The Silurian hypothesis:

[JTEM is my hero]

Relax. i don't take it serious either.

But, it is an entertaining thought exercise:

How would YOU go about testing the Silurian
hypothesis?

I mean, they do call it a hypothesis, do they not?
And in science lingo that requires that it not only
explain the evidence/observations but serve as
the basis for predictions i.e.experimental
falsification.

Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
what is that data?

What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
explains?

I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:

We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.

THAT comes before testing, else we really have no reason
to test. We technically don't even have anything to test.

I mean, without specific claims, no matter what test WE
come up with the adherents can simply dismiss as not
applying here... because we have no idea what anything
is supposed to apply to.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[John Harshman]

It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical
question: if there had been a technological civilization many millions
of years ago, would we have any way of detecting it?

But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.

I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One
would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record
should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The
first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule
out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.

No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
Silurian hypothesis is, and they were the least bit curious, they'd just
Google it.

Or I was wrong to assume you had internet access?

> To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
> Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either.

I kind of covered that but, by all means, do go on...

> But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
> no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
> preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.

It's not exactly 50-50 here. Or, in your case, 33-33-33.

> I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One
> would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
> and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
> of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record
> should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The
> first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule
> out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.

The problem is that unless upholders make specific, testable claims, there
is nothing to test.

...if you search mid to late Cretaceous deposits and find nothing, they can
just claim it was earlier. Or much later. Wrong continent. Or that their culture
preferred habitats very unlike the ones that formed the deposits you've dug
through.

Hmm. I many ways it's just as much "Science" as is abiogenesis!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[John Harshman]

Are there actually any upholders? Is anyone actually trying to claim
that there is evidence of non-human civilization?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Are there actually any upholders?

Could be a conspiracy. Why would the 1% want us to believe there are
people who uphold this idea is there are not?

> Is anyone actually trying to claim
> that there is evidence of non-human civilization?

Did you Google it?

757,000 hits on Google, 782,000 on Bing.

And it's no more "Science" than is abiogenesis!

Google THAT ONE and see how many you get...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[John Harshman]

On 4/7/23 8:36 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Are there actually any upholders?
>
> Could be a conspiracy. Why would the 1% want us to believe there are
> people who uphold this idea is there are not?

Can you find anyone making this claim?

>> Is anyone actually trying to claim
>> that there is evidence of non-human civilization?
>
> Did you Google it?

Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Can you find anyone making this claim?

I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???

> > Did you Google it?

> Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?

So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
reason is... ????

You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[John Harshman]

On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Can you find anyone making this claim?
>
> I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
> result of a conspiracy because... ???

You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.

Have you? Where?

>>> Did you Google it?
>
>> Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
>
> So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
> reason is... ????

I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.

> You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
> and then refuse to discuss who & why.

Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did. Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
> > go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
> > result of a conspiracy because... ???

> You didn't answer.

I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You
reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a
conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated
it. This is what you're saying.

That, or you're insisting that people do hold the opinion that the idea is
correct.

"Know thyself."

Well. Or ask me: You're a troll.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[John Harshman]

On 4/8/23 7:19 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
>>> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
>>> result of a conspiracy because... ???
>
>> You didn't answer.
>
> I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You
> reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a
> conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated
> it. This is what you're saying.

That's not a conspiracy. It's a thought experiment.

Let me ask again: can you in fact find anyone who says they believe it?

> That, or you're insisting that people do hold the opinion that the idea is
> correct.

I'm saying that I have not so far found anyone who says that. Have you?
Where?

> "Know thyself."
>
> Well. Or ask me: You're a troll.

So much for "new JTEM".

[erik simpson]

THe "new JTEM" is the same as the old one. He knows some words. That's about it.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> > I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You
> > reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a
> > conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated
> > it. This is what you're saying.

> That's not a conspiracy. It's a thought experiment.

Well that doesn't explain the marketing. After all, the name is just plain
wrong. It's not a new idea, one only raised by a lame episode of Doctor
Who. But it is marketed as such.

> Let me ask again:

Just go back an read my answer the last few times. It's not going to
change. And you're still not going to like it but, so what?

You don't have to like answers. It's okay if you don't. Answers do not
require your approval.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714091698115035136

[JTEM is my hero]

erik simpson wrote:

> THe "new JTEM" is the same as

Thanks for pulling your fingers out of your mouth and typing out how
you feel. I dare you to try and explain WHY.

Don't worry. Nobody has high expectations for you... least of all you,
it seems.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714091698115035136

[jillery]

A more plausible explanation is JTEM was practicing a personal version
of S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M.

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

[Burkhard]

But the explanatory power...
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1835

Apart from that, would Cremo (and by implication, our friend Kalkidas) qualify? Cremo talks about humans, not another species, but claims we had advanced civilisations 40m years ago.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> A more plausible

You're an idiot. You wouldn't know "Plausible" if it were humping
your leg.

I'm not going to suggest you simply Google it and read some
of the hits, you don't do research, not even the most rudimentary
kind, so instead I'll just laugh at you... as usual.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714091698115035136

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote...


... nothing below. Quelle surprise.

>You're an idiot. You wouldn't know "Plausible" if it were humping
>your leg.
>
>I'm not going to suggest you simply Google it and read some
>of the hits, you don't do research, not even the most rudimentary
>kind, so instead I'll just laugh at you... as usual.

--

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally unhinged, jillery lied:

[... nothing]

Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
of the idea.

You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
person with a disagreement.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714153202668503040

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JTEM continues to argue with
the idiot in the mirror:

> Mentally unhinged, jillery lied:
>
> [... nothing]
>
>Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
>topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
>smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
>of the idea.
>
>You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
>person with a disagreement.


--

[JTEM is my hero]

Emotionally castrated, jillery wrote:

> Beloved JTEM, bringer of truths said:
> >Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
> >topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
> >smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
> >of the idea.
> >
> >You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
> >person with a disagreement.

Like I sad, hit the Google. Or Bing. I'm the first to admit that Google
slid down hill on a toboggan so if that's what's holding you back,
give Bing a shot.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714293011660587008

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:43:04 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
>Emotionally castrated, jillery wrote...


... nothing below.

>> Beloved JTEM, bringer of truths said:
>> >Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
>> >topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
>> >smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
>> >of the idea.
>> >
>> >You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
>> >person with a disagreement.
>
>Like I sad, hit the Google. Or Bing. I'm the first to admit that Google
>slid down hill on a toboggan so if that's what's holding you back,
>give Bing a shot.

--

[JTEM is my hero]

Emotionally castrated jillery wrote:

[...]

Your "Argument" is that you don't know who believes in the Silurian "hypothesis"
and you're too fucked up to just Google it. But I knew that already. Everybody
knew it. You didn't have to post anything.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714340841585623040

[John Harshman]

On 4/12/23 3:02 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Emotionally castrated jillery wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Your "Argument" is that you don't know who believes in the Silurian "hypothesis"
> and you're too fucked up to just Google it. But I knew that already. Everybody
> knew it. You didn't have to post anything.

I googled it. I didn't find anyone who believed the hypothesis to be
true, and I didn't find anyone who presented any evidence favoring it.
It would be simpler if you would just cite or link to some of these people.

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:02:02 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Your "Argument" is that you don't know who believes in the Silurian "hypothesis"

That's not my "argument." Your posts are classic examples of
self-parody.

>and you're too fucked up to just Google it. But I knew that already. Everybody
>knew it. You didn't have to post anything.

If you had anything to back up your claims you would have posted it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> Can you find anyone making this claim?
> >
> > I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
> > go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
> > result of a conspiracy because... ???

I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.

> You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
> asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
> the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
> technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
>
> Have you? Where?
> >>> Did you Google it?
> >
> >> Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
> >
> > So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
> > reason is... ????

> I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.

> > You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
> > and then refuse to discuss who & why.

> Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.

I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.

The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.

I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.

Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.

> Is this the
> end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?

He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.

And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.


Peter Nyikos

PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about

> No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
> Silurian hypothesis is

I would estimate that no more than 1% of all talk.origins
participants and lurkers have ever heard of it *under* *that* *name.*

As the cosmologist John Barrow said about another hypothesis,
loosely of the same genre: "If this statement is true, it sure isn't original."

> , and they were the least bit curious, they'd just
> Google it.

At least Google doesn't charge money for using its search engine.
I still remember advance notice for the Jane Fonda anti-nuclear power film,
"The China Syndrome." It went like, if you don't know what
the China Syndrome is, you will know when you are done watching this film.

It turned out that the scientific illiterates who made the movie confused the properties
of a nuclear power station meltdown with the properties of a mini-black hole.

>
> Or I was wrong to assume you had internet access?

> > To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
> > Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either.

> I kind of covered that but, by all means, do go on...

> > But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
> > no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
> > preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.

> It's not exactly 50-50 here. Or, in your case, 33-33-33.

It's nice to see you agreeing with Harshman on some science-related topic.

> > I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One
> > would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
> > and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
> > of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record
> > should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The
> > first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule
> > out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.

I agree. A tougher question is whether there was such a civilization before the
emergence of our species. [Note, I don't say subspecies.]

> The problem is that unless upholders make specific, testable claims, there
> is nothing to test.
>
> ...if you search mid to late Cretaceous deposits and find nothing, they can
> just claim it was earlier.

Then they lack even the evidence of a brain-body ratio close to that of Troodon/Saurornithoides.
[Carl Sagan made a big deal of that ratio in _The_Dragons_of_Eden_.]

I believe Archaeolemur of Madagascar had a similar ratio.
It was one of half a dozen lemurs larger than the largest extant ones
that became extinct after humans invaded their island.

Incidentally, no one has any idea when that invasion started,
or what route the invaders [polite term: settlers] took,
nor how long the journey from their home took, or how many there were in the first wave.

One thing we are reasonably sure of: they came from Southeast Asia.
Which is more than can be said convincingly of the first members of the genus Homo,
your cocksure perennial assertion that now spans [spams?] three Usenet groups notwithstanding.

> Or much later. Wrong continent. Or that their culture
> preferred habitats very unlike the ones that formed the deposits you've dug
> through.
>
> Hmm. I many ways it's just as much "Science" as is abiogenesis!

But not in the most important way of all.


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

[John Harshman]

I almost feel like asking what this is all about. But apparently
everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.

>> Is this the
>> end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
>
> He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
> me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
> dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
>
> And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
> in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.

Must everything be turned into an attack?

> PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
> outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.

Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.

[DB Cates]

> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[big snip]
{sigh}

>> with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
>> and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
>>
>> I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
>> that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
>> because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
>>
>> Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
>> because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.

Fuck off Peter.

[snip rest]

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was
based on the tall tale you recounted about it.

> But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.

There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.

> >> Is this the
> >> end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
> >
> > He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
> > me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
> > dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
> >
> > And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
> > in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.

> Must everything be turned into an attack?

You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.

Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.

> > PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
> > outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
> > So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.

> Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.

Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.


Peter Nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> I googled it. I didn't find anyone who believed the hypothesis to be
> true

Well you're an idiot who stole the handle of another idiot.

Try "Proposed" is your autism is unsatisfied with any cite lacking the
words "Believes it's true."

One problem here, besides your issues, is that this is a media issue
not a scientific one. "The Silurian hypothesis" is a misnomer itself
as the name traces itself back only recently, and the idea is not new
at all. Which is probably why real science has the rule of precedents,
so usenet trolls won't get as confused as you regularly do...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:

> > Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.

> I could have said

Outside of sock puppets on the Autism spectrum, describing one is enough.
It's exactly equal to labelling something "Conspiracy theory."

What your condition caused you to propose is that this "Hypothesis" has
achieved the legs a rudimentary Google search reveals NOT because
anyone takes it serious, but because of some conspiracy to propagate it.

"Here's an idea that nobody thinks!"

So Autism explains you this far but what of your inability to admit any error,
no matter how slight?

Not that you don't come out with some WHOPPERS of stupid mistakes...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
> > Silurian hypothesis is

> I would estimate that no more than 1% of all talk.origins
> participants and lurkers have ever heard of it *under* *that* *name.*

That's because 100 of them are you using different sock puppets, and
your ignorance is boundless. I mean, when was the last time you haven't
demanded some sort of explanation or cite for well known and well
established information.. such as in this very thread?

> It's nice to see you agreeing with Harshman on some science-related topic.

Really? What is your position as Harfmen? What is it you think my position
is?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> That's not my "argument."

I'm sorry for saying that you had an argument and that you're not just some
totally fucked up spazz in need of negative attention, thus compulsively
contradict.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:00:20 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
> > > Silurian hypothesis is
>
> > I would estimate that no more than 1% of all talk.origins
> > participants and lurkers have ever heard of it *under* *that* *name.*


> That's because 100 of them are you using different sock puppets,

Wow, you are even outdoing the tall tale that Harshman revived from ca. 1999.

Where do you get this crap about sock puppets? Glenn is the only talk.origins regular
who lends me a hand now and then, and he's only done it once so far this year.

Oh, wait, you are so cocksure that "the Silurian hypothesis" is such a popular
subject under that name that only someone with a hundred sock puppets in talk.origins
could honestly say what I did. Correct?

> and your ignorance is boundless. I mean, when was the last time you haven't
> demanded some sort of explanation or cite for well known and well
> established information.. such as in this very thread?

Are you so out of it that you think *I* am John Harshman?!? He's the one
badgering you for cites, not I.

What makes you think the expression, "The Silurian hypothesis" is well known?
You need to get over the idea that other people are interested in the same sources
of pop science news that you are.

> > It's nice to see you agreeing with Harshman on some science-related topic.

> Really? What is your position as Harfmen? What is it you think my position
> is?

I have a position ON Harshman. He has been a pain in the neck since less than
a month after I returned to talk origins and sci.bio.paleontology in December 2010
after almost a decade of absence.

That's why I was so interested when you had him looking like a troll and you looking like you
were "feeding the troll" on the subject of gorilla sperm. This was several years ago in
sci.bio.paleontology.

Your position on him seems to be that he is an impostor who stole the identity of the real John Harshman,
the one who published a paper in PNAS along with (IIRC) 18 co-authors. I think he is the same person,
and I think they put his name first because they felt sorry for him because he couldn't land a tenure-track job at a respected university.
He was still an "unemployed biologist" when I last looked him up on LinkedIn.


Peter Nyikos

PS Don't think I didn't notice how you snipped everything I wrote about the issue of why anyone
could ever have brought up the subject that is labeled "the Silurian hypothesis." You snipped solid
science, even though the possible "candidates" were incredibly farfetched.

A REAL hypothesis along those lines would have been suggested by taking one of the "candidates" and asked,
"If Homo had never evolved, what's the chance that these "candidates" might have advanced, after 50 million years
of evolution, to have a technological civilization created by some of their descendants?"

[Pro Plyd]

John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.

As if he knew.

> To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the

> Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical

The Silurian *Period* is what first comes to mind in the
scientific arena. What dumdum is pushing is something you'd
see on a schlock Discovery channel filler.

[Mark Isaak]

I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned "Dr. Who and the Silurians".
According to the highly credible BBC, the Silurians are a (now)
underground reptilian race whose first conflict with humanity occurred
in 1970. I believe they were originally from Mars.

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

[Ernest Major]

On 15/04/2023 06:03, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/14/23 9:06 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
>>
>> As if he knew.
>>
>>> To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
>>> Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical
>>
>> The Silurian *Period* is what first comes to mind in the
>> scientific arena. What dumdum is pushing is something you'd
>> see on a schlock Discovery channel filler.
>
> I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned "Dr. Who and the Silurians".
> According to the highly credible BBC, the Silurians are a (now)
> underground reptilian race whose first conflict with humanity occurred
> in 1970.  I believe they were originally from Mars.
>

I has presumed that Doctor Who (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Silurian)
was the origin of the choice of name for the Silurian Hypothesis, but
didn't care to advance the connection without documentary evidence.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.

>>> PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
>>> outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
>>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
>
>> Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
>
> Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
> the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
> Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.

I'm not.

[John Harshman]

On 4/14/23 4:50 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> I googled it. I didn't find anyone who believed the hypothesis to be
>> true
>
> Well you're an idiot who stole the handle of another idiot.
>
> Try "Proposed" is your autism is unsatisfied with any cite lacking the
> words "Believes it's true."
>
> One problem here, besides your issues, is that this is a media issue
> not a scientific one. "The Silurian hypothesis" is a misnomer itself
> as the name traces itself back only recently, and the idea is not new
> at all. Which is probably why real science has the rule of precedents,
> so usenet trolls won't get as confused as you regularly do...

Again, please find me someone who seriously proposes this hypothesis as
anything other than a thought experiment. That's all I ask.

[John Harshman]

On 4/14/23 4:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>> Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
>
>> I could have said
>
> Outside of sock puppets on the Autism spectrum, describing one is enough.
> It's exactly equal to labelling something "Conspiracy theory."
>
> What your condition caused you to propose is that this "Hypothesis" has
> achieved the legs a rudimentary Google search reveals NOT because
> anyone takes it serious, but because of some conspiracy to propagate it.
>
> "Here's an idea that nobody thinks!"
>
> So Autism explains you this far but what of your inability to admit any error,
> no matter how slight?
>
> Not that you don't come out with some WHOPPERS of stupid mistakes...

You are under a number of misapprehensions. First, a google search
returns anything that uses either of the words "Silurian" or
"hypothesis". Only the first few hits are likely to refer to the
Silurian hypothesis. Second, it was proposed as a thought experiment, a
pure hypothetical. There was no attempt at looking for evidence that it
was true, merely at imagining what sort of evidence might remain if,
again hypothetically, it were true. The popular press amplified it
because it was an interesting conceit.

I'm really curious to see if you can find anyone who supports the
hypothesis as anything else. Can you?

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:23:21 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/23 4:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
>>
>>> I could have said
>>
>> Outside of sock puppets on the Autism spectrum, describing one is enough.
>> It's exactly equal to labelling something "Conspiracy theory."
>>
>> What your condition caused you to propose is that this "Hypothesis" has
>> achieved the legs a rudimentary Google search reveals NOT because
>> anyone takes it serious, but because of some conspiracy to propagate it.
>>
>> "Here's an idea that nobody thinks!"
>>
>> So Autism explains you this far but what of your inability to admit any error,
>> no matter how slight?
>>
>> Not that you don't come out with some WHOPPERS of stupid mistakes...
>
>You are under a number of misapprehensions. First, a google search
>returns anything that uses either of the words "Silurian" or
>"hypothesis".

FWIW it's trivially easy to distinguish between

silurian hypothesis

and

"silurian hypothesis"

Google generates 600K hits with the former, 13.8K hits with the
latter.

Ironically, both provide a Wikipedia link as the first one.

>Only the first few hits are likely to refer to the
>Silurian hypothesis. Second, it was proposed as a thought experiment, a
>pure hypothetical. There was no attempt at looking for evidence that it
>was true, merely at imagining what sort of evidence might remain if,
>again hypothetically, it were true. The popular press amplified it
>because it was an interesting conceit.
>
>I'm really curious to see if you can find anyone who supports the
>hypothesis as anything else. Can you?

[erik simpson]

One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs. This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.

[John Harshman]

I'd say that the false positives are about as common as the false negatives.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> As if he knew.

"He doesn't know what it is which is why I need him to explain it to me!"

You have elevated stupidity to an art form.

Try this: What did you disagree with? You don't know.

The sock puppets wouldn't have been necessary if you felt any
confidence at all.




--- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wow, you

I get it, you're severely mentally ill and that shouldn't be a crime but neither
should it be tolerated. Get help.

WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE I TYPED IN THIS THREAD?

: Relax. i don't take it serious either.

And yet NOTHING you have said in reply too me, NOTHING you posted using
any of your alters, your entire D.I.D. "System," has done anything but attempt
to argue over WHO advances the "Hypothesis."

Nothing I said, you have been focused like a laser beam on something else,
and believing this makes you funny or clever or... something that isn't what
you're desperately trying to get away from.

Get your help. Therapy. Medications. Maybe you need to be hospitalized
for a short while, get properly evaluated again...

You fell through the cracks. Someone missed how bad you became.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned "Dr. Who and the Silurians".

It was introduced. Not surprised that such a rigid adherent to the scientific
process and to research could miss what is in front of his own goddamn
face. But, we both know why.

And you can't claim ignorance because it's only your base personality that
may not be aware...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Again, please find me someone who seriously proposes this hypothesis as
> anything other than a thought experiment. That's all I ask.

Reading my post, exactly as you never did, what precisely would that refute
or change or alter in the slightest?

There's a reason why you decided that you're incapable of performing
rudimentary searches on your own, and fixating on the irrelevant, and it's
not because you're so gosh darn intelligent, or mentally healthy.

Again; what changes in my post? You need an answer, and have decided
that you're incapable of finding one, because I said... what?

What point is riding on this?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[John Harshman]

Nothing changes or is refuted. You made a claim, and I'm asking you to
provide evidence. That's all. Simple.

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:48:33 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/15/23 8:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

To the contrary, PeeWee Peter detects and encourages habitual cranks
and trolls with great accuracy.

[erik simpson]

He notices them, for sure, he just doesn't recognize them for what they are. He
takes them seriously.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:45:20 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>He notices them, for sure, he just doesn't recognize them for what they are. He
>takes them seriously.

To the contrary, not only does he notice them, he recognizes them for
what they are; kindred spirits who work to turn T.O. into a Hellhole.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

[...]

Again, I know you're fucked up, I know you're PRETENDING that I'm somehow
"Gaslighting" you but, you haven't addressed a goddamn thing I said. That
narcissistic personality disorder, that need to obstruct, to stop conversations
is fixated on WHO invented & advances the idea instead of anything I actually
stated. You're demanding to not only know THE NAME OF SOMEONE ELSE
who said something, but insisting that you can't do this yourself.

Yeah, you're fucked up!

Now if you want to go back, read my initial post and then comment on it, you
go right ahead. But we know you'll just try to shut things down with some other
stupid "Argument."





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

[JTEM is my hero]

"Hi, Mr. right hand. I sure do like you."

"Thank you, Mr. left hand. Lets be best friends."

"That's a great idea, Mr. right hand. We can be
best friends and hide together in my special
place where mommy doesn't drink and sleep
with strange men, and nobody beats me and I
get plenty to eat. Say, can I call you 'erik'?"

"Yes you can, Mr. left hand. 'erik" is a fine
name, and it rhymes with 'Dick,' which is what
mommy calls me when she's sober enough to
not slur her speech."

"Say, 'erik', we can go to each others birthday
parties and tell each other secrets and hold
sleep overs and, and. and be best friends forever
and ever!"

"Yes, Mr. Left Hand. We can do that. Plus reply
to each others posts because we're totally
different people, Mr. Left hand, who just happen
to display all the exact same symptoms."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:35:53 -0700 (PDT), JTEM continues to troll
self-parodies:

The above shows JTEM using both hands to play with himself in public.

[John Harshman]

On 4/6/23 8:06 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> Relax. i don't take it serious either.

Sure, I'll start over.

> But, it is an entertaining thought exercise:
>
> How would YOU go about testing the Silurian
> hypothesis?
>
> I mean, they do call it a hypothesis, do they not?
> And in science lingo that requires that it not only
> explain the evidence/observations but serve as
> the basis for predictions i.e.experimental
> falsification.

I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
you advance here, may have been misapplied. The Silurian hypothesis
doesn't explain any data, and nobody says it does. What if we just
stopped calling it a hypothesis? Would that help?

> Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
> explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
> what is that data?
>
> What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
> explains?

Again, there are none.

> I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
> to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
> approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
> more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
>
> We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
> data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.

For the third time, there are none.

> THAT comes before testing, else we really have no reason
> to test. We technically don't even have anything to test.
>
> I mean, without specific claims, no matter what test WE
> come up with the adherents can simply dismiss as not
> applying here... because we have no idea what anything
> is supposed to apply to.

That assumes there are adherents, and I don't think there are. The whole
point is a thought experiment: if there had been an ancient, non-human
civilization, would we be able to tell? Would there be any remaining
evidence, and if so, what? Similarly, if we disappeared today, and
somebody else came along a hundred million years from now, would there
be any way for them to know we had been here?

It's nothing more than an invitation to consider the permanance of human
artifacts. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The only thing you should be sorry about is the way you weren't man enough to
respond directly to the reminders of what you had done, and instead hurled long-discredited insults at me,
beginning with:

> but this is a fine example of your paranoia.

Already as of seven years ago, you had so thoroughly stretched the word "paranoia" well past
the breaking point that it became worthwhile to start a thread about your misuses,
which you are continuing here, and the misuse of the words "conspiracy theory":

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/8U9I0cmSLQAJ
Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"
Apr 15, 2016, 4:17:00 PM

Opening paragraphs:
_____________________________________________________________
In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.

[An exception is the charge of rudeness: the usual talisman for that is "Poor baby."]

Sometimes the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is used in the same way,
as Erik Simson did when he wrote:

Peter, if your conspiracy theories aren't embarrassing to yourself, they
should be.

My reply to that was:

I am never embarrassed by things that read like a figment of your
imagination, nor should I be.

Harshman has cheapened the words "paranoid" and "paranoia" by misusing
them to the point where he might as well cry "Wolf!" every time he
is tempted to use them against me. If you don't want "conspiracy
theories" to suffer the same debasement at your hands, you need to be
specific about what conspiracies I am charged with theorizing about.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/1Ez4jDj30Dg/nA-3xdCaKAAJ
Message-ID: <944f4546-6d90-4526...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are "Ancestor" and "Descendent" to Be Banished from Evolutionary Language?!
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:45:22 -0700 (PDT)

######################### end of excerpt ##########################

> All that is exclusively in your head.

An outright lie: last year, for instance, you used "megalomania," a word with precise
psychopathological meaning, to smear a modest to moderate display of melodrama by me.

And that is nowhere near the worst example of past gaslighting. The worst in the last three years
was one in which two others joined you in gaslighting me for being so "uppity" as to refute an accusation by you
of poor English comprehension. I'd go into details, except that the other two are
not involved in this thread. But if you claim not to know what I am talking about,
I will give details, perhaps including the names of the other two culprits.

> Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
> say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say.

You are so unused to being guileless, you have no idea how far what you
wrote is from something a guileless non-gaslighter would say.

> How would you tell the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
> things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
> conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.

My, you are a lot more aggressive here than when I posted that thread
seven years ago. Back then, your reply to that OP read like this:


__________________________ begin included post _________________________

On 4/15/16 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip off-topic rant]

Ask yourself whether this is on-topic for TO. Then ask yourself if you
should be posting that sort of thing to TO. Mind you, I know what your
answer will be, but I try anyway.

============================ end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/xyk_eVWTLQAJ
Apr 15, 2016, 4:27:00 PM

The answers are: 1. Yes, but so what?
2. Not only is the answer Yes, but the way you are behaving here
shows that I have gone too long without reviving the "talisman" thread or posting excerpts from it.
I need to do one or the other at least every three years, by the looks of it.

> >>> PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
> >>> outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
> >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
> >
> >> Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.

> > Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
> > the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
> > Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.

> I'm not.

Of course you aren't. Your sarcastic comment was just a free-floating insult, not meant
to cast doubt on what I wrote. And your b.s. about "All ... in your head" also wasn't something
you are willing to argue for like a man, is it?


Peter Nyikos

PS "like a man" is a phrase that seems to have gone out of style. But it had its uses in the olden days,
like in the old joke of the 1950's from the Goon Show:

Person A: He thinks he's a big shot, but I soon had him crawling to me on his hands and knees.

Person B: What did he say to you?

Person A: He said, "Come out from under that bed and fight like a man, you coward!

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The above shows

You couldn't find anything wrong with what I said -- nothing at
all -- yet you've so fucked up that you needed to try and "Attack"
anyway, ignoring what I said in favor of pretending you couldn't
find anyone who ever supported the hypothesis...

You're a fraud. You're a laughing stock waving his narcissistic
personality disorder like a flag.

I am laughing at your stupidity.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
> you advance here, may have been misapplied.

Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.

> > Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
> > explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
> > what is that data?
> >
> > What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
> > explains?

> Again, there are none.

When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?

> > I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
> > to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
> > approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
> > more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
> >
> > We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
> > data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.

> For the third time, there are none.

Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.

Reading comprehension ain't your thing, sugar lips...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:53:00 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> The above shows
>
>You couldn't find anything wrong

Only because you didn't say anything coherent. Quelle surprise.

[JTEM is my hero]

Another unchecked symptom, jillery wrote:

> Only because

Why are you here? You clearly have zero interest in any topic. You
just want to shit post and pretend you said something intelligent.
By some sticky notes, "Post" it on the nightstand. That way you
don't have to suffer a meltdown if anyone other than one of your
alters responds.

Seriously. What set you off this time? What did you "Disagree" with?

Nothing. You had to invent some stupid "Argument" that nobody
ever subscribed to the idea -- as if that had any relevance what so
ever to what I was saying -- and then react to THAT nonsense with
your other alters.

Why?

Take your meds. Stick to topics that interest you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

[John Harshman]

On 4/21/23 11:57 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
>> you advance here, may have been misapplied.
>
> Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.

Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on? So it
isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?

>>> Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
>>> explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
>>> what is that data?
>>>
>>> What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
>>> explains?
>
>> Again, there are none.
>
> When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
> exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?

I answered your question, twice. That's all. And you didn't say exactly
that; you asked a question. Even if it was a rhetorical question, it
needs an explicit answer.

>>> I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
>>> to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
>>> approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
>>> more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
>>>
>>> We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
>>> data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
>
>> For the third time, there are none.
>
> Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
> the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
> conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.

We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly
explains. I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell, who thinks that there are any such data. So why bother asking?
If we have to start there, we end immediately.

Do you have any point whatsoever other than the complaint that the word
"hypothesis" is the wrong term to use?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Erik Simpson announced on another thread, in response to a thoroughly
on-topic reply of me to Marc Verhaegen, that he would ignore any posts I make,
in lieu of killfiling me, which is impossible on Google Groups.

His unjustifiable slur on me below thus invokes a cartoon of an ostrich with its head buried
deep in the sand, while kicking furiously with both feet.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
> > > over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
> > > but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
> > > the habit, assuming you even want to break it.

Simpson may have sensed that Harshman's raving below would get a long counterattack
from me, which it did:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27 PM

Here comes Harshman's raving, ending in a surreal sentence referring to
a mysterious "the conspiracy against you" without any tangible referent:

> > Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
> > exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
> > say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
> > the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
> > things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
> > conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.

In the post I linked above, I quoted from a thread where I laid bare this
kind of nonsense about "paranoia" and "conspiracy":

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/8U9I0cmSLQAJ
Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"
Apr 15, 2016, 4:17:00 PM

Opening paragraph:

_____________________________________________________________
In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.

==============================================================

> > >>> PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
> > >>> outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
> > >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
> > >
> > >> Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
> > >
> > > Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
> > > the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
> > > Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.

> > I'm not.

Here comes Erik now, head in sand and kicking all the way:

> One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
> what they mean, which he always inferrs.

This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
truth behind Erik's trolling here.

> This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
> cranks and trolls.

Erik Simpson is forgetting that JTEM has his non-troll interludes, just as Erik himself does.
But here, Erik is trolling all the way. He doesn't even dare to name any people he would
like for people to think of as cranks or trolls.

If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with me that Marc Verhaegen
is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Erik Simpson announced on another thread, in response to a thoroughly
>on-topic reply of me to Marc Verhaegen, that he would ignore any posts I make,
>in lieu of killfiling me, which is impossible on Google Groups.
>
>His unjustifiable slur on me below thus invokes a cartoon of an ostrich with its head buried
>deep in the sand, while kicking furiously with both feet.
>
>
>

>On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:05:21?AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> > On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > > Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
>> > > over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
>> > > but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
>> > > the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
>
>Simpson may have sensed that Harshman's raving below would get a long counterattack
>from me, which it did:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
>Re: The Silurian hypothesis:

>Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27?PM

>
>Here comes Harshman's raving, ending in a surreal sentence referring to
>a mysterious "the conspiracy against you" without any tangible referent:
>
>> > Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
>> > exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
>> > say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
>> > the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
>> > things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
>> > conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
>
>In the post I linked above, I quoted from a thread where I laid bare this
>kind of nonsense about "paranoia" and "conspiracy":
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/8U9I0cmSLQAJ
>Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"

>Apr 15, 2016, 4:17:00?PM

>
>Opening paragraph:
>_____________________________________________________________
>In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
>to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
>irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc.
>==============================================================
>
>> > >>> PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
>> > >>> outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
>> > >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
>> > >
>> > >> Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
>> > >
>> > > Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
>> > > the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
>> > > Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
>
>> > I'm not.
>
>
>Here comes Erik now, head in sand and kicking all the way:
>
>> One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
>> what they mean, which he always inferrs.
>
>This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
>The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
>truth behind Erik's trolling here.

Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.

>> This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
>> cranks and trolls.
>
>Erik Simpson is forgetting that JTEM has his non-troll interludes, just as Erik himself does.

Erik's trolling interludes are the rare exception, the exact opposite
of JTEM.

>But here, Erik is trolling all the way. He doesn't even dare to name any people he would
>like for people to think of as cranks or trolls.

I suppose, for bizarre and self-serving meanings of "troll". Who
people think are cranks and trolls doesn't inform this discussion any
more than do Robert Camp's posts. OTOH how you figure Erik's comments
above qualify as "trolling" would at least be relevant to your point.

>If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with me that Marc Verhaegen
>is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.

Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets. A difference is their
choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
of JTEM's posts are hard-R.

[Pancho Sanza]

Gisulat ni jillery:

>>If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with
>>me that Marc Verhaegen is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.

>Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
>sufficient to hint they are sock puppets. A difference is their
>choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
>of JTEM's posts are hard-R.

Sockpuppet??

GondwanaTalks Verhaegen is a retired GP from Belgium (EU) who has been
preaching his Aquatic Ape Gospel for more than 35 years, has written
numerous "scientific" articles about the subject and has been thusly
thanked by AAG high priestess Elaine Morgan in her book The Scars Of
Evolution:

"I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Marc Verhaegen.
It was a paper published by him in 1987 which gave me the idea of
approaching the subject from a different angle, and I have benefited
greatly from his advice and co-operation during the writing of this
book. (This does not necessarily imply that he agrees with all the
opinions expressed in it.)"

Another funny example of how seemingly normal people can derail on the
subject of The Decent Of Humankind can be found here:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution

As for JTEM is a jerk: I found a post dated 13-10-2011 in
sci.anthropology.paleo which sees him foaming, yelling and shouting
exactly like he does in talk origins today. In short a perpetual and
probably incurable rabble-rouser.

Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.

--
Pancho

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
> >> you advance here, may have been misapplied.
> >
> > Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.

> Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on?

It was the point: THINKING!

Everything I said about this " Silurian hypothesis" applies to abiogenesis.
it even applies to SETI.

> So it
> isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?

It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with
the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.

> > When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
> > exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?

> I answered your question, twice.

That's kind of retarded, if you repeated back what I said, pretending I
didn't say it, MORE THAN ONCE. Really, really retarded.

Here. I explained it already, again..

> > Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
> > the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
> > conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.

> We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly
> explains.

If you're "Agreeing" with me, why are you pretending to he refuting me or
at least countering me?

> I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
> can tell

Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715597892514103296

[JTEM is my hero]

Brain splatter, jillery trolled:

> I suppose, for bizarre and self-serving meanings of "troll". Who

You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.

Wrong on both counts.

I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.

Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?

Oh, I know, you invented some lame ass idea that nobody ever
proposed the Silurian idea, using one of your alters, and you have
since clung to this as some imaginary "Issue," but I don't care about
that. Tell me, specifically, WHAT you are pretending to disagree with
in my initial post.

{Crickets}




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715597892514103296

[JTEM is my hero]

Pancho Sanza wrote:

> https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution

> Crackpots

There are a lot of mentally ill people, like yourself, who are easily manipulated,
who can't even think, that go through life reacting /Towards/ everything...

What's the argument in your cite?

What's the evidence in your cite?

Be specific. Your mental illness wants to pretend it's an authoritative piece -- "The
media is science! I love & trust the media! In fact, the word 'Media' is French or
Latin for 'You can't get more scientific than this'."

You are a troll, a crockpot troll.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715597892514103296

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/23 1:42 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
>>>> you advance here, may have been misapplied.
>>>
>>> Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.
>
>> Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on?
>
> It was the point: THINKING!
>
> Everything I said about this " Silurian hypothesis" applies to abiogenesis.
> it even applies to SETI.
>
>> So it
>> isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?
>
> It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with
> the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
> fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.

That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
there are testable predictions was the main point of the original
publication.

>>> When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
>>> exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?
>
>> I answered your question, twice.
>
> That's kind of retarded, if you repeated back what I said, pretending I
> didn't say it, MORE THAN ONCE. Really, really retarded.
>
> Here. I explained it already, again..
>
>>> Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
>>> the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
>>> conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.
>
>> We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly
>> explains.
>
> If you're "Agreeing" with me, why are you pretending to he refuting me or
> at least countering me?
>
>> I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
>> can tell
>
> Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...

So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis" or claims there
is evidence for it?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:04:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

Worth keeping in mind:

Hitchens' Razor - "What can be asserted without evidence can
also be dismissed without evidence."
>
--

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

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> > It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with
> > the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
> > fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.

> That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
> there are testable predictions was the main point of the original
> publication.

The only question is how you lived to even puberty when you are clearly
so fucking STUPID!

"It" is an idea, not a label, and "It" doesn't begin with a paper written in
2018.

Damn. YOU are fucked up...

> >> I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
> >> can tell
> >
> > Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...

> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"

Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.

NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!

But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.

I was using it as an example, because the exact same fact, the same
methods can be used to test the scientific validity of other claims.

Like abiogenesis, or even SETI. You don't know this because I cleverly
stated this, overtly, making it impossible to miss yet you still testify
now that you missed it... again.

Switch handles and agree with yourself. You've plummeted as far as
you can go with this one here.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715597892514103296

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:15:31 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Erik Simpson announced on another thread, in response to a thoroughly

> >on-topic reply of [mine] to Marc Verhaegen, that he would ignore any posts I make,

It does nothing of the sort. I gave the EXACT reason I mentioned him, even hinting
about being able to document what I am saying in a jiffy ["here"].

Besides, Howard Hershey hasn't posted here in over a *decade*, but that
didn't stop Harshman from gleefully telling a tall tale in which Hershey played
a central role, in December 2022 after I had gone on my posting break.

What's more, Harshman already told this tall tale in early 2011, while Hershey was still posting here,
claiming that this showed that my "paranoia ascends to the skies."
Back then I DID set the record straight, and Harshman has conveniently let
the correction fall into his memory hole.

Your little tiffs with Harshman are only skin-deep, so I expect you to flatter him
["Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"] by showing how you share his
great pride in double standards that favor him.

> >> This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
> >> cranks and trolls.
> >
> >Erik Simpson is forgetting that JTEM has his non-troll interludes, just as Erik himself does.

> Erik's trolling interludes are the rare exception, the exact opposite
> of JTEM.

You haven't seen how much he does in sci.bio.paleontology, where a majority of his trolling
takes place. But you were privy to one example there, on one of the occasions where Beagle
went down, with him pretending to be adamantly opposed to extending the hospitality
of s.b.p. to the temporary exiles from t.o.

If you doubt that he was flagrantly trolling there, by my definition [see below], I'll gladly explain.

> >But here, Erik is trolling all the way. He doesn't even dare to name any people he would
> >like for people to think of as cranks or trolls.

> I suppose, for bizarre and self-serving meanings of "troll".

I use it to mean making highly dubious claims that the utterer has no intention of defending,
usually to provoke people into wasting time arguing against them.

If that is bizarre in The World According to Jillery, I have no control over that, and I
also have no expectation of (let alone control over) you explaining why you think it is bizarre.

> Who people think are cranks and trolls doesn't inform this discussion any
> more than do Robert Camp's posts.

I suppose, for self-serving meanings of "this discussion" that I do NOT
expect you to explain as clearly as I explained my meaning of "troll" just now.

>OTOH how you figure Erik's comments
> above qualify as "trolling" would at least be relevant to your point.

They fit my definition perfectly, and if you disagree with that, feel free to
rush in where Erik feared to tread.

> >If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with me that Marc Verhaegen
> >is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank

> Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.

On-topic substance about hominids, yes; but their off-topic styles are so different, you've GOT to be kidding about style.
But then, you've often trolled about my style being supposedly very similar to Dr. Dr. Kleinman's,
so this kind of kidding comes naturally to you.

>A difference is their
> choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
> of JTEM's posts are hard-R.

There's your one-dimensional elevation of sexual terms out of all proportion to their significance.
They barely scratch the surface of JTEM's differences in style with Verhaegen.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:

> > So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"

> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.

Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?

> NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
> I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
> FIRST SENTENCE!
>
> But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.

That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
post I did on this thread yesterday:

"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."

In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ


But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?


Peter Nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?

again, NOT my topic. I never said anything about popularity, except that
it isn't popular, and none of it is relevant to my post.

I'm not interested in playing that worthless tangent...

> > NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
> > I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
> > FIRST SENTENCE!
> >
> > But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.

> That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
> post I did on this thread yesterday:
> "Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."

The good Doctor has some real notoriety, and you can see him yourself on
WHAT TALKS. Check Youtube.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715629953542193152

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/23 6:13 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
>
>> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
>
> Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?

Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this, if by "support" you mean "make claims"
rather than "offer actual evidence".

>> NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
>> I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
>> FIRST SENTENCE!
>>
>> But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
>
> That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
> post I did on this thread yesterday:

I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to
see why, but that's people for you.

> "Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
>
> In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ
>
>
> But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?

He seems to think I'm most of the people responding to him; possibly
including you.

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/23 5:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>> It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with
>>> the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
>>> fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.
>
>> That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
>> there are testable predictions was the main point of the original
>> publication.
>
> The only question is how you lived to even puberty when you are clearly
> so fucking STUPID!
>
> "It" is an idea, not a label, and "It" doesn't begin with a paper written in
> 2018.
>
> Damn. YOU are fucked up...
>
>>>> I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
>>>> can tell
>>>
>>> Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...
>
>> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
>
> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.

By "nobody" I meant "no scientist". There are of course kooks of all
sorts who claim all manner of things, from Raelians to Scientologists to
Danikenites. Not relevant.

> NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
> I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
> FIRST SENTENCE!

Popularity is hardly relevant. I was just asking for support of a claim
you made about the Silurian hypothesis. Thanks for finally providing
some, though I question its validity.

> But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
>
> I was using it as an example, because the exact same fact, the same
> methods can be used to test the scientific validity of other claims.

What fact and what methods?

> Like abiogenesis, or even SETI. You don't know this because I cleverly
> stated this, overtly, making it impossible to miss yet you still testify
> now that you missed it... again.
>
> Switch handles and agree with yourself. You've plummeted as far as
> you can go with this one here.

I don't think anyone on TO is currently using any sock puppets. In this
you are delusional.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:48:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <span...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Gisulat ni jillery:
>
>>>If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with
>>>me that Marc Verhaegen is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.
>
>>Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
>>sufficient to hint they are sock puppets. A difference is their
>>choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
>>of JTEM's posts are hard-R.
>
>Sockpuppet??
>
>GondwanaTalks Verhaegen is a retired GP from Belgium (EU) who has been
>preaching his Aquatic Ape Gospel for more than 35 years, has written
>numerous "scientific" articles about the subject and has been thusly
>thanked by AAG high priestess Elaine Morgan in her book The Scars Of
>Evolution:
>
>"I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Marc Verhaegen.
>It was a paper published by him in 1987 which gave me the idea of
>approaching the subject from a different angle, and I have benefited
>greatly from his advice and co-operation during the writing of this
>book. (This does not necessarily imply that he agrees with all the
>opinions expressed in it.)"
>
>Another funny example of how seemingly normal people can derail on the
>subject of The Decent Of Humankind can be found here:
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution

Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets. ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.

I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person.
However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.

>As for JTEM is a jerk: I found a post dated 13-10-2011 in
>sci.anthropology.paleo which sees him foaming, yelling and shouting
>exactly like he does in talk origins today. In short a perpetual and
>probably incurable rabble-rouser.
>
>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.

nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
>sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
>people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
>
>Wrong on both counts.
>
>I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
>position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
>you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
>acting out.
>
>Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
>think you're "Disagreeing" with?

You first.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/25/23 6:13 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31?PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
>>
>>> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
>>
>> Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
>
>Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this, if by "support" you mean "make claims"
>rather than "offer actual evidence".
>
>>> NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
>>> I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
>>> FIRST SENTENCE!
>>>
>>> But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
>>
>> That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
>> post I did on this thread yesterday:
>
>I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to
>see why, but that's people for you.

I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".

>> "Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
>>
>> In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ
>>
>>
>> But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?
>
>He seems to think I'm most of the people responding to him; possibly
>including you.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:53:43 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip uncommented text>

>> >> One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
>> >> what they mean, which he always inferrs.
>> >
>> >This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
>> >The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
>> >truth behind Erik's trolling here.
>
>
>> Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
>> using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.
>
>It does nothing of the sort. I gave the EXACT reason I mentioned him, even hinting
>about being able to document what I am saying in a jiffy ["here"].

Your allusions to Robert Camp's posts have nothing to do with your
"endearing traits" or with this topic, or with anything anybody said
in it. It's just more of your usual mindless obfuscating noise.

<snip remaining>

[Pancho Sanza]

Gisulat ni jillery:

>Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
>puppets.

I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".

>ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.

Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the
flames?

>I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person.
>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life

GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.

So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...

>Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
>using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
>using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.

Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the
effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.

Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
sock puppets.

>>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.

>nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.

Someone has to be the first.

Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
would call "serious" attention.

It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.

--
Pancho

[*Hemidactylus*]

I recall Verhaegen being an aquatic ape proponent on usenet perhaps for
several decades for what that’s worth. About the only thing I recall about
him.

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/23 11:39 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/23 6:13 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31?PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
>>>
>>>> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
>>>
>>> Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
>>
>> Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this, if by "support" you mean "make claims"
>> rather than "offer actual evidence".
>>
>>>> NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
>>>> I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
>>>> FIRST SENTENCE!
>>>>
>>>> But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
>>>
>>> That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
>>> post I did on this thread yesterday:
>>
>> I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to
>> see why, but that's people for you.
>
>
> I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".

OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:42:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <span...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Gisulat ni jillery:
>
>>Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
>>puppets.
>
>I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".

Their mutual echo chambers distracted me. I withdraw this specific
claim about "the good doctor".

>>ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
>
>Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the
>flames?

Apparently those are your reasons.

>>I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person.
>>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
>
>GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston,
>Massachusetts, USA.
>
>So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...

Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.

>>Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
>>using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
>>using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
>
>Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
>language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
>while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the
>effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
>
>Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
>sock puppets.

Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.

>>>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
>
>>nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
>
>Someone has to be the first.

To quote someone you regard so highly: "Why? Because you want to win

the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"

>Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
>would call "serious" attention.

Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.

>It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
>so on.

Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
>
>OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?

Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:47:38 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Also included is his fondness for spelling flames.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 2:55:32 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:53:43 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip uncommented text>

...including the attribution line to Erik Simpson, who wrote:

> >> >> One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
> >> >> what they mean, which he always inferrs.
> >> >
> >> >This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
> >> >The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
> >> >truth behind Erik's trolling here.
> >
> >
> >> Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
> >> using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.
> >
> >It does nothing of the sort. I gave the EXACT reason I mentioned him, even hinting
> >about being able to document what I am saying in a jiffy ["here"].

> Your allusions to Robert Camp's posts have nothing to do with your
> "endearing traits" or with this topic,

"this topic" is Jillery's Queen of Hearts persona talking, as if to say,

"All the ways [topics] here are MY ways [topics]".

> or with anything anybody said in it.

"it" evidently excludes what Erik said in the first text lines that jillery preserved above.

Does jillery want people to think that jillery is so autistic as to think that "said"
can never mean "wrote" or "posted" in talk.origins?


I believe that the truth is more mundane: jillery is motivated by the
ethic of "Might Makes Right". The might of jillery is evident in the way
jillery is in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship
with a good number of regulars of talk.origins, including Erik.

And so, the following projection of what jillery is doing is self-serving and Erik-serving:

> It's just more of your usual mindless obfuscating noise.

Jillery has painted jillery into a corner by claiming that trolling by Erik
is the exception rather than the rule. It therefore seems that jillery's whole post is part
of a campaign to keep Erik's text at the beginning from being seen as what jillery calls an "exception."


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
>>
>> OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
>
>
> Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
> is better. You're welcome.
>

OK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:47:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
demonstrably true.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:

> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:

>>>> So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"

>>> Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.

> > Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?

> again, NOT my topic.

So why did you bring up Graham Hancock, and why are you
ducking my question about him?

> I never said anything about popularity, except that
> it isn't popular, and none of it is relevant to my post.
>
> I'm not interested in playing that worthless tangent...

So why did you go off on your Graham Hancock tangent
and why did you insult Harshman for not starting with it?


You need to pick your tangents carefully if you have any ambitions
of once again making Harshman look like a troll and making yourself
look like you are "feeding the troll." You succeeded at that when you and
Harshman were talking about gorilla sperm, and IIRC that wasn't even a tangent--
it was the main event.

> > > NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
> > > I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
> > > FIRST SENTENCE!
> > >
> > > But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
>
> > That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
> > post I did on this thread yesterday:

> > "Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
> > sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."

> The good Doctor has some real notoriety, and you can see him yourself on
> WHAT TALKS. Check Youtube.

Marc's main problem recently is that he doesn't give direct answers to on-topic
questions but refers the questioner to articles that they have to google themselves,
only to find out in all too many cases that the articles don't answer the questions.
His lame excuse is that he doesn't have enough time to look up the relevant passages
himself -- in his own articles!

You, on the other hand, did a good job here and there of documenting
answers to "aquatic ape" questions, and I told Marc to use a couple of those answers in reply to Bill Rogers.
This so infuriated Erik Simpson that he put me in what I call a "de facto killfile."

Erik wants you to be dismissed as a troll, and this put a monkey wrench [1]
into his campaign.

[1] The British Commonwealth uses the term "put a spanner" in such contexts.


Peter Nyikos

[Pancho Sanza]

Gisulat ni jillery:

[Accusations of sockpuppetery]

>>>ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.

>>Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the
>>flames?

>Apparently those are your reasons.

OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?

>>GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
>>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston,
>>Massachusetts, USA.

>>So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...

>Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
>sure why you brought it up.

Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic)
I'm satisfied.

>>Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
>>sock puppets.

>Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
>ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
>repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
>injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
>shared among trolls.

That "nagging" remark was in jest.

>>>>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
>>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.

>>>nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.

>>Someone has to be the first.

>To quote someone you regard so highly:

You don't know how I regard myself and I'm not gonna tell you.

>"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"

No. Because you keep feeding the troll.

>>Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
>>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
>>would call "serious" attention.

>Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
>why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.

JTEM sucks Marc's dick because Marc has a healthy diet consisting of
shellfish (and many other marine creatures). And you know the
connection: SEAfood -> DHA -> SEAmen. Yum yum.

>>It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
>>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
>>so on.

>Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
>such things. Not sure why you do.

It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
totally berserk.

--
Pancho

[Pancho Sanza]

Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:

>>Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
>>such things. Not sure why you do.

>They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
>putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
>demonstrably true.

If there is one thing any true red blooded yank really really really
hates above all else it's being called a gay/faggot/homo/shirtlifter.

Let's hope JTEM loves littoral homo is one of them true red blooded
yanks.

--
Pancho

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:30:32 PM UTC-4, Pancho Sanza wrote:
> Gisulat ni jillery:
>
> [Accusations of sockpuppetery]
> >>>ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
>
> >>Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the
> >>flames?
>
> >Apparently those are your reasons.

> OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
> claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?

The claims are nonsense on both sides, but this kind of behavior
has been part of jillery's *modus* *operandi* for as long as the 12+ years we have interacted.
Not having any firm grounding in morality, jillery seems to think that copying
the adversary's methods confers immunity to reasoned criticism.

> >>GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
> >>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
> >>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston,
> >>Massachusetts, USA.
>
> >>So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...

Nice sarcasm, btw.

> >Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
> >sure why you brought it up.

> Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
> dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic)
> I'm satisfied.

> >>Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
> >>sock puppets.
>
> >Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
> >ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
> >repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
> >injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
> >shared among trolls.

Also by jillery: if you were to read the interaction between us on this thread
since April 18, this would become clear.

However, I fully understand if you don't want to become embroiled in
the never-ending disputes between us. As long as you don't show
any irrational favoritism, your silence about them is golden as far as I am concerned.

> That "nagging" remark was in jest.

> >>>>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
> >>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.

Actually, they come up with some good points from time to time
about the possibility that our remote ancestors dined heavily on shellfish.

What makes Marc a crank is that he attaches all kinds of excess baggage
to the "aquatic ape" hypothesis instead of keeping the various sub-hypotheses
clearly separated, and writing as objectively as possible about the strengths
and weaknesses of each.

JTEM is more selective about the parts he writes seriously about,
but he hardly ever tries to write seriously about them. It's not surprising
that you've missed out on those rare occasions, but I can document
one or two if you are interested.

I am patient enough to separate the wheat from the chaff;
hardly anyone else does, because the ratio is so small.

> >>>nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
>
> >>Someone has to be the first.
>
> >To quote someone you regard so highly:

> You don't know how I regard myself and I'm not gonna tell you.

That's the best comeback I've seen to one of jillery's favorite private formulae. Well done.

> >"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"

> No. Because you keep feeding the troll.

In response to me, jillery acts like a troll about as often as JTEM does.
And with far less of a sense of humor.

I should add that my interactions with JTEM have been very sporadic
until the Marc-JTEM team first started posting heavily to sci.bio.paleontology
and then to talk.origins this year. I'd estimate I've had about fifty times more interaction
with jillery than with the two of them combined.

> >>Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
> >>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
> >>would call "serious" attention.
>
> >Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
> >why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.

> JTEM sucks Marc's dick because Marc has a healthy diet consisting of
> shellfish (and many other marine creatures). And you know the
> connection: SEAfood -> DHA -> SEAmen. Yum yum.

This kind of humor has always appealed to jillery in talk.origins.
In fact, she reminds me of the jokes our instructors told us cadets in ROTC
summer camp. They seemed to have the attitude that there are
two kinds of jokes: the clean ones and the funny ones.

> >>It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
> >>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
> >>so on.
>
> >Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
> >such things. Not sure why you do.

That's a new tack for jillery, who has taunted me from time to time,
with allegations of being a prude for not appreciating her brand of humor.

> It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
> totally berserk.

> Pancho

You seem to be new to talk.origins, Pancho. People like JTEM are a lot more resilient
than you are giving credit for here. But maybe what you are saying here is also in jest.


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

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this

JTEM never gave a fat flying fuck about how popular the idea is,
how many adherents there are, and quite frankly it's all irrelevant
to my point.

...just coincidence that *Everybody* except JTEM in an
irrelevant, imaginary tangent.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> By "nobody" I meant

Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like,
swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything
further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.

As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to
be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?

Thanks ever so much.

> > NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
> > I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
> > FIRST SENTENCE!

> Popularity is

Irrelevant.

> I don't think

If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[JTEM is my hero]

SEVERLEY mentally ill, jillery splattered:

> His Lusciousness, the seemingly divine JTEM doth truthed:

> >You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
> >sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
> >people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
> >
> >Wrong on both counts.
> >
> >I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
> >position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
> >you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
> >acting out.
> >
> >Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
> >think you're "Disagreeing" with?

> You first.

What an astounding idiotic thing to say!

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/D13_GGoCBQAJ

There. That is me. First. So go ahead and explain exactly what you
are pretending to be disagreeing with, and why.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[...]

Oh, look! Look! The collective is pronouncing it's superiority using
this (kneel &) Bob sock puppet... again. And again. And again.

Wow. It's almost as if there's a pattern here...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman

Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:08:52 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>I recall Verhaegen being an aquatic ape proponent on usenet perhaps for
>several decades for what that’s worth. About the only thing I recall about
>him.

"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google
paradigm. This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and
distinctive terms. It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:27:31 +0200, Pancho Sanza <span...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Gisulat ni jillery:
>
>[Accusations of sockpuppetery]
>
>>>>ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
>
>>>Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the
>>>flames?
>
>>Apparently those are your reasons.
>
>OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
>claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?

See below.

>>>GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
>>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
>>>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston,
>>>Massachusetts, USA.
>
>>>So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
>
>>Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
>>sure why you brought it up.
>
>Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
>dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic)
>I'm satisfied.

You haven't even tried to show that's the case. Not sure why you
suppose you convinced me of it.

>>>Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
>>>sock puppets.
>
>>Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
>>ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
>>repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
>>injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
>>shared among trolls.
>
>That "nagging" remark was in jest.

Your "jesting" completely ignores their common behaviors. That's a
good way to feed the trolls.

>>>>>Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
>>>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
>
>>>>nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
>
>>>Someone has to be the first.
>
>>To quote someone you regard so highly:
>
>You don't know how I regard myself and I'm not gonna tell you.
>
>>"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
>
>No. Because you keep feeding the troll.

JTEM feeds himself, a self-parody.

>>>Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
>>>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
>>>would call "serious" attention.
>
>>Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
>>why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
>
>JTEM sucks Marc's dick because Marc has a healthy diet consisting of
>shellfish (and many other marine creatures). And you know the
>connection: SEAfood -> DHA -> SEAmen. Yum yum.
>
>>>It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
>>>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
>>>so on.
>
>>Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
>>such things. Not sure why you do.
>
>It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
>totally berserk.

You accuse me of feeding the troll even as you admit to feeding the
troll yourself. You parrot a PeeWee Peterism, another common behavior
among trolls.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:31:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

If by "they're" you mean Pancho's allusions to imagined sexual
practices, I suppose doing such things with JTEM might be considered
heroic aka pity sex with incels, but that still doesn't explain why
Pancho repeatedly mentions them.