. mindless mobs I have endured.

I haven't been paying any particular attention to this thread but with
an idle hour to spend, I decided to browse through it and see just
how much a discussion can degenerate.[1] What struck me as really
weird is that that comment is typical of the sort of paranoia that
Nyikos regularly exhibits. I have commented before about the
Burton-Taylor syndrome.

[1] In the interest of transparency, I should point out that I am not
seeing Jillery's posts, only the replies to her, as *shock, horror*, I
have her killfiled.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 18:25:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Yes; why wouldn't it? Of course, either saying something or
*not* saying anything can be taken, rightly or wrongly, to
have inferences. This episode of the seemingly-perpetual
brouhaha started when an inference (incorrectly, IMHO) was
assigned to a comment I made regarding my use of killfiles.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:05:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

In your haste to type really slow, you instead turned off your mind.
Whatever personal and unspecified meaning you might apply to "in the
past", it does not inform this topic, because this topic is not about
the use of killfiles. The use of killfiles is your hijack topic, one
of many troll tactics you use to obfuscate your failure to discuss the
actual topic.

>>>> In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
>>>> isn't,
>>
>>
>>Is that supposed to be an apology?
>>
>No, a correction. Perhaps you could learn the difference.

So you don't apologize for calling me an idiot. Quelle surprise. You
continue to meet all my expectations.

>>>but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
>>>> above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what a
>>>> terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
>>>> do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
>>>> no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
>>>> >
>>>Indeed. A short fuse is apparent.
>>
>>
>>Your comment above illustrates how you enable trolls. What you
>>characterize as a "short fuse" is instead a rational response to
>>unrelenting, repeated, and purposeful lighting the fuse by those you
>>enable, a point you, Erik Simpson, have repeatedly ignored, to your
>>discredit. Your willful blindness puts the lie to your act as a
>>reasonable adult.
>>
>When multiple individuals observe a trait, perhaps you might
>want to self-examine.

You first.

>Or is it simply "Oh, look! Everyone is
>out of step except Johnny!"? Or in this case, jillery.

Opinion polls do not inform objective facts, especially among mindless
mobs.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 18:24:03 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I haven't been paying any particular attention to this thread

Since you're proud of not knowing what you're talking about, continue
to pay no attention; that's what cowardly trolls do.