For 'Ron o' go factor that into that mess you call a brain

[satoshi]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftlet

[RonO]

On 10/7/2018 8:17 AM, satoshi wrote:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftlet
>

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=Swift

A swift genome has been sequenced, and it is from a member of nocturnal
insect feeders.

You can go to NCBI BLAST and put in "RID-VMFYNY2B015" to get the amino
acid sequence comparison for the Prestin gene and see that swifts do not
have the same mutations for echo location that whales and Bats have.
Swifts apparently use "wiskers" around their beaks to detect echos and
not their hearing.

The protein comparison that I did will only be available for a couple
days at the NCBI web site.

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

Still no discussion from you about the obvious Ness
Of the oil bird

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOU7EFp7450rFK1q5jaiHy1dNm-GbeTy/view?usp=drivesdk

[RonO]

Do you ever get tired of playing the lost idiot?

This is what you snipped and ran from.
REPOST:

END REPOST:

Just imagine what it would have been like if you had a relevant and on
topic response to make. All I did was pretend that you had made such a
post, but it turned out that you obviously had not. You are just a loser.

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.a.20254

[RonO]

On 10/7/2018 1:58 PM, satoshi wrote:
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.a.20254
>

Why should I respond to this junk when you don't have a clue as to why
you posted it? You could demonstrate otherwise, but that when is that
going to happen?

Really, just state your claim, and state why what you have linked to
supports that claim. Until you can do that there is nothing for me to
respond to.

If you don't have a clue as to why you keep posting isn't it time to
quit? Why torture yourself for no apparent reason?

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

The brain
Ron o

Do you know what one of those is?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 12:27:57 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Forget it, Ron; the only words he's likely to even
*partially* understand from that are "a" and "the".

And, to coin a phrase, I'm not too sure about "the"...
--

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

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Obviously, satoshi does not respect your opinion. You are stupid to even offer it.

[RonO]

Why keep snipping are running from reality? Just state what your
argument is that then state why the "evidence" that you keep putting up
means anything about that claim. What does your statement above tell
me? Nothing. You obviously do have a defective brain, but why flaunt it?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Vtard, why did you start lying about being an IDiot? Don't you think
that is a stupid thing to lie about? Why did you keep going to the ID
perps for crappy arguments and putting up the IDiocy if you never
supported the junk? Why can't either of you simply state what you claim
and then state what you think supports that claim? It has to be some
type of mental defect at this time because neither of you can seem to do
something that simple and rational.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Obviously RonO does not respect your opinion. You are stupid to even
offer it.

That was fun.


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ernest Major]

You do realise that you're implicitly calling satoshi stupid?

--
alias Ernest Major

[satoshi]

so Ron o can not even answer the simplest of questions, further proving with every click of send to post more evidence he lacks a proper functioning brain and is incapable of having proper discourse on the internet!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
<travellin...@gmail.com>:

>Still no discussion from you about the obvious Ness

Elliot? Is that you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:56:42 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

Implicitly, explicitly and multiply.

[RonO]

Knock, knock. Why would I have to answer that question? You obviously
don't even know why you asked it, or you can't tell anyone, probably
because the reason is too stupid to be believeable.

Demonstrate otherwise.

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

It is an easy question that only a stupid person, such as yourself, couldn't answer.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, answer it.
bet you cant. Know why? Because you are indeed stupid.

[RonO]

Reread what I wrote above and then state why you asked the question. If
you don't know why you asked the question, why would I have to answer
it? Really, what was your question, and why is it relevant to what you
have been stupid about for days. You were obviously clueless about the
fact that you were not claiming anything about what I actually wrote.
Really, your response to Harshman demonstrated that you were not
claiming anything about what I actually wrote that set you off on this
multi thread stupidity.

If you did not state your claim correctly to Harshman than state it
correctly. This is your chance. State what your claim was and then try
to use the evidence that you put up, and state why that junk supported
what ever claim that you were making. A competent and honest person
would be able to do that. You seem to lack one or both qualities.

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/88/4/631/2691634

[satoshi]

I certainly told him why.
He is indeed mentally defective guaranteed

[RonO]

On 10/9/2018 9:24 PM, satoshi wrote:
> I certainly told him why.
> He is indeed mentally defective guaranteed
>

Why keep lying, and just do what is sensible. Snipping and running
indicates that you have enough on the ball to understand that you are
lying, or you would just address what was written.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[satoshi]

i told you why, yet you do not comprehend as usual.

it was a simple question, that anyone without a defective brain could answer.

it shows your brain is indeed defective.

how many times do you need that fact pointed out to you???

[RonO]

Why lie? Demonstrate that you are not lying. You can do this by
actually stating what you think that you were claiming for the last few
days, or demonstrating that you ever put up what your claim was even
after being asked to do it multiple times. Why do you have to lie about
something that even you should understand that there is absolutely no
reason to lie any more. Your claim was bogus I what you wrote to
Harshman wasn't your what you had been arguing about for the last few
days just put up what your claim actually was.

>
> it was a simple question, that anyone without a defective brain could answer.

You have to tell me why you asked the question in order for me to give a
relevant answer. Just reread what you wrote. There is nothing worth
answering.

>
> it shows your brain is indeed defective.

Projection is stupid at this time. We both know who has the defective
brain. If your brain was not defective you could have demonatrated it
long ago.

>
> how many times do you need that fact pointed out to you???

How many times were you asked to state your claim and what happened when
you finally told Harshman what it was? It turned out to be bogus and
didn't apply to what you had been responding to. That has to be lame
even for someone as lost as you. You spent days wallowing in your own
stupidity when it all could have been over in one post if you had just
stated what you wanted to claim.

That is how stupid you are.

This just means that until you can learn to put forward some type of
valid statement that you want to discuss there is no reason to discuss
anything with you. You have screwed up so badly that you should be
ashamed of yourself. If you want to do better, do better. You could
start by stating why you asked the question so that some relevant answer
could be given to it. Really, just reread what you wrote above. It is
pretty lame isn't it? There has to be some reason for acting that lame.

Ron Okimoto
>

[satoshi]

I certainly explained it.
From the trilobytes
To the fig wasp
Etc

You want endless do overs
You won't get them

[RonO]

This tells me nothing because look through your posts to me for the last
few days. Tell me why this should mean anything to this discussion.
You might first state what your claim was so that you could try to fit
this junk into it. Then you could explain what you are talking about
above and how it relates to the last few days.

You are not accomplishing anything by putting up this mish mash of
nonsense. If you had explained "it" with this junk why didn't you give
me a link days ago when I kept asking you what you were talking about?

Even you have to have some sense that what you are currently doing is
just bogus. Take my advice and just try to do better next time. It
will be less painful to figure out that you have no argument as soon as
possible so that you will not spend days wallowing in lies and
stupidity. Really, all you have to do is simply state what your claim
is. You will have to do better than above because I can't figure out
how what you wrote applies to the last few days. Something is obviously
missing from what you think that you are doing. You need to state what
your claim was, and then state why the above junk fits into it. In
order to do that you will have to explain what the above junk is and
where it is coming from. As it stands the junk above is coming out of
nowhere in terms of this discussion.

Ron Okimoto

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-4, satoshi wrote:

>
> I certainly explained it.
> From the trilobytes
> To the fig wasp

You explained nothing. You posted links, and refused to engage in any salient discussion. You have shown absolutely no capability of rational discussion.

[Wolffan]

On 08 Oct 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<aqumrddtgsdqv8477...@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by satoshi
> <travellin...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Still no discussion from you about the obvious Ness
>
> Elliot? Is that you?

Well, he is untouchable... by sense. He has yet to post anything which makes
sense.