Away from the group for a few days
David Sienkiewicz
discussions, this is one time when it is best to do.
An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
a few days, I suspect, depending on the events.
A few very quick observations:
I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
calling him a liar in another was, in fact, a denial. If Skippy can
provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
retract the statement that it is denial.
I see sheldon has joined the fray and is using another email address,
as well. It will be a pleasure to deal with sheldon, as well, upon my
return - assuming he's still posting.
I also see that sheldon and Skippy are "mates." It appears that it is
not only politics that make for strange bedfellows. Stupidity does
that as well.
Ed apparently has received a reply from his congressman telling him
that the Office of Personnel Management requires a Privacy Act
statement from me before they will research Ed's question. Ed's post
makes it apparent that he has no idea that the Office of Personnel
Management and the General Accounting Office are two different
entitites with two different missions.
Ed, of course, has made direct statements that I AM employed in this
capacity, not that he suspects that I am. Finally, years later when
he tries to get the information, he finds that he is not correct - he
is not automatically entitled to that information, so it's obvious he
never had that information in the first place.
Ed misdirects by telling me it's my "move."
No, Ed, it does not fall to me to disprove your claims. You must
provide evidence for them; but as usual, I'm willing to meet you half
way.
You provide the clear and objective evidence and documentation (not
speculation based simply on my opposition of you) that I work for the
"pseudoscientific establishment," the Smithsonian or the Federal
Government, and I'll provide the OPM with a Privacy Act statement.
That sounds fair to me. Ed, you have already stated unequivocally
that I am employed in this capacity. Are you admitting now that you
made it all up?
See you all in a few days.
AC
David Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I don't normally do this, but since I am currently embroiled in
> discussions, this is one time when it is best to do.
>
> An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
> my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
> a few days, I suspect, depending on the events.
<snip>
> See you all in a few days.
My best wishes and hopes of a speedy recovery for you grandchild, David.
--
Aaron Clausen
Glenn
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
snip probable lies
>
> I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
> interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
> calling him a liar in another was, in fact, a denial.
Well there you have it folks. Sienkiewicz accused Stew of denying he accused
gen2rev of lying.
That is a lie, and what he interpreted Stew saying in another article was
not a denial by Stew that he
called gen2rev a liar. Delusional is a good word to describe Sienkiewicz. He
must believe what he writes,
and be blind to the fact that he has been caught lying and deceiving so many
times on this group that
he appears as a pathetic fool.
> If Skippy can
> provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> retract the statement that it is denial.
The same old stuff Sienkiewicz has been pulling non stop for the last year
or more. He claims that
if his opponent can provide a convincing explanation for what Sienkiewicz
"interprets", that he will
let the person go, or some such other promise. Problem is that Sienkiewicz
is never satisfied with
any explanation. He is one of the most classic pathological liars I have
ever encountered.
>
> I see sheldon has joined the fray and is using another email address,
> as well. It will be a pleasure to deal with sheldon, as well, upon my
> return - assuming he's still posting.
Sienkiewicz appears deranged. I suppose he really thinks I changed my email
address to hide from him
and only his superior intellect is able to discern who I am by my new
address, as one of his favorite
boasts is people "running" from him.
>
> I also see that sheldon and Skippy are "mates." It appears that it is
> not only politics that make for strange bedfellows. Stupidity does
> that as well.
>
An example of stupidity is to call Stew and I "mates." because I agreed with
Stew recently on one issue,
that of whether gen2rev "attempted to reason with" Ed. We have not shared
common interests or beliefs,
and Sienkiewicz knows that. I am a creationist, and Stew is not. Sienkiewicz
is aware of this also.
It is sad that, if it istrue he is retired, financially secure, having
children and grandchildren, that he spends
a great amount of time on t.o., and more time googling for information on
posters, managing files, etc.
Sadder yet that this time is spent on Stew, Ed, and myself, and few others,
all in the same vindictive vein,
apparently with only one purpose, to please Sienkiewicz and hoping to make
others miserable.
The one that he is making miserable is himself. And it is a shame that he
does not see it.
snip
Dale
news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> discussions, this is one time when it is best to do.
>
> An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
> my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
> a few days, I suspect, depending on the events.
>
> A few very quick observations:
>
> I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
> interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
> calling him a liar in another was, in fact, a denial. If Skippy can
> provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> retract the statement that it is denial.
And you think anyone here cares about this because...?
stew dean
> I don't normally do this, but since I am currently embroiled in
> discussions, this is one time when it is best to do.
>
> An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
> my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
> a few days, I suspect, depending on the events.
I hope your grandchild makes a full and quick recovery. The best of
health to you and all your family.
> A few very quick observations:
>
> I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
> interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
> calling him a liar in another was, in fact, a denial.
Not at all. It may be contradictory but it is not a denial. I did call
gen2rev a liar but I feel I can give him the benefit of the doubt.
> If Skippy can
> provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> retract the statement that it is denial.
Thank you. Retraction accepted.
Stew Dean
Cyde Weys
>
>
> And you think anyone here cares about this because...?
Don't be such an asshole. David Sienkiewicz is a well-respected poster
here on t.o. and we all wish his grandchild well.
Dale
news:bmao02$hre$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
Sorry, actually I missed that part. It's that stupid crap about Skippy and
gen2rev I was talking about.
David Sienkiewicz
he knows nothing about and can only marginally comprehend, at best.
"Glenn" <glenns...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<lhMhb.455$eX6.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> snip probable lies
< snip rant >
The "probable lies" have to do with the statements about my grandson.
I'm sure that, when I return, sheldon will be forthright in his
evidence that shows that they were, in fact, "probably lies." I look
forward to seeing this evidence.
Regardless, I shall eviscerate the his "reasoning" when I return, if
only because it affords me considerable entertainment.
However, I don't know when that will be.
I just wanted to say for now that my family and I appreciate the good
wishes expressed here and in email.
Hug your children.
Glenn
news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> "Glenn" <glenns...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:<lhMhb.455$eX6.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> > "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > snip probable lies
>
> < snip rant >
>
> The "probable lies" have to do with the statements about my grandson.
> I'm sure that, when I return, sheldon will be forthright in his
> evidence that shows that they were, in fact, "probably lies." I look
> forward to seeing this evidence.
>
> Regardless, I shall eviscerate the his "reasoning" when I return, if
> only because it affords me considerable entertainment.
>
> However, I don't know when that will be.
>
I snipped:
"An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
a few days, I suspect, depending on the events."
That was posted two days ago. Sienkiewicz claims he must postpone
input to the groups for what he suspects is a few days. Two days later,
he makes this post, which is input to the group. He returns, while a
medical emergency is supposed to exist in his family, to make this post.
Apparently his family emergency still requires his attention, yet he returns
before whatever the situation is, is resolved, what he says he suspects
was a "few days". The implication originally was that he would not
return until the situation no longer required his attention.
In Sienkiewicz style, I interpret that as lying about when he would
return. He returned before a "few days", and returned before the
situation was over.
Perhaps the phrase "depending on the events" should be taken
into account. Sienkiewicz could be home for a short time, from the hospital
or from the situation, whatever it is. "Depending on events", though, would
seem to be describing how long his attention would be required.
Either way, he still lied.
He also lied in his conclusive statement about what my comment
"probable lies" meant, as I did not mention the reason, and there were more
than one possible explanation. In fact, one who lies and attempts to deceive
on a regular basis can not be trusted to tell the truth, and anything
Sienkiewicz says is suspect.
***************
At bottom is restored text he snipped and described as a "rant".
His "entertainment" seems centered more on me than in defending
his accusation against Stew, and thinks that my argument that what
Stew said can not be interpreted as a denial, is a "rant".
>> I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
>> interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
>> calling him a liar in another was, in fact, a denial.
>Well there you have it folks. Sienkiewicz accused Stew of denying he accused
>gen2rev of lying. That is a lie, and what he interpreted Stew saying in another
article was
>not a denial by Stew that he called gen2rev a liar. Delusional is a good word
to describe Sienkiewicz. He
>must believe what he writes, and be blind to the fact that he has been caught
lying and deceiving so many
>times on this group that he appears as a pathetic fool.
**********************
It is possible that this medical situation has been fabricated by Sienkiewicz
in the hopes that me or someone else would say something offensive or
insensitive about a family emergency. I could say that I am not, but those
are only words, as are anyone else's comments.
But - I have not made any statement about his grandson, or questioned
whether this situation really exists. My statements concerned nothing about
his grandson, only about his statements on when he would return.
I suspect that Sienkiewicz would like nothing more than for me
to accuse him of lying about an "emergency medical situation"
and as I have already explained above, made the accusation that
I did. Again, I did not comment on anything *about* his grandson.
snip
gen2rev
No reason to think that anyone besides the participants care, but for
those that might...
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > If Skippy can
> > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > retract the statement that it is denial.
>
> Thank you. Retraction accepted.
Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
> Stew Dean
stew dean
I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination. It was not a
denial in any form. I preemptively accept David's retraction.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > If Skippy can
> > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > >
> > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> >
> > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
>
> I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination.
As usual, Skippy, you're nothing if not presumptuous. You did not
provide a "'convincing explaination.'"
*I* am the one that gets to judge that, after all. It was MY
challenge.
> It was not a denial in any form.
Yes, actually, it was.
> I preemptively accept David's retraction.
I did not issue a retraction; and I suggest you look up what it means
to be "preemptive."
I will demolish both your "explaination" and sheldon's rant (and his
lies) when I can devote the time.
Until then, you'll just have to wait; and save the rhetoric. You'll
just dig yourself a deeper hole.
Glenn
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
news:<2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
>
> As usual, Skippy, you're nothing if not presumptuous. You did not
> provide a "'convincing explaination.'"
>
> *I* am the one that gets to judge that, after all. It was MY
> challenge.
>
> > It was not a denial in any form.
>
> Yes, actually, it was.
>
"I see Skippy doesn't think he denied calling gen2rev a liar. I
interpreted "I don't think gen2rev is a liar" in one article while
provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
retract the statement that it is denial."
"Skippy" does not need to provide any explanation showing
why this was not a denial.
Stew did not deny that he called gen2rev a liar
and making the statement later that he did not think
gen2rev was a liar does not constitute, in any
sane interpretation, a denial.
Sienkiewicz gets to judge because it was his challenge?
Actually, no.
Curious. If Stew would ever make a "convincing explanation"
that would satisfy Sienkiewicz so that he would retract his
accusation, then.......
Because Sienkiewicz has made the accusation, he would be,
according to his own logic, denying that he accused Stew
of denying.....
Sienkiewicz would say "I don't think you denied"
in one article but in another would say "You denied".
There you have it again, folks.
catshark, you are of like mind,
kindly step in and claim that Stew denied
calling gen2rev a liar. Please. Or anyone.
David Sienkiewicz
Oh, but he does, sheldon. He has much to answer for, as do you.
And you WILL answer for it, in due time.
> Stew did not deny that he called gen2rev a liar
> and making the statement later that he did not think
> gen2rev was a liar does not constitute, in any
> sane interpretation, a denial.
Yes, he did, sheldon. As usual, both you and Skippy ignore certain
things that Skippy calls "unrelated facts."
One of YOUR unrelated facts is the whining you make when you are
challenged by me on topical affairs, ranting that you have nothing to
say to me and wanting nothing to do with me; and all because I have
shown you to be as much a poser as Skippy, himself.
Ah, but why is it, then, that you see fit to enter OFF-TOPIC
conversations, debates and arguments and interject your rantings?
I'd say "we'll find out," but we never do, do we, sheldon? You spend
so much of your time running away, ducking questions, insisting that
you were never making a point and, occasionally, admitting that you
are a troll.
As I said, sheldon, you have much to answer for; and you WILL, in due
time.
> Sienkiewicz gets to judge because it was his challenge?
> Actually, no.
Actually, yes.
If I issue the challenge, I get to decide if a response meets my
challenge.
That's a fact, sheldon. You can rant and rave about that to your
little heart's content. It's a fact, regardless.
> Curious. If Stew would ever make a "convincing explanation"
No, no, sheldon, that's "explaInation."
> that would satisfy Sienkiewicz so that he would retract his
> accusation, then.......
It wasn't an accusation so much as an observation, sheldon.
As usual, you ignore context.
> Because Sienkiewicz has made the accusation, he would be,
> according to his own logic, denying that he accused Stew
> of denying.....
I use real logic, sheldon - not my own and not yours or Skippy's.
Neither of you understands logic.
> Sienkiewicz would say "I don't think you denied"
> in one article but in another would say "You denied".
No, sheldon, that is not what I would say.
As usual, you make this up as you go along, because you are far too
stupid and dishonest to argue properly.
> There you have it again, folks.
No, folks, what you have is sheldon again trying, in his own pathetic
way, to be more than he is.
> catshark, you are of like mind,
> kindly step in and claim that Stew denied
> calling gen2rev a liar. Please. Or anyone.
The only person obligated in any way to support the statement is me,
sheldon. I made the claim, and Skippy dodged it for a time. When
forced, he finally had to face up to it, and he denied it again.
There are many ways to deny things, sheldon. Let that be the only
clue I will give you. "I did not" is not the only means by which to
deny something. Such things are outside of your ability to
comprehend; and this is true of both of you, must as neither of you
seems to comprehend that addressing someone directly about things they
have said does not constitute "reasoning WITH" that person.
Ah, but you must be patient, sheldon. All things in due time.
Never fear, however. It will be fun.
For me.
I can't say the same for you; but I'm sure others will enjoy it.
Wait for it, sheldon. It'll happen.
In due time.
AC
stew dean
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > If Skippy can
> > > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> > >
> > > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
> >
> > I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination.
>
> As usual, Skippy, you're nothing if not presumptuous. You did not
> provide a "'convincing explaination.'"
David. The 'explaination' is I did not deny calling gen2rev. Softening
or retracting the statement is in no terms a denial that I did. If you
think it is then, again, you are mistaken.
> *I* am the one that gets to judge that, after all. It was MY
> challenge.
If you are unable to see the obvious you are not fit to judge. If you
would rather be right than correct then so be it.
> > It was not a denial in any form.
>
> Yes, actually, it was.
How can I argue with reasoning like that?
I never denied calling Gen2rev a liar. This means at no point did I
say 'I did not call Gen2rev a liar'. I did say words to the effect 'he
may not be a liar because he was unaware of his actions' but this is
not a denial of the original act.
My advice is to give up David. You are just adding error upon error.
Stick to the stuff you're good at as you're only going to loose
arguement after argument with me. If you're not going to use reason
and instead resort to 'it is because I say it is' tactics you're just
going to waste your and my
time.
I hope all went well with recent events.
Stew Dean
Glenn
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com...
in reasoning with you, nor interested in reason at all.
But he is not wasting his time. He is entertaining himself,
and whether he has a conscience or not is not evident.
I agree he is adding error upon error. Yet it is you and I
who are among those who fuel his actions.
I know my reasons, what may I ask are yours?
catshark
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
[...]
I'm with AC, how's your grandchild? I hope all is well now.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
David Sienkiewicz
> <snip>
>
> To more important things. How is your grandchild, David?
Much better, thank you.
David Sienkiewicz
Your reasons, sheldon, are prompted by hate.
You're a hateful, mean-spirited little man who, like Ed Conrad,
presumed for himself more than his talent and intelligence could
provide.
So you lash out at those better-educated, more refined or more
intelligent than you.
It's perfectly understandable, sheldon.
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > If Skippy can
> > > > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
> > >
> > > I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination.
> >
> > As usual, Skippy, you're nothing if not presumptuous. You did not
> > provide a "'convincing explaination.'"
>
> David. The 'explaination' is I did not deny calling gen2rev.
Calling gen2rev what, Skippy?
> Softening
> or retracting the statement is in no terms a denial that I did.
We'll see.
> If you
> think it is then, again, you are mistaken.
No, I am not. You tried to get away with it and even acted as if you
never did it. Implied denial is still denial.
> > *I* am the one that gets to judge that, after all. It was MY
> > challenge.
>
> If you are unable to see the obvious you are not fit to judge.
As we have seen many times, Skippy, what is obvious to you is
generally far removed from reality and is covered by your evasions and
dishonesty. You are a poser, Skippy.
> If you would rather be right than correct then so be it.
I wonder how many irony meters went into full meltdown when THAT
statement hit the screen!
You are fortunate, Skippy, in that I don't have the time to provide
full explanations; but they will come.
The fact is that you made a presumption that you shouldn't have made
and you were premature. You even LIED by trying to MISREPRESENT that
I ever issued a retraction. Your after-the-fact whimpering when you
were caught that all you were doing was issuing a preemptive
acceptance was as lame as any other excuse you've issued.
Don't worry, Skippy. You've wanted attention all this time, and only
circumstance is preventing that at this time.
When the circumstances permit, you'll get my FULL and unfettered
attention.
> > > It was not a denial in any form.
> >
> > Yes, actually, it was.
>
> How can I argue with reasoning like that?
I haven't presented my reasoning yet, Skippy.
> I never denied calling Gen2rev a liar. This means at no point did I
> say 'I did not call Gen2rev a liar'.
And as I said (and you snipped without marking), one need not come out
and say "did not" and be in denial.
> I did say words to the effect 'he
> may not be a liar because he was unaware of his actions' but this is
> not a denial of the original act.
You said more than that, Skippy.
> My advice is to give up David.
If I have never been interested in your advice before, Skippy, what
makes you think I will find it compelling today?
> You are just adding error upon error.
We'll see.
> Stick to the stuff you're good at as you're only going to loose
> arguement after argument with me.
I have yet to lose anything with respect to you, Skippy. You're an
arrogant, presumptuous child. You have been wrong about everything.
In fact, it's because there has been so MUCH error on your part that I
must defer my evisceration of your "reasoning" for a later time.
But it WILL happen, Skippy; and you'll only have yourself to blame.
> If you're not going to use reason
> and instead resort to 'it is because I say it is' tactics
And how many MORE irony meters melted down after THAT?
> you're just
> going to waste your and my
> time.
It's my time to waste, as I have told you; and I get to decide these
things.
> I hope all went well with recent events.
My thanks, but don't expect mercy because of that.
David Horn
gotten into his share of ridiculous, personal arguments. I don't know
how many other people are reading this thread. I know I plan on
stopping after these comments. But I am addressing this to you, David,
because you seem to be the more reasonable and intelligent of the
threesome currently embroiled in this nonsense. (I say that with all
due respect to gen2rev, who is also very reasonable and intelligent but
who is *not* currently posting in this thread.
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If Skippy can
> > > > > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
> > > >
> > > > I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination.
> > >
> > > As usual, Skippy, you're nothing if not presumptuous. You did not
> > > provide a "'convincing explaination.'"
> >
> > David. The 'explaination' is I did not deny calling gen2rev.
>
> Calling gen2rev what, Skippy?
He called gen2rev a liar. You know it, I know it and he knows it. No,
he didn't have just cause. I read the exchanges and I agree that it was
uncalled for. But we all know that Dean is not intelligent enough nor
mature enough to accept that it was wrong or that he should retract it.
We can figure this out, David. You observed that much of what Dean
writes in the group doesn't get responses. Maybe the reason is that
some agree with you and that there is nothing added.
> > Softening
> > or retracting the statement is in no terms a denial that I did.
>
> We'll see.
>
> > If you
> > think it is then, again, you are mistaken.
>
> No, I am not. You tried to get away with it and even acted as if you
> never did it. Implied denial is still denial.
I can think of several occasions when "implied denial is still denial,"
but unless you're setting Dean up for some abject lesson, I don't see
the point in drawing it out and I don't see "implied denial" here. He
*was* inconsistent, suggesting that gen2rev was not being honest with
himself, then directly calling him a liar, then saying he "may not" be
lying, so, yes, he called gen2rev a liar directly; but that was about a
specific part of the discussion, i.e., the snippage of pertinent
material. Yes, Dean *was* snipping material and yes, gen2rev caught him
at it. Yes, it *was* pertinent material, and yes, Dean deserved to be
called on the carpet for it. That Dean resorted to name-calling hurt
what little argument he was presenting. It didn't do a thing to
gen2rev's argument. In fact, it underscored it. Dean's entire line of
"reasoning" was shabby, at best. I saw it as out-and-out dishonest. I
doubt if I was alone in that perception. But it wasn't denial in any
real sense that I can fathom.
> > > *I* am the one that gets to judge that, after all. It was MY
> > > challenge.
> >
> > If you are unable to see the obvious you are not fit to judge.
>
> As we have seen many times, Skippy, what is obvious to you is
> generally far removed from reality and is covered by your evasions and
> dishonesty. You are a poser, Skippy.
Well, yes, but what is the point at poking at a poser? He's just like
Conrad. You egg him on when you do this.
> > If you would rather be right than correct then so be it.
>
> I wonder how many irony meters went into full meltdown when THAT
> statement hit the screen!
Three of mine; but what's the point?
> You are fortunate, Skippy, in that I don't have the time to provide
> full explanations; but they will come.
I realize you're not real amenable to advice; but I would suggest you
not bother with taking the time. It's not worth it, Dean will never
accept that he was wrong about *anything*, as the whole argument has
demonstrated; and it's really off-topic.
> The fact is that you made a presumption that you shouldn't have made
> and you were premature. You even LIED by trying to MISREPRESENT that
> I ever issued a retraction.
It was less a lie and more just typical of Dean's sophistry. So what?
I think you need to give more credit to the readers. We can figure this
stuff out, you know.
> Your after-the-fact whimpering when you
> were caught that all you were doing was issuing a preemptive
> acceptance was as lame as any other excuse you've issued.
Yes, but see above.
> Don't worry, Skippy. You've wanted attention all this time, and only
> circumstance is preventing that at this time.
Why?
What will it accomplish?
> When the circumstances permit, you'll get my FULL and unfettered
> attention.
It's been tried with other pig-headed types.
If you want to reply to Conrad, do so. Ignore Dean. You've added to
the insight. Dean has not. Let it go. I know it's hard, but let it
go.
> > > > It was not a denial in any form.
> > >
> > > Yes, actually, it was.
> >
> > How can I argue with reasoning like that?
>
> I haven't presented my reasoning yet, Skippy.
No, Dean was using rhetoric. He knew you weren't providing reasoning
"yet," so he decided to play on it. So what?
> > I never denied calling Gen2rev a liar. This means at no point did I
> > say 'I did not call Gen2rev a liar'.
>
> And as I said (and you snipped without marking), one need not come out
> and say "did not" and be in denial.
Actually, that part of your argument was a response to Newbie, not to
Dean. You're wrong here.
> > I did say words to the effect 'he
> > may not be a liar because he was unaware of his actions' but this is
> > not a denial of the original act.
>
> You said more than that, Skippy.
Yes, he did, but it all amounts to the same. He called gen2rev a liar
and never actually denied it. He *should* retract and apologize, but he
won't. We know gen2rev was very honest in his dealings in the thread.
No one takes Newbie's opinion, seriously, so he doesn't count. Let it
go.
> > My advice is to give up David.
>
> If I have never been interested in your advice before, Skippy, what
> makes you think I will find it compelling today?
Good point, but in this case, there was no denial. "Skippy" gets one
against all of the points you have made and that he has avoided. So you
don't get a shut-out. You still clobbered him.
> > You are just adding error upon error.
>
> We'll see.
>
> > Stick to the stuff you're good at as you're only going to loose
> > arguement after argument with me.
>
> I have yet to lose anything with respect to you, Skippy.
Your streak ends here. YOu were pitching a no-hitter, but you blew it
here, in my opinion.
Look, like I said, this is ridiculous. Look at what you guys were
arguing--think about it. It boiled down to a really stupid argument in
which you guys were trying to one-up each other on (are you ready for
this?) just who was a better expert when it came to Ed Conrad.
Ed-for-cryin'-out-loud-Conrad!
Now *think* about that. *That's* what you guys were arguing about. "I
know Ed better 'cause I read his posts." "Oh, yeah? Well, *I* know Ed
better because I went to Pennsylvania." "You're stupid. I design web
pages so I'm an expert in human behavior and so I know Ed Conrad
better!" "You're an idiot. *I* interviewed people who knew Krogman and
know Ed." Yadda, yadda yadda.
Who's the better expert about Ed Conrad? You? Dean? Gen2rev?
As Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog might say, "the correct answer is 'who
gives a [bleep]?'" The fact is that even though you and gen2rev have
made a much better case than Dean--who hasn't made a case, at all--no
one really cares who among you knows Ed Conrad best.
Look, if you want to respond to Ed Conrad and expose him, more power to
you. Do it as often as you like. I think that's your right, I think
you've done an admirable job by pointing out things that hadn't been
considered before and I think that Dean has contributed absolutely
nothing to any part of that discussion. I read the threads and it
really was best when you were ignoring Dean. You are right in that
Conrad is at least marginally topical. And no, I doubt if any
reasonable person thinks you were trying to "reason WITH" Ed Conrad.
Most of us *do* understand those kinds of things, even if Dean and
Newbie do not.
But trust someone who's been there with the hashing and rehashing of
off-topic personality wars. Let it *go*, man.
[Snip]
Glenn
David Horn
[Snip personality war stuff]
Since Newbie doesn't think it's possible to understand what Sienkiewicz
understands, perhaps he'll tell us what *he* understands, and answer a
long-dodged, *topical* question or two: What evidence is there that
there is a component to life other than chemicals? What "laws of
matter" does life fail to obey? Then he can explain how it is that he
can read comments of mine about Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" in
which I specifically identify a chapter titled, "Biogeography," and then
claim that his impression from my comments was that there was no chapter
"entitled such." These are all things that Newbie has claimed and from
which he ran when challenged about them. I see that Newbie has returned
to the newsgroup under his real name, i.e., "Glenn," after using other
names (newbie, newbie2, newbie999, and at least one other email address
as "Glenn"), so even though I don't hold much hope for an explanation,
perhaps we can get one now.
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > If Skippy can
> > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > >
> > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> >
> > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
>
> I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination. It was not a
> denial in any form. I preemptively accept David's retraction.
You know, even after more than 24 hours since reading this post, I'm
still in awe of its logic.
Using the *same* logic, I could "preemptively" accept your apology for
bothering me about posting in response to Ed, calling me a liar, and
misconstruing my motives for posting in response to Ed in the first
place. After all, I consider that I've delivered convincing explanations
for all of my behavior...
Stew, I accept your apologies. It's to bad it took you so long to
understand that I was in the right on these matters, and I trust that
you won't bother myself or anyone else about posting in response to Ed
in the future.
> Stew Dean
Glenn
"David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F92D4DC...@cox.net...
Although Sienkiewicz filled the same niche in the t.o. nature,
"Major Horn" is hard to trump.
One thing they have in common is the desire to bring up lists
of subjects long since passed that they claim has not been addressed,
claim that they were not answered, and that their target ran when
challenged.
Nothing better than seeing Horn start his new career here with more lies.
But I honestly can't tell which is the better manipulator of lies and deceit.
It would be most interesting to see them fighting eachother,
each not realizing how transparent their lies are.
At the moment though, I am content to watch what unfolds in this
thread between the virtual sock puppets. Will Sienkiewicz bow
to Horn, and be a liar by his own interpretation? Will reasoning
be seen among them, Sienkiewicz bowing out in defeat and Horn
satisfied he prevailed?
Stew in one article says gen2rev " is a liar."
In another article he says gen2rev "is not a liar."
Sienkiewicz claims that was a denial, that
Stew denied he called gen2rev a liar.
If he ever reverses his implied accusation that
Stew was telling a lie (denying a known fact),
then Sienkiewicz, by his own interpretation, would
be lying:
Sienkiewicz said "You denied it."
Then he would say "You did not deny it."
It's actually worse than that for Sienkiewicz -
It *is* a fact that Stew called gen2rev a liar.
It *is not* a fact that he denied it.
Of course, as Sienkiewicz has stated that if he
were ever satisfied with an explanation Stew
would give for why it was not a denial before
he would "retract", perhaps he would
ask Stew if his explanation of why he
"retracts"(if he does) is satisfactory to Stew...
David Horn
Newbie can demonstrate this to be a lie by showing where he ever
answered those questions. I predict that there he will make no effort.
Instead, he will rant and rave as we can see here, accuse those of us
who have challenged and embarassed him of telling lies; and try to
perpetuate a personality war. Newbie cannot show that there were lies
on my part because there are no lies. The questions I asked above were
asked many times and *never* answered--not to my knowledge, anyway. So
if Newbie wants to play his game, he can provide a URL reference to
Google, show where he answered the questions and also that I knew, as of
this morning, that he answered the questions. I hope no one is holding
his or her breath.
[Snip evasions, accusations and other matters that have nothing to do
with the questions I posed to Newbie.
Glenn
that he would "retract the statement". (By the way, it was not a simple
statement,
it was an accusation that Stew knowingly denied a fact)
Now Stew *has* provided a convincing explanation, as if there needs one.
And he did so "by the time I [Sienkiewicz] am able to return to participation".
So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
be perfectly right in doing so.
You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could preemptively
accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
I am truly in awe of your logic.
David Horn
[Snip personality war stuff, what follows was one of the questions I
said was never answered. It appeared in the group on 26 September,
2001. There is no record of a reply.]
"newbie" <she...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:7dbd404d9818244da60...@mygate.mailgate.org...
[Snip gratuitous repost that has already been answered]
Newbie, September 24th:
"I did not 'come away' with the 'impression' that there was 'no chapter
entitled as such'."
Newbie, from last year:
"When I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
The challenge has been how Newbie could get this impression.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8oj941%24i1p%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
My statement:
"Chapter 22 is titled, 'Biogeography..."
Newbie wrote:
"When I read that then, my impression was that there was...definetely no
chapter entitled such."
My statement said:
"Chapter 22 is titled, 'Biogeography' and, I thought, would discuss that
subject. But two pages and a paragraph later, when the chapter had
closed,
I couldn't help but note that The subject was not discussed at all. It
was
dismissed outright."
Newbie wrote:
"When I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
biogeography..."
Newbie read *my* words and got these impressions.
The challenge has been with respect to how he could have gotten these
impressions.
Here is the original article:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
gen2rev
And how have you determined that?
> So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
> kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
> be perfectly right in doing so.
>
> You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could preemptively
> accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
> statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
> I am truly in awe of your logic.
It's Stew's logic, not mine.
Glenn
Your prediction in this case is not far off, although it can not really be
called a prediction, since I have told you before I am not interested in
wasting my times playing your immature games, and *have answered
those questions*.
> Instead, he will rant and rave as we can see here, accuse those of us
> who have challenged and embarassed him of telling lies; and try to
> perpetuate a personality war.
You started it in the beginning, you perpetuated it, and now you are
starting and attempting to perpetuate it *now*. You see, Paluxy,
that what you wrote above, with no clear evidence to back it up, is nothing
more than a rant and rave. For anyone to fairly judge what has happened
between you and I would take much referencing, cross referencing and study.
But if you are interested in lies, read on.
>Newbie cannot show that there were lies
> on my part because there are no lies. The questions I asked above were
> asked many times and *never* answered--not to my knowledge, anyway.
Davy, that is one example of one of your lies and deceptions.
What you are really saying is that I never answered to your satisfaction.
I have provided answers - my answers. For example, I did make comments
on what I think are indications of "components" to life other than chemicals.
Whether you agree, disagree, or think I am whacko is irrelevant to whether
I have ever "answered".
To be honest, you could have said my answers to this were whacko,
but instead, you claim that I never answered, to your knowledge.
That is a lie.
You say that I make claims and then run when challenged about them,
instead of answering. That must mean that either I either make claims and do
not give reasons (answers) for making the claim and are challenged to do so,
or that I do not answer the "challenge" to your satisfaction.
You said that I dodged the question "What "laws of matter" does life fail to
obey?"
You say I made the claim and then ran when challenged about it.
A very simple example:
The challenge: "What "laws of matter" does life fail to obey?"
Paluxy, "birds defy gravity". There is an answer. Call it untrue if you wish.
But it is an answer to the question. It is just one you are not satisfied with.
You would never be satisfied with any answer of mine, nor would I
perhaps ever be satisfied with any answer of yours.
The reasonable solution to that is not to obsess on it. However,
you seem to be lacking in reasoning ability.
Good to see you back, liar.
>So
> if Newbie wants to play his game, he can provide a URL reference to
> Google, show where he answered the questions and also that I knew, as of
> this morning, that he answered the questions. I hope no one is holding
> his or her breath.
And don't hold your breath. I have already done that in the past, and
tried to pacify you. It does not matter to you, and you appear to be
totally blind to the fact that claims like the ones above *are* lies.
Above, you said:
"Instead, he will rant and rave as we can see here, accuse those of us
who have challenged and embarassed him of telling lies; and try to
perpetuate a personality war."
It is you, Davy, who posted to me,
and it is you who have perpetuated your little "war".
I have told you many times that I am not interested in playing your
games.
And above, you conclude: "So if Newbie wants to play his game..."
It is *your* game, Paluxy.
stew dean
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:57:07 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<58koovo11o0pchb0o...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:05:12 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > If Skippy can
> > > > > provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and do so
> > > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > > retract the statement that it is denial.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. Retraction accepted.
> > >
> > > Um, Stew, he hasn't issued a retraction yet...
> >
> > I consider I've delivered a 'convincing' explaination. It was not a
> > denial in any form. I preemptively accept David's retraction.
>
> You know, even after more than 24 hours since reading this post, I'm
> still in awe of its logic.
>
> Using the *same* logic, I could "preemptively" accept your apology for
> bothering me about posting in response to Ed, calling me a liar, and
> misconstruing my motives for posting in response to Ed in the first
> place. After all, I consider that I've delivered convincing explanations
> for all of my behavior...
Sorry - not the same logic.
My logic is very very simple - I did not deny, in any way, calling you
a liar. That in it's self is enough. I don't have to explain how I
didnt do it because how can you explain something I didnt do.
> Stew, I accept your apologies.
I do appologise for calling you a liar. That is just not accurate.
I do think that you are unaware of why you reply to Ed. And yes that
does mean I know you motives better than yourself. Why? Because to me
it's obvious. That in it's self is not reason enough unless I can make
it obvious to you - but that often takes time.
In short - replying to Ed is a very dumb thing to do. It achives
nothing. It is not funny, clever or productive. It doesnt make him
post less, it doesnt make him think any more. Neither you or David
have so much as dented Ed as you both havnt a clue about why Ed posts.
It's not about his finds or any of the evidence he has. That's all
complete rubbish as well we know and using his finds to attempt to
reason with him - as you both do but claim you don't (that in it's
self deserves contempt) is high stupidity.
The only thing worse is pretending you some how have some high moral
cause or hidden agenda.
I reply to both of you because I can't stand people who can be
intelligent acting stupid in public. Ed is beyond hope, you both have
enough intelligence to grasp that idea yet for whatever reason you
won't. The only reason I can see, and the only reason that either of
you have proclaimed in you various ways, is it's a way of feeding your
egos. With David he's on about having Ed on the rails and honestly
beleives he is responsible for Ed not posting for a while after being
savaged by him! I think it was either you or David that proclaimed you
where carrying the flag or something. I presume it had the words
'bigot and proud' on it.
I want to make this 100% clear. I want you just to understand my point
of view, to acknowledge it. That's all. If you can see my point of
view, demonstrate an understanding (in your case your questions often
show a clear misunderstaning and a love of straw men and loaded
questions) then I will happily leave you to do what ever. I may well
do this anyway.
> It's to bad it took you so long to
> understand that I was in the right on these matters, and I trust that
> you won't bother myself or anyone else about posting in response to Ed
> in the future.
What exactly am I supposed to agree with - that replying to Ed is in
anyway a useful or productive thing? What planet are you on Jon?
Let's take the things I'm supposed to be agreeing on one by one, or at
least applogising...
> bothering me about posting in response to Ed,
You, I believe initiated the bothering. I originaly suggested to David
he doesnt reply to Ed. I often change my mind about things when
presented with information or evidence. So far both of you have just
strengthened my view about this.
> calling me a liar,
This I applogise for - I hold you are unaware of what you do.
> and
> misconstruing my motives for posting in response to Ed in the first
> place.
You yourself don't know what your motives are. Otherwise you'd be able
to sum them up and explain why replying to Ed is a good thing. That'
is - it's that simple.
You can't, you won't. Instead you'll claim I don't know your motives.
But I feel I do. For that reason I probably have a better grasp of
your motives than you do.
Proving otherwise is fairly simple. Just sum up things and we can at
least reason about it rather than having to play silly games.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> I use real logic, sheldon - not my own and not yours or Skippy's.
>
> Neither of you understands logic.
I have a high IQ. This is not a brag but something to try and make you
focus back on your arguments. By all means throw an IQ test my way if
you don't beleive me.
Your logic stands as this. You accuse me of denying that I called Jon
(aka Gen2Rev) a liar.
I did not deny it at any time after the event. This I hold you are
aware of but cannot admit to making a mistake.
A retraction is not a denial but the opposite in logical terms. To
retract something is to admit that you did something. I'm sorry to
have to explain things in a potentialy patronising way but you are
acting as if you are not aware of this.
I have appologised for using the term liar. I don't expect you to
appologise for using similar or worse terms when applying to me as
it's a waste of time. I have already covered this elsewhere and know
you are in no way accurate in your claims.
I hold your logic is flawed by your own desire to always be right. I
am happy to admit when I am wrong, as when I called Jon a liar. I
can't see you ever doing something like that. But by all means prove
me wrong.
Stew Dean
Glenn
was convincing to him.
>
> > So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
> > kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
> > be perfectly right in doing so.
> >
> > You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could preemptively
> > accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
> > statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
>
> So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
> apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
>
"If Skippy can provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and
do so
by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
retract the statement that it is denial."
You call Ed a liar. He called you a liar. You called him a liar. You want
satisfaction,
an "admission of error", and an apology.
Stew seems to want to snip the whole thing and be done with it.
I can see why.
Pity people like you, Sienkiewicz and Horn do not see it.
>
> > I am truly in awe of your logic.
>
> It's Stew's logic, not mine.
>
No, it is Stew's sense of humor at the expense Sienkiewicz' idiocy.
Maybe you think others are playing games with you, so you will do
the same to them. The only game here is Sienkiewicz'
entertainment, but you appear to be playing his game at Stew's expense.
Later saying that he did not think you were a liar does not equate
to denying he did call you a liar, gen2rev.
But continue the game, it makes for interesting reading.
stew dean
Good to hear that.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> As Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog might say, "the correct answer is 'who
> gives a [bleep]?'" The fact is that even though you and gen2rev have
> made a much better case than Dean--who hasn't made a case, at all--no
> one really cares who among you knows Ed Conrad best.
You are right it doesnt matter. But my case is very simple.
Replying to Ed isnt combating Ed but probably the opposite. Ed, due to
his ignorance and ego, is delusional and beyond reason.
Jon thinks Ed is a liar. So what? We all know Ed's wrong regardless so
why respond? David - well he's just here to feed his flagging ego.
Stew (not a web page designer) Dean
David Horn
>
> David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
Much of what I had to say was snipped. This seems to be par for the
course for Dean, who attempts to exploit what he can from this mess.
> > As Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog might say, "the correct answer is 'who
> > gives a [bleep]?'" The fact is that even though you and gen2rev have
> > made a much better case than Dean--who hasn't made a case, at all--no
> > one really cares who among you knows Ed Conrad best.
>
> You are right it doesnt matter.
If I am right (and I am) and this doesn't matter, why has Dean expended
so much effort for so many *years* on the subject?
> But my case is very simple.
>
> Replying to Ed isnt combating Ed but probably the opposite.
Regardless of whatever spin Dean might put on his own opinions, replying
to Conrad is the business of those who reply. Those who prefer not to
reply should not do so and likewise should not concern themselves so
much with those who do.
> Ed, due to his ignorance and ego, is delusional and beyond reason.
If this is Dean's "case," there should be no problem. Those who
disagree with Conrad and who reply to him tend to also think Conrad is
"delusional and beyond reason." But for Dean, this stopped being about
Conrad a long time ago. It's all about Dean and Dean feeding *his* ego;
and no amount of spin will make that go away.
> Jon thinks Ed is a liar. So what?
Some of us don't much care for liars. Since I also agree that Dean,
himself, is not above dishonest tactics, I don't see a point here.
> We all know Ed's wrong regardless so
> why respond?
Again, we see that this shouldn't matter, yet it seems to matter a very
great deal to Dean. Herein lies his hypocrisy.
> David - well he's just here to feed his flagging ego.
Dean is likewise just here to feed *his* ego. The difference between
Dean and Conrad blurs with Dean's every post. The two are very much
alike. Both seem immune to reason, both thrive on even negative
attention, both act as usenet bullies of sorts, and neither is
interested in facts that show them to be wrong--those things are cast
aside or ignored totally as both Dean and Conrad bull ahead oblivious to
their own stupidity.
Dean presumes to justify his behavior and all he can do is show that
it's hypocritical or stupid, at best.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
>
[snip deception]
Since it appears snipping everything and posting would appear to be "top
posting"
I'll give it a try also. Here you go, Davy. Hope you are satisfied with the
answer.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
>ReMine quotes Nelson and Platnik as writing, "...biogeography (or
>geographical distribution of organisms) _has not been shown to be evidence
>for or against evolution in any sense_. [emphasis by ReMine]
>ReMine prefaces this quote with:
>"Some evolutionists flatly reject its [biogeography's] relevance to the
>_origins_ [emphasis mine] debate."
>Of course, origins and evolution are not the same thing, so "origins" is not
>what Nelson and Platnik said even in the very quote that ReMine provided.
snip
>I do not have Nelson and Platnik, so that I can't verify quotes used from
>it...
************
Should an objective reader accept what Horn concludes, that origins is not
what Nelson and Platnik said? Horn says he had not verified the quote.
Hmm...
************
>"There exists no modern book that surveys this field as evidence for or against
evolution"
>No modern book?
************
Then Horn gives references to several texts.
He seems to think this refutes what ReMine said.
Perhaps it does, and these text do "survery this field as evidence for or
against evolution"
but I highly doubt it.
Doutlessly these texts assume evolution is true,
but do any of them *survey this field* as "evidence for or against evolution"?
Horn does not supply evidence, other than reference to the books themselves.
Should Horn's statements be accepted on face value?
**********
>ReMine's research in even this very elementary area was slipshod,
>at best.
**********
Horn thinks that ReMine is either not aware of any of the supposed
many modern books that discuss the subject, or that he is lying.
Perhaps Horn should have given quotes, as ReMine did, instead
of focusing on "No modern book" and referencing textbooks.
Here is one of Horns references:
"Cox, C. Barry and Peter D. Moore, "Biogeography: an ecological and
evolutionary approach." Published in 1993"
"An evolutionary approach"?
Who to believe, ReMine lying or Horn lying.
**********
>I couldn't help but note that the subject was not discussed at all.
>And even most of what little was said was flagrantly incorrect
>ReMine dismisses biogeography almost entirely with respect to the discussion...
************
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8oj941%24i1p%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
> Horn claims, the subject was not discussed "at all." That is flatly
> untrue.
>No, it's true. There is no discussion of the details of biogeography,
>the evidence it provides, or the consequences of that evidence. I
>think most of us would understand that *this* is what is meant
>by "discussion" with respect to such a subject. But Walter has to try
>to dance around that.
************
Hmm.
What follows is a long post, which include ReMine's
earlier statements, such as:
"In those previous chapters most of the keywords are defined,
the concepts developed, the various systematic methods discussed,
and the historical trends in Darwinian science described. The previous
chapters cover the distinction between Darwinian Systematics versus
cladistics -- which parallels the distinction between Darwinian
biogeography versus vicariance biogeography."
Does Horn respond by saying this can not be considered "discussion"?
No, his response is:
"Here, Walter simply repeats what's in the book. I am aware of this,
and will describe the errors that I found as time passes."
Well, apparently Horn does think some "discussion" took place in
the book, as he promises to describe "errors".
I would mention here that I disagree with Horn's assessment
of what constitutes "discussion" in a book.
Hmm.
ReMine claims
"The biogeography chapter is also small because most of the
groundwork is done in PREVIOUS chapters. In those previous chapters
most of the keywords are defined, the concepts developed, the various
systematic methods discussed, and the historical trends in Darwinian
science described."
Again, remember what was said:
***************
> Horn claims, the subject was not discussed "at all." That is flatly
> untrue.
>No, it's true. There is no discussion of the details of biogeography,
>the evidence it provides, or the consequences of that evidence. I
>think most of us would understand that *this* is what is meant
>by "discussion" with respect to such a subject. But Walter has to try
>to dance around that.
***********
The rest of the post appears to be mostly argument over word
definitions, what Horn thinks words mean in certain context,
and what ReMine thinks *his* words mean in certain context,
which Horn calls "sophistry".
Words mean to Horn what he wants them to mean in any given
situation, and his posts are filled with sarcastic rhetoric and
unsupported claims.
My conclusion
is and was that I would not believe Horn on a stack of Bibles,
and *anything* he says is suspect, and I would tend
to believe would be the *opposite* of what he says.
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F92F210...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> [snip deception]
> Since it appears snipping everything and posting would appear to be "top
> posting"
Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
as possible.
> I'll give it a try also. Here you go, Davy. Hope you are satisfied with the
> answer.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
[Snip]
In fact, this is a URL to which *I* referred earlier (it appears in my
reposted message as a reference to the original exchange that seems to
have confused Newbie so much), so no reader should presume that this is
Newbie's reference. What he is trying here is misdirection, attempting
to bypass what is really a very simple issue. Regardless of the
exchanges that occurred between Walter ReMine and me, the issue between
*Newbie* and me is much simpler, if only because Newbie is incapable of
understanding and unqualified to comment on the scientific and literary
discussion of ReMine's book.
Newbie made a comment that he read my reviews and, by reading my words,
was left with the impression that there was no chapter entitled
"Biogeography." But I specifically identified that chapter and the
title in the reviews to which Newbie refers and in the reviews he was
quoting at the time.
My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title. Newbie went
to great lengths to deny that he ever said that, and I proved that, in
fact, he did. Newbie abandoned the thread and never explained how he
could come away with that impression or why he would deny that he had
that "impression." All one needs to do is read the reference originally
provided and then consider the thread. It's all right there on Google.
I have renewed that challenge to Newbie. He is still avoiding it.
David Horn
>
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml5pv0asn3ti8o2d...@4ax.com>...
[Snip]
Quoted from elsewhere:
> You are right it doesnt matter.
Then drop it.
Glenn
> stew dean wrote:
> >
> > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
>
> Much of what I had to say was snipped.
How about this, David "Snipmaster" Horn?
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F92F210...@cox.net...
> > > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > [snip deception]
> > Since it appears snipping everything and posting would appear to be "top
> > posting"
>
> Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
> misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
> as possible.
>
All righty,
snip
That is about as topical as Horn can get!
David Horn
[Snip]
[Quote from elsewhere]
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F933076...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F92F210...@cox.net...
> > > > Glenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > [snip deception]
> > > Since it appears snipping everything and posting would appear to be "top
> > > posting"
> >
> > Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
> > misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
> > as possible.
> >
> As topical as possible?
>
> All righty,
>
> snip
>
> That is about as topical as Horn can get!
As we can see, Newbie is again trying to avoid the issue--a topical
issue with respect to what happened with Newbie's presumed "impression"
that my words left him with respect to a "chapter entitled such," that
is, "Biogeography," in ReMine's "The Biotic Message." Newbie wanted to
leave the impression in earlier comments that he does not run from these
things, but here we see him plainly avoiding the issue so he can play
his usual games of ignoring the points (I predict the response to that
will be "you have no point" and if that doesn't happen, it will be
because I've been preemptive here).
This is what Newbie snipped:
[Reposted]
[Snip]
[End repost]
Newbie tried to get around the fact that he *did* make the claim and
then never could explain it. The tactic is clearly dishonest, and
renders moot much of what Newbie says about the dishonest of others.
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F932762...@cox.net...
> > stew dean wrote:
> > >
> > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
> >
> > Much of what I had to say was snipped.
>
> How about this, David "Snipmaster" Horn?
The difference is that I mark my snips and, more often than not, explain
why the text in question was snipped. Dean doesn't do this. Newbie is
looking for anything he can to get around being embarassed and exposed,
but those kinds of things are beyond his meager comprehension skills.
But what else can be expected of someone who reads a review in which it
is said that we are talking about a chapter titled, "Biogeography," and
then tells everyone that his reading of that review left him with the
impression that there was "no chapter entitled such?"
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
>
snip
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
[Snip]
> In fact, this is a URL to which *I* referred earlier (it appears in my
> reposted message as a reference to the original exchange that seems to
> have confused Newbie so much), so no reader should presume that this is
> Newbie's reference.
Yes, Davy's *own* reference. I referenced his other, which was snipped.
>What he is trying here is misdirection, attempting
> to bypass what is really a very simple issue.
Empty rhetoric.
>Regardless of the
> exchanges that occurred between Walter ReMine and me, the issue between
> *Newbie* and me is much simpler, if only because Newbie is incapable of
> understanding and unqualified to comment on the scientific and literary
> discussion of ReMine's book.
The exchanges that occured between ReMine and Horn can not be disregarded,
as Horn tries to make it appear here, but the very subject itself.
That is why he snipped it all.
>
> Newbie made a comment that he read my reviews and, by reading my words,
> was left with the impression that there was no chapter entitled
> "Biogeography." But I specifically identified that chapter and the
> title in the reviews to which Newbie refers and in the reviews he was
> quoting at the time.
And I do not believe a thing Horn says, that he had received a copy of the
book or that he had read the book.
>
> My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
> impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title.
Liars often make stuff up.
>Newbie went
> to great lengths to deny that he ever said that,
Specific references?
>and I proved that, in fact, he did.
Oh, I did. Perhaps not the way you make it appear, either in order or context.
>Newbie abandoned the thread and never explained how he
> could come away with that impression or why he would deny that he had
> that "impression."
If I "abandoned" anything, it was a sarcastic, lying manipulating twit like
yourself.
>All one needs to do is read the reference originally
> provided and then consider the thread. It's all right there on Google.
Or just read the post Horn just snipped.
>
> I have renewed that challenge to Newbie. He is still avoiding it.
>
And pigs fly, Paluxy.
Hey, there is another one for your list of "challenges"!
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F932762...@cox.net...
> > > stew dean wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
> > >
> > > Much of what I had to say was snipped.
> >
> > How about this, David "Snipmaster" Horn?
>
> The difference is that I mark my snips and, more often than not, explain
> why the text in question was snipped.
You *explain*? That one almost knocked me out of the chair, Davy!
That like "discussing"??
ROTF!
snip
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F933076...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
>
> [Snip]
>
> > In fact, this is a URL to which *I* referred earlier (it appears in my
> > reposted message as a reference to the original exchange that seems to
> > have confused Newbie so much), so no reader should presume that this is
> > Newbie's reference.
>
> Yes, Davy's *own* reference. I referenced his other, which was snipped.
I suppose it doesn't matter, since Newbie isn't answering anything,
anyway.
>
> >What he is trying here is misdirection, attempting
> > to bypass what is really a very simple issue.
>
> Empty rhetoric.
Oh, no, this is a direct evaluation of what is happening here.
> >Regardless of the
> > exchanges that occurred between Walter ReMine and me, the issue between
> > *Newbie* and me is much simpler, if only because Newbie is incapable of
> > understanding and unqualified to comment on the scientific and literary
> > discussion of ReMine's book.
>
> The exchanges that occured between ReMine and Horn can not be disregarded,
> as Horn tries to make it appear here, but the very subject itself.
> That is why he snipped it all.
No, the issues between me and ReMine are not at all relevant to the
"impression" that *Newbie* claimed to get, then denied, from the review.
> > Newbie made a comment that he read my reviews and, by reading my words,
> > was left with the impression that there was no chapter entitled
> > "Biogeography." But I specifically identified that chapter and the
> > title in the reviews to which Newbie refers and in the reviews he was
> > quoting at the time.
>
> And I do not believe a thing Horn says, that he had received a copy of the
> book or that he had read the book.
But that's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter whether I had the book
then or have it now. The question has to do with how Newbie could claim
to have gotten the "impression" that there was "no chapter entitled
such" when I identified that chapter by name in the review? A related
question is why Newbie denied that he ever got that impression and then
disappeared from the thread when I proved that he made that statement.
> > My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
> > impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title.
>
> Liars often make stuff up.
Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever said he got that impression?
> >Newbie went
> > to great lengths to deny that he ever said that,
>
> Specific references?
Newbie wrote: "Sorry, I am not deciphering anything other that what has
been written allegedly between Walter and Horn. Originally, Horn
specifically said yhat biogeography was not discussed in the book. When
I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever wrote this? Will he also deny
that, when challenged about this, he denied that he ever wrote it? And
will he also deny that, when his denial was exposed, he ran from the
thread?
> >and I proved that, in fact, he did.
>
> Oh, I did. Perhaps not the way you make it appear, either in order or context.
No relevant context was removed. Either Newbie got that impression or
he didn't. Since it is clear that he did, and likewise clear that I
specifically identified the chapter title "such," I'm wondering how he
could have gotten that impression in the first place. Newbie has tried
all kinds of misdirection to get around this.
> > Newbie abandoned the thread and never explained how he
> > could come away with that impression or why he would deny that he had
> > that "impression."
>
> If I "abandoned" anything, it was a sarcastic, lying manipulating twit like
> yourself.
Newbie falls back on his normal tactic. He can't answer this very
pertinent and reasonably topical question, so he decides to name-call
and represent me as a liar. Of course, there are no lies on my part.
*I* am not trying to deceive the readers. I might even suggest that
there is no manipuation on *my* part, though Newbie seems to be trying
his own brand of that.
> > All one needs to do is read the reference originally
> > provided and then consider the thread. It's all right there on Google.
>
> Or just read the post Horn just snipped.
There was nothing in that post that answered the question.
> > I have renewed that challenge to Newbie. He is still avoiding it.
> >
> And pigs fly, Paluxy.
No, pigs don't fly, but the challenge remains unanswered.
> Hey, there is another one for your list of "challenges"!
There are several, actually. Many off-topic questions (such as those
prompted by Newbie's claims that the costs of housing Death Row inmates
for life are higher than the lengthy appeal process), but because those
are off-topic, I won't get into them. It's really too bad, because I
still would like to know why he used a game site to reference an issue
about military rank (and I saw that that came up again and was again
unanswered--and denied--not too long ago). It's all right, because a
great deal of what happens in a debate, particularly in Usenet, has to
do with credibility. Newbie has none, as we can see.
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9334B9...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F932762...@cox.net...
> > > > stew dean wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
> > > >
> > > > Much of what I had to say was snipped.
> > >
> > > How about this, David "Snipmaster" Horn?
> >
> > The difference is that I mark my snips and, more often than not, explain
> > why the text in question was snipped.
>
> You *explain*? That one almost knocked me out of the chair, Davy!
> That like "discussing"??
> ROTF!
> snip
As we can see, Newbie wasted no time in near-full retreat from the
actual topical stuff.
Glenn
I wonder if Davy is pretending to be the queen of England when
he says things like that.
Snipmaster:
"****I**** get to say what is topical, me me me! Wyaaaaaa!"
"Much of what I had to say was snipped. This seems to be par for the
course for Dean, who attempts to exploit what he can from this mess."
"Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
as possible."
Another, entire post(posted twice to two threads):
>[Snip]
>Quoted from elsewhere:
>> You are right it doesnt matter.
>Then drop it.
************
Topical?
ROTFLMAO!
David Horn
either.
Glenn wrote:
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F933CBD...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F9334B9...@cox.net...
> > > > Glenn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3F932762...@cox.net...
> > > > > > stew dean wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Much of what I had to say was snipped.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about this, David "Snipmaster" Horn?
> > > >
> > > > The difference is that I mark my snips and, more often than not, explain
> > > > why the text in question was snipped.
> > >
> > > You *explain*? That one almost knocked me out of the chair, Davy!
> > > That like "discussing"??
> > > ROTF!
> > > snip
> >
> > As we can see, Newbie wasted no time in near-full retreat from the
> > actual topical stuff.
> >
> How about topposting? Nahhh..
I don't think I've ever said anything about top-posting. I'm guessing
we won't get Newbie to explain the relevance.
> I wonder if Davy is pretending to be the queen of England when
> he says things like that.
No need to wonder. I'm not. Clearly,though, it appears to be an
accurate assessment of the situation.
> Snipmaster:
> "****I**** get to say what is topical, me me me! Wyaaaaaa!"
As we can see, Newbie is ranting.
Newbie wrote once, "Sorry, I am not deciphering anything other that what
has been written allegedly between Walter and Horn. Originally, Horn
specifically said that biogeography was not discussed in the book. When
I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
Does Newbie have an explanation for this when I clearly identified the
chapter and specifically did so? Why did Newbie then *deny* that he got
this "impression?" Why, it was proven to him that he did make this
statement did he flee the thread at the time?
> "Much of what I had to say was snipped. This seems to be par for the
> course for Dean, who attempts to exploit what he can from this mess."
>
> "Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
> misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
> as possible."
>
> Another, entire post(posted twice to two threads):
>
> >[Snip]
> >Quoted from elsewhere:
> >> You are right it doesnt matter.
> >Then drop it.
> ************
> Topical?
> ROTFLMAO!
Newbie doesn't seem to understand, but that's not unusual. Obviously, I
think the idiocy in the thread about who knows Ed Conrad best should be
dropped; and I probably shouldn't have responded to Dean at all, but I
did. None of that is relevant *here*. Of relevance are Newbie's claims
and the questions that those claims have prompted. What is relevant is
Newbie's evasion of those claims.
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
I was originally going to blow this off as another "so-and-so
shouldn't respond to so-and-so," but then I read this:
> Look, like I said, this is ridiculous. Look at what you guys were
> arguing--think about it. It boiled down to a really stupid argument in
> which you guys were trying to one-up each other on (are you ready for
> this?) just who was a better expert when it came to Ed Conrad.
>
> Ed-for-cryin'-out-loud-Conrad!
>
> Now *think* about that. *That's* what you guys were arguing about. "I
> know Ed better 'cause I read his posts." "Oh, yeah? Well, *I* know Ed
> better because I went to Pennsylvania." "You're stupid. I design web
> pages so I'm an expert in human behavior and so I know Ed Conrad
> better!" "You're an idiot. *I* interviewed people who knew Krogman and
> know Ed." Yadda, yadda yadda.
>
> Who's the better expert about Ed Conrad? You? Dean? Gen2rev?
>
> As Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog might say, "the correct answer is 'who
> gives a [bleep]?'" The fact is that even though you and gen2rev have
> made a much better case than Dean--who hasn't made a case, at all--no
> one really cares who among you knows Ed Conrad best.
This is a good point that I hadn't considered.
Yep. That's what it's turned into. "Who Knows Ed Conrad Best?"
Yes, it's a stupid argument.
But yes, I have other things in mind for when I can return to full
participation. Email me: hdsienkiewicz at the Mighty Y.
Thanks.
AC
David Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbp44jc...@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> <snip>
>>
>> To more important things. How is your grandchild, David?
>
> Much better, thank you.
I am very glad to hear that!
--
Aaron Clausen
stew dean
> stew dean wrote:
> >
> > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F92CEFC...@cox.net>...
>
> Much of what I had to say was snipped. This seems to be par for the
> course for Dean, who attempts to exploit what he can from this mess.
I snip to get to the point. I hope this is a further demonstation of
this.
And please, it's Stewart or Stew not Dean. You sound like a school
master ('Dean, stop running in the corridors').
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
Thank you for your apology.
> I do think that you are unaware of why you reply to Ed.
Yes, I know you believe that, but that doesn't mean that you're correct.
But this has nothing to do with you calling me a liar.
> And yes that
> does mean I know you motives better than yourself. Why? Because to me
> it's obvious.
To me it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. See
how easy it is to pin these things with the "obvious" label?
> That in it's self is not reason enough unless I can make
> it obvious to you - but that often takes time.
Considering that I've known myself pretty much all of my life, and that
you've never met me, and are attempting to make a diagnosis from across
the Atlantic based on usenet posts, I'm pretty secure with the idea that
I'm not trying to reason with Ed.
> In short - replying to Ed is a very dumb thing to do. It achives
> nothing. It is not funny, clever or productive. It doesnt make him
> post less, it doesnt make him think any more.
Possibly, but my goal isn't to make him think more.
> Neither you or David
> have so much as dented
And what is your definition of "dented"?
> Ed as you both havnt a clue about why Ed posts.
And what have I stated about Ed's reasons for posting?
> It's not about his finds or any of the evidence he has. That's all
> complete rubbish as well we know and using his finds to attempt to
> reason with him - as you both do but claim you don't (that in it's
> self deserves contempt) is high stupidity.
But I'm *not* trying to reason with him. You claim that it's obvious
that I *am* trying to reason with him, but I don't know how many times I
can tell you that I'm *not*. You've erected a strawman.
> The only thing worse is pretending you some how have some high moral
> cause or hidden agenda.
So what's your excuse?
> I reply to both of you because I can't stand people who can be
> intelligent acting stupid in public.
Gee Stew, if you think I'm intelligent then you should start treating me
that way.
> Ed is beyond hope,
But are you?
> you both have
> enough intelligence to grasp that idea yet for whatever reason you
> won't. The only reason I can see, and the only reason that either of
> you have proclaimed in you various ways, is it's a way of feeding your
> egos.
No, I happen to think that standing up for the truth is worthwhile.
> With David he's on about having Ed on the rails and honestly
> beleives he is responsible for Ed not posting for a while after being
> savaged by him! I think it was either you or David that proclaimed you
> where carrying the flag or something. I presume it had the words
> 'bigot and proud' on it.
Nope. If we were so egotistical as to carry a flag, it would probably
have "truth" on it. But then again, it would might have "Conrad
Dupes"... 8)
> I want to make this 100% clear. I want you just to understand my point
> of view, to acknowledge it. That's all.
Stew, everyone knows you have a point of view, and I acknowledge that
you have one, but it's wrong. I can understand how you might have come
to have it, but only by thinking that you actually know either of us
better than we know ourselves.
Happy?
> If you can see my point of
> view, demonstrate an understanding (in your case your questions often
> show a clear misunderstaning and a love of straw men and loaded
> questions)
Care to point out some of these straw men and loaded questions? And
don't fall back on "why isn't Ed a YEC?", because there are no implied
assumptions in that question, unlike "have you stopped beating your
wife?"
> then I will happily leave you to do what ever. I may well
> do this anyway.
I'd be happy with that. But given the lack of restraint you show when
replying to Ed, I doubt it will happen.
> > It's to bad it took you so long to
> > understand that I was in the right on these matters, and I trust that
> > you won't bother myself or anyone else about posting in response to Ed
> > in the future.
>
> What exactly am I supposed to agree with - that replying to Ed is in
> anyway a useful or productive thing?
No, you're supposed to agree that I have a right to reply to Ed.
> What planet are you on Jon?
Earth, last time I checked.
> Let's take the things I'm supposed to be agreeing on one by one, or at
> least applogising...
>
> > bothering me about posting in response to Ed,
>
> You, I believe initiated the bothering.
No, you did in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0307200903.6acef735%40posting.google.com>
> I originaly suggested to David
> he doesnt reply to Ed. I often change my mind about things when
> presented with information or evidence. So far both of you have just
> strengthened my view about this.
Strengthened your view that I was the one who initiated this?
> > calling me a liar,
>
> This I applogise for - I hold you are unaware of what you do.
So I was "unaware" that you *weren't* in fact snipping things away when
you called me a liar in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0309080016.71dca7d7%40posting.google.com>?
> > and
> > misconstruing my motives for posting in response to Ed in the first
> > place.
>
> You yourself don't know what your motives are. Otherwise you'd be able
> to sum them up and explain why replying to Ed is a good thing. That'
> is - it's that simple.
But I did that almost three months ago in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i978ivoajaii9uik10tmscffj9q5qt0flb%404ax.com>.
Considering that you responded to that post, I can only assume that you
did indeed read it.
> You can't, you won't.
That's not true. See above.
> Instead you'll claim I don't know your motives.
> But I feel I do. For that reason I probably have a better grasp of
> your motives than you do.
If I felt that you did indeed have a better grasp of my motives than
myself, I might agree. But since you don't...
> Proving otherwise is fairly simple. Just sum up things and we can at
> least reason about it rather than having to play silly games.
As I've stated before, I'm not trying to reason with Ed. My posts are in
the form of questions so that anyone who reads them can see that Ed
doesn't answer them, thereby demonstrating the emptiness of his claims.
Now, I suppose that I *could* post to Ed threads in the form of
commentary, in the manner of, let's say, Dave Horn, but that's not my
style. Deal with it.
> Stew Dean
gen2rev
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
I very much doubt that David was concerned if Stew found it convincing.
> > > So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
> > > kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
> > > be perfectly right in doing so.
> > >
> > > You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could preemptively
> > > accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
> > > statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
> >
> > So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
> > apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
> >
> What, did Stew tell you what Sienkiewicz told him?
> "If Skippy can provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and
> do so
> by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> retract the statement that it is denial."
So these things have to be explicitly spelled out beforehand? Next time
you and I engage in discussion, should I expect such a statement from
you before we begin?
> You call Ed a liar.
Ed?
> He called you a liar. You called him a liar. You want
> satisfaction,
> an "admission of error", and an apology.
Is that unreasonable?
> Stew seems to want to snip the whole thing and be done with it.
> I can see why.
> Pity people like you, Sienkiewicz and Horn do not see it.
If Stew *really* wants to be done with it, he should leave me alone, and
not respond to Sienkiewicz, Horn, or myself.
> > > I am truly in awe of your logic.
> >
> > It's Stew's logic, not mine.
> >
> No, it is Stew's sense of humor at the expense Sienkiewicz' idiocy.
What makes you think that it has anything to do with Stew's sense of
humor?
> Maybe you think others are playing games with you, so you will do
> the same to them. The only game here is Sienkiewicz'
> entertainment, but you appear to be playing his game at Stew's expense.
No, I'm not playing a game, but if David is entertained, that's fine by
me.
> Later saying that he did not think you were a liar does not equate
> to denying he did call you a liar, gen2rev.
Considering that he called me a liar, and then said that I wasn't a liar
about something else makes his beliefs in the matter ambiguous at best.
> But continue the game, it makes for interesting reading.
I'll continue the "game" as long as Stew keeps bringing it up.
Glenn
even
interested in using reasoning. This claim about Stew denying is more than a
stretch
of the imagination, it is clearly intent to discredit, nothing more.
>
> > > > So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
> > > > kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
> > > > be perfectly right in doing so.
> > > >
> > > > You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could
preemptively
> > > > accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
> > > > statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
> > >
> > > So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
> > > apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
> > >
> > What, did Stew tell you what Sienkiewicz told him?
> > "If Skippy can provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial,
and
> > do so
> > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > retract the statement that it is denial."
>
> So these things have to be explicitly spelled out beforehand?
This is just a game, and you are playing it with Sienkiewicz. It is transparent.
I remarked on a specific claim, that you used the same logic as Stew.
You seem to think it is important that Sienkiewicz said in a different statement
that it was up to Sienkiewicz to determine whether he would be satisfied
with Stews explanation. But Stew needs no explanation, because, at the
least, it has not been established that Sienkiewicz claim about Stew denying
is valid or even a reasonable possibility. And Sienkiewicz would claim that was
up to him to determine also, and you would probably at least let that slide,
as you have let slide Sienkiewicz claim that he will decide if Stew's
explanation
is valid. And because you do let this "ride", you are excercising no better
logic than Sienkiewicz. You're just playing a game, not reasoning.
>Next time
> you and I engage in discussion, should I expect such a statement from
> you before we begin?
>
We are "discussing" NOW.
>
> > You call Ed a liar.
>
> Ed?
>
You haven't made statements to the effect that you think Ed is lying?
>
> > He called you a liar. You called him a liar. You want
> > satisfaction,
> > an "admission of error", and an apology.
>
> Is that unreasonable?
>
The way you are going about it is unreasonable.
But no, I don't think you should pursue it.
And expecting satisfaction, admission of error, is too much.
It perpetuates the controversy over who was right, who said what,
what what meant, etc.
>
> > Stew seems to want to snip the whole thing and be done with it.
> > I can see why.
> > Pity people like you, Sienkiewicz and Horn do not see it.
>
> If Stew *really* wants to be done with it, he should leave me alone, and
> not respond to Sienkiewicz, Horn, or myself.
>
Nice game.
>
snip
John Wilkins
> David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote:
> > stew dean wrote:
> > >
> > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > Much of what I had to say was snipped. This seems to be par for the
> > course for Dean, who attempts to exploit what he can from this mess.
>
> I snip to get to the point. I hope this is a further demonstation of
> this.
>
> And please, it's Stewart or Stew not Dean. You sound like a school
> master ('Dean, stop running in the corridors').
>
ITYM, "Dean, *do* stop running..." My teachers always put the emphasis
on the "do" (although they tended not to call me Dean).
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03101...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>I use real logic, sheldon - not my own and not yours or Skippy's.
>>
>>Neither of you understands logic.
>
>
> I have a high IQ. This is not a brag but something to try and make you
> focus back on your arguments. By all means throw an IQ test my way if
> you don't beleive me.
>
> Your logic stands as this. You accuse me of denying that I called Jon
> (aka Gen2Rev) a liar.
>
> I did not deny it at any time after the event. This I hold you are
> aware of but cannot admit to making a mistake.
>
> A retraction is not a denial but the opposite in logical terms. To
> retract something is to admit that you did something. I'm sorry to
> have to explain things in a potentialy patronising way but you are
> acting as if you are not aware of this.
>
> I have appologised for using the term liar. I don't expect you to
> appologise for using similar or worse terms when applying to me as
> it's a waste of time. I have already covered this elsewhere and know
> you are in no way accurate in your claims.
>
> I hold your logic is flawed by your own desire to always be right. I
> am happy to admit when I am wrong, as when I called Jon a liar. I
> can't see you ever doing something like that. But by all means prove
> me wrong.
>
> Stew Dean
>
I think the best thing to do is to stop referring to Stew as "Skippy."
_I_ am insulted when I see it, and it isn't even directed to me.
I agree with what Stew is saying about responding to Ed. At first when
I started reading the group it was entertaining, now it simply takes up
too much server space.
gen2rev
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
Actually I think it's a subtle point that David's attempting to make.
After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
earlier on, and that he was in the wrong. Yet I've not seen him admit
that.
> > > > > So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It seems
> > > > > kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he would
> > > > > be perfectly right in doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could preemptively
> > > > > accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract *his*
> > > > > statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
> > > >
> > > > So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
> > > > apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
> > > >
> > > What, did Stew tell you what Sienkiewicz told him?
> > > "If Skippy can provide a convincing explanation that this was not a denial, and
> > > do so
> > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > retract the statement that it is denial."
> >
> > So these things have to be explicitly spelled out beforehand?
>
> This is just a game, and you are playing it with Sienkiewicz. It is transparent.
It's a bit amusing, but I wouldn't call it a game.
> I remarked on a specific claim, that you used the same logic as Stew.
> You seem to think it is important that Sienkiewicz said in a different statement
> that it was up to Sienkiewicz to determine whether he would be satisfied
> with Stews explanation.
Who would you have decide whether David should issue a retraction? Stew?
> But Stew needs no explanation, because, at the
> least, it has not been established that Sienkiewicz claim about Stew denying
> is valid or even a reasonable possibility.
Well then Stew should point that out, rather than "preemptively"
accepting the retraction.
> And Sienkiewicz would claim that was
> up to him to determine also,
That was implied in Sienkiewicz's statement.
> and you would probably at least let that slide,
> as you have let slide Sienkiewicz claim that he will decide if Stew's
> explanation
> is valid.
I don't pull Sienkiewicz's strings.
> And because you do let this "ride", you are excercising no better
> logic than Sienkiewicz. You're just playing a game, not reasoning.
No, I'm seeing where David goes with this. He's certainly getting more
of a reaction from Stew than I did.
> >Next time
> > you and I engage in discussion, should I expect such a statement from
> > you before we begin?
> >
> We are "discussing" NOW.
So when are you going to state that if I convince you of the point, that
you'll publicly say that I was right?
> > > You call Ed a liar.
> >
> > Ed?
> >
> You haven't made statements to the effect that you think Ed is lying?
So, who is the "He" that you refer to on the next line? I certainly
wasn't looking for an apology from Ed.
> > > He called you a liar. You called him a liar. You want
> > > satisfaction,
> > > an "admission of error", and an apology.
> >
> > Is that unreasonable?
> >
> The way you are going about it is unreasonable.
> But no, I don't think you should pursue it.
Why not? If I called you a liar, wouldn't you be upset?
> And expecting satisfaction, admission of error, is too much.
> It perpetuates the controversy over who was right, who said what,
> what what meant, etc.
Then why do you go at it with Dave Horn?
> > > Stew seems to want to snip the whole thing and be done with it.
> > > I can see why.
> > > Pity people like you, Sienkiewicz and Horn do not see it.
> >
> > If Stew *really* wants to be done with it, he should leave me alone, and
> > not respond to Sienkiewicz, Horn, or myself.
> >
> Nice game.
I don't think of it as a game at all.
> snip
David Horn
thing:
Glenn wrote:
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F92E8A1...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F92D4DC...@cox.net...
> > > > Glenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Snip personality war stuff]
> > > >
> > > > Since Newbie doesn't think it's possible to understand what Sienkiewicz
> > > > understands, perhaps he'll tell us what *he* understands, and answer a
> > > > long-dodged, *topical* question or two: What evidence is there that
> > > > there is a component to life other than chemicals? What "laws of
> > > > matter" does life fail to obey? Then he can explain how it is that he
> > > > can read comments of mine about Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" in
> > > > which I specifically identify a chapter titled, "Biogeography," and then
> > > > claim that his impression from my comments was that there was no chapter
> > > > "entitled such." These are all things that Newbie has claimed and from
> > > > which he ran when challenged about them. I see that Newbie has returned
> > > > to the newsgroup under his real name, i.e., "Glenn," after using other
> > > > names (newbie, newbie2, newbie999, and at least one other email address
> > > > as "Glenn"), so even though I don't hold much hope for an explanation,
> > > > perhaps we can get one now.
> > > >
> > > Paluxy! Welcome back!
> > >
> > > Although Sienkiewicz filled the same niche in the t.o. nature,
> > > "Major Horn" is hard to trump.
> > > One thing they have in common is the desire to bring up lists
> > > of subjects long since passed that they claim has not been addressed,
> > > claim that they were not answered, and that their target ran when
> > > challenged.
> > > Nothing better than seeing Horn start his new career here with more lies.
> >
> > Newbie can demonstrate this to be a lie by showing where he ever
> > answered those questions. I predict that there he will make no effort.
>
> Your prediction in this case is not far off,
In fact, it appears to be completely accurate. I see no attempt to show
a URL so far.
> although it can not really be called a prediction, since I have told
> you before I am not interested in wasting my times playing your immature
> games, and *have answered those questions*.
As usual, Newbie would rather play in personality wars than answer
topical questions on topical matters--questions that his own comments
prompted during other discussions. Newbie knows these questions have
proven insurmountable in the past; and will do his level best to avoid
them again, just as he did previously.
> > Instead, he will rant and rave as we can see here, accuse those of us
> > who have challenged and embarassed him of telling lies; and try to
> > perpetuate a personality war.
>
> You started it in the beginning, you perpetuated it, and now you are
> starting and attempting to perpetuate it *now*.
Newbie again lies to the readership, particularly those not familiar
with the circumstances. Newbie was an irrelevant quantity to me until
he decided to presume to make me "accountable" for things I allegedly
said to others. As I recall, I advised Newbie, in one of his guises (I
can't remember which "Newbie" he was at the time) that he had no
business presuming to hold anyone accountable for anything when there
were unanswered issues still lurking at his door. It was from there
that the war began. Newbie harbors a particular hatred for me for
events that have occurred since. All of the events to which I refer
resulted in Newbie's continued embarassment and exposure as an ignorant,
ranting and self-important creationist such as we see in this very
thread. Exposed, particularly, was Newbie's habit of saturating a
thread with meaningless posts and replies, during which Newbie strives
to achieve "surrender" of sorts rather than any kind of intelligent
discussion. His tactic usually involves responding to his opponent
incessantly until there is so much stupidity and vitriol in the thread
that the opponent gives up. This gives Newbie the alst word which, for
him, signifies victory in the "debate." But the exchanges are rarely
discussions or debates. Newbie's many errors are ignored by him, and he
is usually left spewing single line, largely ineffectual comebacks.
> You see, Paluxy, that what you wrote above, with no clear evidence
> to back it up, is nothing more than a rant and rave.
I leave it to the reader to decide just who is ranting and raving here.
> For anyone to fairly judge what has happened
> between you and I would take much referencing, cross
> referencing and study.
I am perfectly willing to do the research and provide URL references.
So far, Newbie would rather make a speech than do the same.
> But if you are interested in lies, read on.
I have no interest in lies. What I want are answers that I never got
before, and will not get now.
> > Newbie cannot show that there were lies
> > on my part because there are no lies. The questions I asked above were
> > asked many times and *never* answered--not to my knowledge, anyway.
>
> Davy, that is one example of one of your lies and deceptions.
> What you are really saying is that I never answered to your satisfaction.
No, the questions were not answered.
> I have provided answers - my answers. For example, I did make comments
> on what I think are indications of "components" to life other than chemicals.
If that is so, why are we not seeing that repeated here? The fact is
that Newbie deliberately dodged that question many, many times; and did
on occasion tell us what he told us above. In response to my question,
Newbie told me that he has nothing to say to me and wanted nothing to do
with me. However, just as we seen with Sienkiewicz and have seen with
others such as GyudonZ, Newbie will enter threads and take snipes at us
because he, like Ed Conrad and Stew Dean, thrives on the attention. But
he will avoid the questions.
> Whether you agree, disagree, or think I am whacko is irrelevant to whether
> I have ever "answered".
No, it is entirely relevant.
> To be honest, you could have said my answers to this were whacko,
> but instead, you claim that I never answered, to your knowledge.
> That is a lie.
No, I never got answers. In my view, that is the truth. But to Newbie,
everyone who exposes his antics is a liar.
> You say that I make claims and then run when challenged about them,
> instead of answering.
Newbie is well-known for two things in this newsgroup. First is his
near-legendary inability to read for comrehension. The second is his
constant evasion of challenges put to him.
> That must mean that either I either make claims and do
> not give reasons (answers) for making the claim and are challenged to do so,
> or that I do not answer the "challenge" to your satisfaction.
That Newbie occasionally *replies* is not in question. Whether or not
we get *answers* is another matter.
> You said that I dodged the question "What "laws of matter" does life fail to
> obey?"
> You say I made the claim and then ran when challenged about it.
>
> A very simple example:
>
> The challenge: "What "laws of matter" does life fail to obey?"
> Paluxy, "birds defy gravity". There is an answer. Call it untrue if you wish.
Newbie made some vague reference to birds defying gravity at the time,
as well as some vague references to walking uphill. I pointed out then
that birds do not defy gravity and, in fact, follow very specifically
the laws of gravity when engaging in flight. I also pointed out that
walking uphill does not defy the laws of gravity, either. Newbie didn't
necesssarily forward these things as his answer, as I recall, but only
as vague "examples" of what his answer should include.
If he wants to tell us *now* that this was his "answer," that was not
clear at the time, but it does remind me of the time that I pointed out
several (the number 16 seems to stick in my mind) messages that
contained challenges that he did not answer. Newbie went back and
responded to those messages *after* I pointed this out and then told the
readers that I had lied and that he *had* answered. That provided many
in the newsgroup with what I am sure was unintentional humor from
Newbie.
> But it is an answer to the question. It is just one you are not satisfied with.
It is true that if that is the answer, I am not satisfied with it and do
not consider it an answer. Life does not defy gravity and I am not sure
that gravity qualifies. But then, I suspect Newbie knows as little
about gravity as he does about evolution, biology and the rest of
science.
> You would never be satisfied with any answer of mine, nor would I
> perhaps ever be satisfied with any answer of yours.
The difference is that I do not avoid Newbie's questions; and being much
more intelligent and better educated, I have no concern with his
evaluation of my answers.
> The reasonable solution to that is not to obsess on it. However,
> you seem to be lacking in reasoning ability.
Again, I would leave it to the readership to decide who is engaging in
reason and who is not.
> Good to see you back, liar.
All those who oppose Newbie with any vigor at all are soon labeled in
this way. Some of us wear it as a badge of honor.
> >So
> > if Newbie wants to play his game, he can provide a URL reference to
> > Google, show where he answered the questions and also that I knew, as of
> > this morning, that he answered the questions. I hope no one is holding
> > his or her breath.
>
> And don't hold your breath. I have already done that in the past, and
> tried to pacify you.
Newbie has never done this and he knows it. More often than not, the
questions were ignored or Newbie ranted in reply.
> It does not matter to you, and you appear to be
> totally blind to the fact that claims like the ones above *are* lies.
A lie is a deliberate deception. This is something in which I do not
engage. It is, however, Newbie's stock and trade.
> Above, you said:
> "Instead, he will rant and rave as we can see here, accuse those of us
> who have challenged and embarassed him of telling lies; and try to
> perpetuate a personality war."
>
> It is you, Davy, who posted to me,
> and it is you who have perpetuated your little "war".
Actually, what I tried to do was put an end to the silly and stupid and
off-topic nonsense about who should reply to Ed Conrad and who should
not and return this to topicality. Newbie entered that thread because
he hates Sienkiewicz, not because he cares about Ed Conrad, Stew Dean,
or that nebulous thing called "truth."
> I have told you many times that I am not interested in playing your
> games.
And yet, Newbie will, sooner or later, enter threads of those he hates
in order to attack them. That was going on in these threads and, were I
to participate much longer, would happen with me sooner or later.
> And above, you conclude: "So if Newbie wants to play his game..."
>
> It is *your* game, Paluxy.
I leave it to the reader to decide. Consider Newbie's behavior in these
threads, as well as the other. See how many replies Newbie makes. See
how little substance there is.
This is very much Newbie's game.
Glenn
> After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
> the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
> Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
> professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
> I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
And when the moon is blue that means that the tooth fairy will come.
> earlier on, and that he was in the wrong. Yet I've not seen him admit
> that.
>
>
> > > > > > So Stew could preemptively accept Sienkiewicz' "retraction". It
seems
> > > > > > kind of him to do so, instead of accusing him of lying, which he
would
> > > > > > be perfectly right in doing so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are not using the same logic when you claim that you could
preemptively
> > > > > > accept Stew's apology, unless Stew had said that he would retract
*his*
> > > > > > statement if you could provide a satisfactory explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, even if I manage to sway Stew to my position, I couldn't expect an
> > > > > apology? I've no reason to expect an admission of error from him ?
> > > > >
> > > > What, did Stew tell you what Sienkiewicz told him?
> > > > "If Skippy can provide a convincing explanation that this was not a
denial, and
> > > > do so
> > > > by the time I am able to return to participation, I will happily
> > > > retract the statement that it is denial."
> > >
> > > So these things have to be explicitly spelled out beforehand?
> >
> > This is just a game, and you are playing it with Sienkiewicz. It is
transparent.
>
> It's a bit amusing, but I wouldn't call it a game.
>
Sure it is.
>
> > I remarked on a specific claim, that you used the same logic as Stew.
> > You seem to think it is important that Sienkiewicz said in a different
statement
> > that it was up to Sienkiewicz to determine whether he would be satisfied
> > with Stews explanation.
>
> Who would you have decide whether David should issue a retraction? Stew?
>
Sienkiewicz? You?
I could care less what Sienkiewicz does. It looks like he is close to losing his
mind, and would not accept help.
If you don't think that Stew denied lying to you, you're playing games.
If you do, you're nuts.
>
> > But Stew needs no explanation, because, at the
> > least, it has not been established that Sienkiewicz claim about Stew denying
> > is valid or even a reasonable possibility.
>
> Well then Stew should point that out, rather than "preemptively"
> accepting the retraction.
>
ROTF! Perhaps Stew is attempting to make a "subtle point".
>
> > And Sienkiewicz would claim that was
> > up to him to determine also,
>
> That was implied in Sienkiewicz's statement.
>
In your mind, but not in the statement Stew responded to.
>
> > and you would probably at least let that slide,
> > as you have let slide Sienkiewicz claim that he will decide if Stew's
> > explanation
> > is valid.
>
> I don't pull Sienkiewicz's strings.
>
I'm not reasoning with you either, gen2rev.
>
> > And because you do let this "ride", you are excercising no better
> > logic than Sienkiewicz. You're just playing a game, not reasoning.
>
> No, I'm seeing where David goes with this. He's certainly getting more
> of a reaction from Stew than I did.
>
Just start practicing with people that walk in front of the house. Run out
and growl, foam at the mouth, and try to bite them.
>
> > >Next time
> > > you and I engage in discussion, should I expect such a statement from
> > > you before we begin?
> > >
> > We are "discussing" NOW.
>
> So when are you going to state that if I convince you of the point, that
> you'll publicly say that I was right?
>
You are not going to convince me of anything. I don't much care for rhetoric.
I look at the facts and decide things for myself.
>
> > > > You call Ed a liar.
> > >
> > > Ed?
> > >
> > You haven't made statements to the effect that you think Ed is lying?
>
> So, who is the "He" that you refer to on the next line? I certainly
> wasn't looking for an apology from Ed.
>
He is Stew. You didn't answer the question.
Have you called Ed a liar? If so, why did you say "Ed? and then
fail to answer.
>
> > > > He called you a liar. You called him a liar. You want
> > > > satisfaction,
> > > > an "admission of error", and an apology.
> > >
> > > Is that unreasonable?
> > >
> > The way you are going about it is unreasonable.
> > But no, I don't think you should pursue it.
>
> Why not? If I called you a liar, wouldn't you be upset?
>
Do you always pursue things that upset you?
You have called Stew a liar also. You are petitioning
a person that you called a liar to account for that?
It appeared in a previous post today that Stew apologized to you.
Although I did not read the article closely, it looked to me
like you just want to continue to dog him.
>
> > And expecting satisfaction, admission of error, is too much.
> > It perpetuates the controversy over who was right, who said what,
> > what what meant, etc.
>
> Then why do you go at it with Dave Horn?
>
I'm not expecting satisfaction from Horn, nor an admission of error,
nor am I perpetuating anything. Call my responses to Horn a game if
you wish, or a "subtle point" if you wish, but the analogy is faulty.
>
> > > > Stew seems to want to snip the whole thing and be done with it.
> > > > I can see why.
> > > > Pity people like you, Sienkiewicz and Horn do not see it.
> > >
> > > If Stew *really* wants to be done with it, he should leave me alone, and
> > > not respond to Sienkiewicz, Horn, or myself.
> > >
> > Nice game.
>
> I don't think of it as a game at all.
>
That Stew allow you and Sienkiewicz and Horn to post anything
without responding? The game is of your making.
David Horn
[Snip]
> > Actually I think it's a subtle point that David's attempting to make.
>
> ROTF! Sorry to bust your bubble, but Stew did not deny he called you a liar.
>
> > After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
> > the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
> > Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
> > professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
> > I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
>
> And when the moon is blue that means that the tooth fairy will come.
Obviously, Newbie cannot deal with rational discussion on this subject,
so let's change the subject.
Newbie once claimed that there was evidence that there are components to
life other than chemical processes.
What is that evidence?
[Snip]
> > I don't pull Sienkiewicz's strings.
>
> I'm not reasoning with you either, gen2rev.
This is certainly true, but not in the manner that Newbie might
presume.
[Snip]
> > So when are you going to state that if I convince you of the point, that
> > you'll publicly say that I was right?
> >
> You are not going to convince me of anything.
This is certainly true. Reason is lost on Newbie. Furthermore, he
never admits error and, when he has nowhere else to go with attempts to
avoid questions and challenges, he runs.
> I don't much care for rhetoric.
Newbie's problem is that it's his only weapon.
> I look at the facts and decide things for myself.
This is not true. Newbie does not consider facts at all. If he did,
his participation in this thread would end, and he would tell us
specifically and WHY life fails to obey the "laws of matter."
[Snip]
> > Then why do you go at it with Dave Horn?
>
> I'm not expecting satisfaction from Horn, nor an admission of error,
> nor am I perpetuating anything. Call my responses to Horn a game if
> you wish, or a "subtle point" if you wish, but the analogy is faulty.
The analogy works just fine, if only because Newbie's "game" with me is
always a losing proposition for him.
[Snip]
David Horn
[Snip]
I snipped because this is a stupid argument and you agreed that it
doesn't matter.
Drop it.
stew dean
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:34:09 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
> the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
> Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
> professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
> I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
> earlier on, and that he was in the wrong. Yet I've not seen him admit
> that.
I would love to live in a world where if something is not red, it must
be blue. What you have presented above is a false dichotomy. If you
are not a liar - then you must be correct. This is not true for you
and it is not true for Ed.
I did not snip any valid points and have explained several times in
different ways why they where not valid.
The whole top and bottom skull thing indicates to me you don't
understand my arguement.
I snip posts out of brevity. I often choose to address one point in a
post. It is an attempt to stop too many tangental arguments as we
often get into.
This whole post is about one of those tangents I attempted to trim but
you thought was important. It wasnt. It was silly and trivial.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> It appears you have considered Sienkiewicz is not interested
> in reasoning with you, nor interested in reason at all.
> But he is not wasting his time. He is entertaining himself,
> and whether he has a conscience or not is not evident.
>
> I agree he is adding error upon error. Yet it is you and I
> who are among those who fuel his actions.
>
> I know my reasons, what may I ask are yours?
If you see an over inflated ego don't you just want to pop it?
The thing is do I really have the nerve to drive David to the popping
point?
I don't think I'm really that nasty. He is very very predictable
though. He reminds me of an agressive poker player - he sort of misses
the point of the game and usual ends up walking away with nothing.
David isnt intersested in debate - he prefers the idea of 'flaming'
people who disagree with him rather than debating. In that respect he
is very similair to Ed.
Stew Dean
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F933076...@cox.net...
> > > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > snip
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > In fact, this is a URL to which *I* referred earlier (it appears in my
> > > reposted message as a reference to the original exchange that seems to
> > > have confused Newbie so much), so no reader should presume that this is
> > > Newbie's reference.
> >
> > Yes, Davy's *own* reference. I referenced his other, which was snipped.
>
> I suppose it doesn't matter, since Newbie isn't answering anything,
> anyway.
Sure I am. You snipped it in its entirety.
> >
> > >What he is trying here is misdirection, attempting
> > > to bypass what is really a very simple issue.
> >
> > Empty rhetoric.
>
> Oh, no, this is a direct evaluation of what is happening here.
Oh yes, it is a direct evaluation of you. And that is what is "happening" here.
>
> > >Regardless of the
> > > exchanges that occurred between Walter ReMine and me, the issue between
> > > *Newbie* and me is much simpler, if only because Newbie is incapable of
> > > understanding and unqualified to comment on the scientific and literary
> > > discussion of ReMine's book.
> >
> > The exchanges that occured between ReMine and Horn can not be disregarded,
> > as Horn tries to make it appear here, but the very subject itself.
> > That is why he snipped it all.
>
> No, the issues between me and ReMine are not at all relevant to the
> "impression" that *Newbie* claimed to get, then denied, from the review.
Davy must be insane to think that one would fly.
>
> > > Newbie made a comment that he read my reviews and, by reading my words,
> > > was left with the impression that there was no chapter entitled
> > > "Biogeography." But I specifically identified that chapter and the
> > > title in the reviews to which Newbie refers and in the reviews he was
> > > quoting at the time.
> >
> > And I do not believe a thing Horn says, that he had received a copy of the
> > book or that he had read the book.
>
> But that's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter whether I had the book
> then or have it now.
Not to me in the slightest. What is not irrelevant, moron, is
"I do not believe a thing Horn says".
>The question has to do with how Newbie could claim
> to have gotten the "impression" that there was "no chapter entitled
> such" when I identified that chapter by name in the review? A related
> question is why Newbie denied that he ever got that impression and then
> disappeared from the thread when I proved that he made that statement.
You were a known liar then and still are. I would not believe you about
anything then and I do not now. In fact, I would tend to believe that
something other than what you said was closer to the truth.
>
> > > My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
> > > impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title.
> >
> > Liars often make stuff up.
>
> Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever said he got that impression?
>
> > >Newbie went
> > > to great lengths to deny that he ever said that,
> >
> > Specific references?
>
> Newbie wrote: "Sorry, I am not deciphering anything other that what has
> been written allegedly between Walter and Horn. Originally, Horn
> specifically said yhat biogeography was not discussed in the book. When
> I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
> biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
That is not a specific reference. That is an alleged undocumented quote.
Not that I deny saying something like that.
Thanks for the failure to provide a reference.
>
> Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever wrote this? Will he also deny
> that, when challenged about this, he denied that he ever wrote it? And
> will he also deny that, when his denial was exposed, he ran from the
> thread?
Wrote what? Ran from what?
References to where I denied that I ever said (what I said)?
You know, the google ones you like so much.
>
> > >and I proved that, in fact, he did.
> >
> > Oh, I did. Perhaps not the way you make it appear, either in order or
context.
>
> No relevant context was removed.
Now that is a good one to use next time someone complains about
quotes out of context!
>Either Newbie got that impression or
> he didn't. Since it is clear that he did, and likewise clear that I
> specifically identified the chapter title "such," I'm wondering how he
> could have gotten that impression in the first place. Newbie has tried
> all kinds of misdirection to get around this.
And pigs fly.
>
> > > Newbie abandoned the thread and never explained how he
> > > could come away with that impression or why he would deny that he had
> > > that "impression."
> >
> > If I "abandoned" anything, it was a sarcastic, lying manipulating twit like
> > yourself.
>
> Newbie falls back on his normal tactic. He can't answer this very
> pertinent and reasonably topical question,
Sure I did. Just not exactly the way you want (or really don't) want me to.
I do not believe anything you say, Davy.
>so he decides to name-call
> and represent me as a liar. Of course, there are no lies on my part.
I've exposed so many my fingers hurt, Paluxy.
> *I* am not trying to deceive the readers.
That may not be your intent, although I for one am amused to see you
back in action.
>I might even suggest that
> there is no manipuation on *my* part, though Newbie seems to be trying
> his own brand of that.
Perfect discipline, eh, Paluxy? No manipulation on your part? ROTF
>
> > > All one needs to do is read the reference originally
> > > provided and then consider the thread. It's all right there on Google.
> >
> > Or just read the post Horn just snipped.
>
> There was nothing in that post that answered the question.
Oh yes there is.
>
> > > I have renewed that challenge to Newbie. He is still avoiding it.
> > >
> > And pigs fly, Paluxy.
>
> No, pigs don't fly, but the challenge remains unanswered.
Sure they do.
>
> > Hey, there is another one for your list of "challenges"!
>
> There are several, actually. Many off-topic questions (such as those
> prompted by Newbie's claims that the costs of housing Death Row inmates
> for life are higher than the lengthy appeal process), but because those
> are off-topic, I won't get into them. It's really too bad, because I
> still would like to know why he used a game site to reference an issue
> about military rank (and I saw that that came up again and was again
> unanswered--and denied--not too long ago). It's all right, because a
> great deal of what happens in a debate, particularly in Usenet, has to
> do with credibility. Newbie has none, as we can see.
>
Sure, "Major". heh heh heh.
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F933C1E...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F933076...@cox.net...
> > > > Glenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > snip
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> > >
> > > > In fact, this is a URL to which *I* referred earlier (it appears in my
> > > > reposted message as a reference to the original exchange that seems to
> > > > have confused Newbie so much), so no reader should presume that this is
> > > > Newbie's reference.
> > >
> > > Yes, Davy's *own* reference. I referenced his other, which was snipped.
> >
> > I suppose it doesn't matter, since Newbie isn't answering anything,
> > anyway.
>
> Sure I am. You snipped it in its entirety.
As usual, Newbie relies on falsehoods. I have snipped away the
irrelevant rantings and tried to stick to substance. I have shown that
Newbie is evasive, cowardly and obnoxious.
> > > >What he is trying here is misdirection, attempting
> > > > to bypass what is really a very simple issue.
> > >
> > > Empty rhetoric.
> >
> > Oh, no, this is a direct evaluation of what is happening here.
>
> Oh yes, it is a direct evaluation of you. And that is what is "happening" here.
Newbie's best response is the sort of thing he has tried before, and
frequently, which boils down to "I know I am but what are you."
> > > >Regardless of the
> > > > exchanges that occurred between Walter ReMine and me, the issue between
> > > > *Newbie* and me is much simpler, if only because Newbie is incapable of
> > > > understanding and unqualified to comment on the scientific and literary
> > > > discussion of ReMine's book.
> > >
> > > The exchanges that occured between ReMine and Horn can not be disregarded,
> > > as Horn tries to make it appear here, but the very subject itself.
> > > That is why he snipped it all.
> >
> > No, the issues between me and ReMine are not at all relevant to the
> > "impression" that *Newbie* claimed to get, then denied, from the review.
>
> Davy must be insane to think that one would fly.
It does fly. What went on between ReMine and I in the discussion is not
relevant to *Newbie's* claim about the impression he got from my words.
> > > > Newbie made a comment that he read my reviews and, by reading my words,
> > > > was left with the impression that there was no chapter entitled
> > > > "Biogeography." But I specifically identified that chapter and the
> > > > title in the reviews to which Newbie refers and in the reviews he was
> > > > quoting at the time.
> > >
> > > And I do not believe a thing Horn says, that he had received a copy of the
> > > book or that he had read the book.
> >
> > But that's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter whether I had the book
> > then or have it now.
>
> Not to me in the slightest. What is not irrelevant, moron, is
> "I do not believe a thing Horn says".
And this is, of course, completely irrelevant to Newbie's comments.
Since Newbie's credibility is almost nil in this newsgroup, I have no
concerns with whether nor not Newbie believes that I own or read the
book. The point *here* that Newbie is trying to so pathetically avoid
is *his* reading of something I said and his "impression."
> >The question has to do with how Newbie could claim
> > to have gotten the "impression" that there was "no chapter entitled
> > such" when I identified that chapter by name in the review? A related
> > question is why Newbie denied that he ever got that impression and then
> > disappeared from the thread when I proved that he made that statement.
>
> You were a known liar then and still are. I would not believe you about
> anything then and I do not now. In fact, I would tend to believe that
> something other than what you said was closer to the truth.
I quoted Newbie exactly. If Newbie can show that I misquoted him, he is
invited to do so.
> > > > My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
> > > > impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title.
> > >
> > > Liars often make stuff up.
> >
> > Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever said he got that impression?
No response.
> > > >Newbie went
> > > > to great lengths to deny that he ever said that,
> > >
> > > Specific references?
> >
> > Newbie wrote: "Sorry, I am not deciphering anything other that what has
> > been written allegedly between Walter and Horn. Originally, Horn
> > specifically said yhat biogeography was not discussed in the book. When
> > I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
> > biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
>
> That is not a specific reference. That is an alleged undocumented quote.
> Not that I deny saying something like that.
So Newbie is *not* denying he wrote it.
> Thanks for the failure to provide a reference.
I neglected to paste it in, but Newbie is not denying he wrote it. That
is almost certainly preemtive, but since he has accused me of lying, he
can show that he's been misquoted as evidence. The fact is that Newbie
knows he wrote this, as he has been challenged about it--and fled that
challenge--in the past.
> > Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever wrote this? Will he also deny
> > that, when challenged about this, he denied that he ever wrote it? And
> > will he also deny that, when his denial was exposed, he ran from the
> > thread?
>
> Wrote what? Ran from what?
See above.
> References to where I denied that I ever said (what I said)?
> You know, the google ones you like so much.
Newbie knows he wrote it. He's stonewalling.
> > > >and I proved that, in fact, he did.
> > >
> > > Oh, I did. Perhaps not the way you make it appear, either in order or
> context.
> >
> > No relevant context was removed.
>
> Now that is a good one to use next time someone complains about
> quotes out of context!
No relevant context was removed. The argument between me and Newbie in
this case has to do with this specific incident. All of the other
things he is trying to introduce are simple attempts at misdirection.
That was tactic #1. Tactic #2, if tactic #1 doesn't work, is to berate
the other person and accuse him of lies. Tactic #3 is retreat from the
group.
> >Either Newbie got that impression or
> > he didn't. Since it is clear that he did, and likewise clear that I
> > specifically identified the chapter title "such," I'm wondering how he
> > could have gotten that impression in the first place. Newbie has tried
> > all kinds of misdirection to get around this.
>
> And pigs fly.
Newbie's attempt at misdirection is documented in the thread.
> > > > Newbie abandoned the thread and never explained how he
> > > > could come away with that impression or why he would deny that he had
> > > > that "impression."
> > >
> > > If I "abandoned" anything, it was a sarcastic, lying manipulating twit like
> > > yourself.
> >
> > Newbie falls back on his normal tactic. He can't answer this very
> > pertinent and reasonably topical question,
>
> Sure I did.
If Newbie has ever answered where he got the "impression" he claimed and
how he arrived at it, I seem to have missed it.
> Just not exactly the way you want (or really don't) want me to.
> I do not believe anything you say, Davy.
This is beside the point. I don't care whether Newbie believes me or
not. What is at issue *here* is how *he* got the "impression" he
claimed he got from *my* words.
> >so he decides to name-call
> > and represent me as a liar. Of course, there are no lies on my part.
>
> I've exposed so many my fingers hurt, Paluxy.
"So many" can be quite a few; but Newbie has, in fact, never exposed a
single lie on my part.
> > *I* am not trying to deceive the readers.
>
> That may not be your intent,
If it is not my intent, then I am not a liar.
> although I for one am amused to see you
> back in action.
I doubt that Newbie is amused at all. It sure doesn't look like it,
judging from the "quality" of his responses.
I'll snip the remainder since Newbie simply spews more of his
unresponsive nonsense; and I will continue to wait for an intelligent
answer to (and remind Newbie of) this topical issue.
[Snip]
David Horn
>
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<n6l8pv8uet4u3rmcg...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:34:09 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
[Snip]
You agreed that this was unimportant.
Drop it.
David Horn
>
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<Ogskb.972$x23....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It appears you have considered Sienkiewicz is not interested
> > in reasoning with you, nor interested in reason at all.
> > But he is not wasting his time. He is entertaining himself,
> > and whether he has a conscience or not is not evident.
> >
> > I agree he is adding error upon error. Yet it is you and I
> > who are among those who fuel his actions.
> >
> > I know my reasons, what may I ask are yours?
>
> If you see an over inflated ego don't you just want to pop it?
Damn. Three more irony meters melted down.
> The thing is do I really have the nerve to drive David to the popping
> point?
By my reading, you don't have what it takes to bring him even close.
You agreed about the unimportance of this "discussion."
Drop it.
David Horn
[Snip]
> > The question has to do with how Newbie could claim
> > to have gotten the "impression" that there was "no chapter entitled
> > such" when I identified that chapter by name in the review? A related
> > question is why Newbie denied that he ever got that impression and then
> > disappeared from the thread when I proved that he made that statement.
>
> You were a known liar then and still are. I would not believe you about
> anything then and I do not now. In fact, I would tend to believe that
> something other than what you said was closer to the truth.
>
> > > > My question to Newbie has always been how he could come away with that
> > > > impression when I so clearly identified the chapter title.
> > >
> > > Liars often make stuff up.
> >
> > Is Newbie now *denying* that he ever said he got that impression?
> >
> > > > Newbie went
> > > > to great lengths to deny that he ever said that,
> > >
> > > Specific references?
> >
> > Newbie wrote: "Sorry, I am not deciphering anything other that what has
> > been written allegedly between Walter and Horn. Originally, Horn
> > specifically said yhat biogeography was not discussed in the book. When
> > I read that then, my impression was that there was no mention of
> > biogeography, and definetely no chapter entitled such."
>
> That is not a specific reference. That is an alleged undocumented quote.
> Not that I deny saying something like that.
> Thanks for the failure to provide a reference.
And I forgot to paste it in again. Here is the Google reference:
A smaller URL, in case that doesn't wrap:
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<n6l8pv8uet4u3rmcg...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:34:09 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> > <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> > After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
> > the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
> > Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
> > professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
> > I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
> > earlier on, and that he was in the wrong. Yet I've not seen him admit
> > that.
>
> I would love to live in a world where if something is not red, it must
> be blue. What you have presented above is a false dichotomy. If you
> are not a liar - then you must be correct. This is not true for you
> and it is not true for Ed.
>
> I did not snip any valid points
So when I claimed that you snipped away contradictory evidence I was
indeed lying? Or did I sincerely believe that it was contrary evidence?
> and have explained several times in
> different ways why they where not valid.
You certainly didn't do so at the time, and I've found any explanations
since then to be singularly unconvincing.
> The whole top and bottom skull thing indicates to me you don't
> understand my arguement.
Or maybe you *have* no argument. As far as I can tell, it boils down to
the claim that Ed's confused about the interior geography of the human
skull, even though he has a model of one right in front of him.
> I snip posts out of brevity. I often choose to address one point in a
> post. It is an attempt to stop too many tangental arguments as we
> often get into.
>
> This whole post is about one of those tangents I attempted to trim but
> you thought was important. It wasnt. It was silly and trivial.
Why?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> [Quote from elsewhere]
>
> > You are right it doesnt matter.
>
> Then drop it.
Are you always this polite with people you don't know?
I just want to know what David and Jon are looking to achieve? At the
moment I profess I don't understand what they think they might achieve
but feel I'm more aware of what they have achieved.
I short why are Jon and David replying to David and why are they so
defensive when I suggest they don't? I have a theory but they don't
like it. So, as with all of science, I'm waiting for them to provide a
better one.
I can't help but wonder.
Stew Dean
David Horn
>
> David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F93317E...@cox.net>...
> > stew dean wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > [Quote from elsewhere]
> >
> > > You are right it doesnt matter.
> >
> > Then drop it.
>
> Are you always this polite with people you don't know?
No. Just you. You seem to have a selective memory.
> I just want to know what David and Jon are looking to achieve?
They've already answered this. You ignored it, twisted it, and claimed
that their intent was something other than what was said.
> At the moment I profess I don't understand what they think
> they might achieve
In fact, what you have done is tell them that you know precisely what
they expect to achieve--in direct contradiction to what they have told
you. So are you lying now, have you changed your mind, as you so often
do, or is this just another example of your inability to follow the
thread and the arguments presented, as was so clear in the exchanges
with gen2rev?
> but feel I'm more aware of what they have achieved.
What you have achieved is to make yourself appear to others to be petty
and arrogant.
> I short why are Jon and David replying to David
To Ed?
> and why are they so defensive when I suggest they don't?
You don't "suggest" anything; and you persist incessantly and
obsessively.
This is all about your ego. You've had your advice rejected and you
can't have *that*, so you presume to bully and harass.
> I have a theory but they don't like it.
A theory requires facts to support it. You have none.
> So, as with all of science, I'm waiting for them to provide a
> better one.
This is not a scientific discussion. It's a clash of egos. It has
nothing to do with topicality and you have even admitted that it's not
that important, yet you have pestered others about it for literally
years.
You lost this one long ago. Accept it. Drop it.
[Snip]
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F93317E...@cox.net>...
> > stew dean wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > [Quote from elsewhere]
> >
> > > You are right it doesnt matter.
> >
> > Then drop it.
>
> Are you always this polite with people you don't know?
>
> I just want to know what David and Jon are looking to achieve? At the
> moment I profess I don't understand what they think they might achieve
> but feel I'm more aware of what they have achieved.
>
> I short why are Jon and David replying to David and why are they so
> defensive when I suggest they don't?
Because you're not our mother.
> I have a theory but they don't
> like it.
Because it's wrong.
> So, as with all of science, I'm waiting for them to provide a
> better one.
No, you're waiting for us to do what you tell us to do.
> I can't help but wonder.
Me too.
> Stew Dean
David Horn
Exactly. And it needs to cease. One can't say that it's unimportant on
the one hand and then continue to squink about it on the other hand.
The thread has run its course. Dean is wrong. While some of us may
question the wisdom of continuous replies to Ed Conrad, at least they
can be useful. He needs to drop it.
[Snip]
Glenn
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<Ogskb.972$x23....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2b68957a.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It appears you have considered Sienkiewicz is not interested
> > in reasoning with you, nor interested in reason at all.
> > But he is not wasting his time. He is entertaining himself,
> > and whether he has a conscience or not is not evident.
> >
> > I agree he is adding error upon error. Yet it is you and I
> > who are among those who fuel his actions.
> >
> > I know my reasons, what may I ask are yours?
>
> If you see an over inflated ego don't you just want to pop it?
>
Both egocentric, power-hungry and manipulative.
I have no quixotic notion of helping either one, or engaging them to
waste their time in hopes that their attention would be diverted from
others that may be hurt by them. Unlike most other diseases or disorders,
psychopaths are malevolent, predators, and I feel little empathy for them.
My intent is basically to deny them satisfaction, and damned if it isn't
similar to what you describe as "popping" their egos. But have
no doubt, no one can.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/psychopath.htm
>
> The thing is do I really have the nerve to drive David to the popping
> point?
>
"Sienkiewicz" in some way. Perhaps not. But like I said I believe,
attempting to drive him to the popping point would be, if he is a
psychopath, a fruitless excercise, as psychopaths generally are
(seemingly) immune and not affected by such tactics.
>
> I don't think I'm really that nasty.
>
>
>He is very very predictable though.
>
are so obvious. And they appear so oblivious. The wierd part is that
they are not! Read the article above.
>
>He reminds me of an agressive poker player - he sort of misses
> the point of the game and usual ends up walking away with nothing.
>
possible.
I don't think its a matter of whether he misses the point of
the game, and would probably be an aggressive player.
It may be that a good player, if they knew their opponent was
psychopathic, would prevail. That might make for interesting study.
But not playing for pleasure, no.
>
> David isnt intersested in debate - he prefers the idea of 'flaming'
> people who disagree with him rather than debating. In that respect he
> is very similair to Ed.
>
Ed's posts, he does appear to prefer flaming rather than debating.
Similar in that respect, but a far cry from "Sienkiewicz" behavior.
The reason I included that specific reference above is that it
mentioned psychopaths teaming up:
"Hare states, "As long as their interests are complimentary,
they make a formidable pair."
Seems both "Horn" and "Sienkiewicz" are experiencing some
change or stress in their lives at about the same time.
After a long absence, Horn returns at about the same time
as Sienkiewicz leaves claiming to have a family emergency.
Not long after Horn dissapeared more than a year ago(<>?),
Sienkiewicz showed up, claiming to have lurked for years.
Sienkiewicz does not appear to be a "lurker"...
I saw a similarity to both posters, and even posed the question
(to Pagano, if memory serves) that they might be one and the same.
But their behavior is what is similar, I have no evidence
that would indicate they were actually the same person.
Their interaction now, though, might prove to be interesting.
Although,...
Recent events, from a Google search:
9/3,4: Horn shows up again. Both make posts.
9/5 and 6, Horn posts. Sienkiewicz does not.
9/6,7,8 neither post
9/9,10 Only Sienkiewicz posts
9/11 thru 9/19 Neither post.
9/19,20,21 Only Horn posts.
9/22,23 Both post
9/22: Sienkiewicz replies to Horn: http://tinyurl.com/rsg5
9/24thru10/12 Horn does not post,Sienkiewicz does daily
10/10 Sienkiewicz states he will be away for some time.
10/12 Sienkiewicz makes one more post
10/13 to the present: Horn posts almost daily
10/18,19: Sienkiewicz makes a couple posts...
10/19: Sienkiewicz comments on Horn: http://tinyurl.com/rsry
From this data, rarely has Sienkiewicz and Horn posted
on the same dates; 9/3, 9/4, 9/22, 9/23, 10/19
Significantly, when one is posting, the other isn't.
Both had only one significant common absence: 9/10 thru 9/19
Their common interests, posting to various groups,
are Ed, Stew, and me.
Coincidence?
Glenn
In the above http://tinyurl.com/rsry
Sienkiewicz appears to not be familiar with Horn and initially
would have blown off Horns "advice" (Sienkiewicz has not
ever taken advice well):
"I was originally going to blow this off as another "so-and-so
shouldn't respond to so-and-so,"
But they are two peas in a pod.
http://tinyurl.com/rsg5
5/19/02
http://tinyurl.com/rtan
>> Yes, you remind me very much of Dave Horn.
>I don't recall any time when Horn ran from anything you wrote,
>sheldon. It was you who ran.
***********
http://tinyurl.com/rtby
>> do you see any resemblence in form, style, content to a certain
>> 'Paluxy' Dave Horn? I only read some of his posts in order to study
>> this, and do see similarity in form and style.
>There are many of us who write in similar "form and style," sheldon.
>This is not to say that I give you that much credit for insight.
[....]
>"Paluxy," as I recall, did not deign to respond to you or Tony
>directly.
************
So he recalls Horn, seems to respect him. Look at "deign"...
And the big slip:
4/27/03
http://tinyurl.com/rtcj
>> By the content. Is it true that "sheldon came into this newsgroup
>> telling us that he was going to hold others accountable for the things
>> they say"?
>That is what I recall.
>> That I take it is reference to my disagreement with Dave Horn,
>That I don't recall.
***************
Well, that was "my disagreement" with Horn, concerning his
statements and supposed review of ReMines book.
Suddenly sienkiewicz does not recall where he got the statement from.
But that is what he said: "sheldon came into this newsgroup
telling *us* that he was going to hold others accountable for the things
they say." (emphasis mine)
"Us"? And he doesn't recall? And he would blow off
Horn's advice because he thought Horn was just another so-and-so?
"But I am addressing this to you, David,
because you seem to be the more reasonable and intelligent of the
threesome currently embroiled in this nonsense."
And Sienkiewicz thinks Horn's reasoning is some kind of
revelation that would cause him to rconsider??
Read Sienkiewicz' entire post:
< snip >
>I was originally going to blow this off as another "so-and-so
>shouldn't respond to so-and-so," but then I read this:
>> Look, like I said, this is ridiculous. Look at what you guys were
>> arguing--think about it. It boiled down to a really stupid argument in
>> which you guys were trying to one-up each other on (are you ready for
>> this?) just who was a better expert when it came to Ed Conrad.
>
>> Ed-for-cryin'-out-loud-Conrad!
>
>> Now *think* about that. *That's* what you guys were arguing about. "I
>> know Ed better 'cause I read his posts." "Oh, yeah? Well, *I* know Ed
>> better because I went to Pennsylvania." "You're stupid. I design web
>> pages so I'm an expert in human behavior and so I know Ed Conrad
>> better!" "You're an idiot. *I* interviewed people who knew Krogman and
>> know Ed." Yadda, yadda yadda.
>
>> Who's the better expert about Ed Conrad? You? Dean? Gen2rev?
>
>> As Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog might say, "the correct answer is 'who
>> gives a [bleep]?'" The fact is that even though you and gen2rev have
>> made a much better case than Dean--who hasn't made a case, at all--no
>> one really cares who among you knows Ed Conrad best.
>This is a good point that I hadn't considered.
>Yep. That's what it's turned into. "Who Knows Ed Conrad Best?"
>Yes, it's a stupid argument.
>But yes, I have other things in mind for when I can return to full
>participation. Email me: hdsienkiewicz at the Mighty Y.
>Thanks.
**************
Now who believes Sienkiewicz would have responded favorably to anyone
with this "deeply intelligent" post that basically said "no one cares, so stop".
I would have thought that Sienkiewicz would have least said that he knows
Ed better than Stew (he's been arguing all along) and would have not
dismissed Stew's involvement!
David Horn
[Snip "research"]
And yet another prediction of mine comes true. Rather than deal with
the topical matters and directly and honestly respond to the topical
questions, Newbie makes every effort to misdirect. *Now* he wants to
make allusions to sock-puppetry on the part of Sienkiewicz or me. While
this is quite amusing, the reasoning is clearly flawed and the
conclusions erroneous. I won't waste the time of the reader going
through a point-by-point refutation and showing why most of it is simply
wrong. Like the "who-knows-Ed-Conrad-better" argument that has cropped
up between Sienkiewicz and Dean, it's off-topic and likely of no concern
to anyone who might be worth the bother or the time.
Perhaps if Newbie spent more time researching and then explaining his
own comments and statements such as his claim that there is evidence of
something other to life than chemical processes or his claims that life
does not obey certain "laws of matter," he wouldn't have to go through
these gyrations. The fact that he does this kind of thing is actually
very revealing with respect to his integrity and character. Newbie
would do well to pause and take note that these sorts of things are why
he has no credibility in this newsgroup.
stew dean
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:42:31 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<n6l8pv8uet4u3rmcg...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:34:09 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> > > <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> > > After all, Stew *did* call me a liar when I pointed out that he was in
> > > the habit of snipping (and not marking) some of my points about Ed.
> > > Later, Stew says that he doesn't think that I'm a liar in regards to my
> > > professed motives for replying to Ed. But if Stew now doesn't think that
> > > I'm a liar, it would mean that he did indeed snip my valid points
> > > earlier on, and that he was in the wrong. Yet I've not seen him admit
> > > that.
> >
> > I would love to live in a world where if something is not red, it must
> > be blue. What you have presented above is a false dichotomy. If you
> > are not a liar - then you must be correct. This is not true for you
> > and it is not true for Ed.
> >
> > I did not snip any valid points
>
> So when I claimed that you snipped away contradictory evidence I was
> indeed lying? Or did I sincerely believe that it was contrary evidence?
I've already answered that question. If I don't think you a liar and
don't think you're correct the answer is....
> > and have explained several times in
> > different ways why they where not valid.
>
> You certainly didn't do so at the time, and I've found any explanations
> since then to be singularly unconvincing.
You want me to go back through it again in Matrix style bullet time?
Which bit did you find unconvincing. Note 'all of it' will indicate
you werent paying attention.
> > The whole top and bottom skull thing indicates to me you don't
> > understand my arguement.
>
> Or maybe you *have* no argument. As far as I can tell, it boils down to
> the claim that Ed's confused about the interior geography of the human
> skull, even though he has a model of one right in front of him.
Actualy it's nothing to do with Ed's finds. It doesnt matter if he
got left confused with right or red confused with blue. It doesnt
matter if he's a YEC, thinks that the pope is a space alien or that he
is in fact John Lennon.
The logic of his 'finds' is not in question because there is no logic.
> > I snip posts out of brevity. I often choose to address one point in a
> > post. It is an attempt to stop too many tangental arguments as we
> > often get into.
> >
> > This whole post is about one of those tangents I attempted to trim but
> > you thought was important. It wasnt. It was silly and trivial.
>
> Why?
See above.
Let me repeat one more time in case you missed it.
Ed posts for attention - replying gives him that and arguing about
posting like this also achives that.
Ed found some things that he thought would make him important. He
didnt. Instead of going 'okay - you guys know better' his mix of ego
and ignorance has sent him of a wild goose chase. He's gone too far to
back down so just keeps on saying the same thing in the hope it might
be true.
Ed could be a liar, could be delussional, could be a perfectly nice
guy if you met him in a bar, but is considered by one and all to be a
kook. His finds have zero scientific validity and no one thinks they
do except Ed.
It's fairly bloody obvious to all and sundary. Newbies will come along
and confirm this at regular intervals - you and David need do nothing.
In fact doing something just gives Ed more ammo so is totally counter
productive.
As a defence mechanism if you diagree with Ed you are one of 'them'
(insert 'preemptive' terms like psuedo or anthing that could be
leveled at himself). In his world he's a local hero fighting them.
And the main lesson to learn from all of this? Never trust a man with
a mostache.
I'm personaly getting a feeling I've said this all before.
So it's got nothing to do with the logic of his finds - there is not
logic. It's all to do with his mental state.
'Chocolate Footbath' - that's just so I can find it again in google
groups when you say 'you havnt made an argument'.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> He needs to drop it.
What planet are you on? What is the word 'need' doing in a usenet
discussion? Are you trying to beat David S in the pompous ass of the
month award? You turn up, start calling me Dean and telling me what I
need to do and oddly making the same kind of errors as the other David
(I am not a web designer, only David S said I was).
I think you're just here for the fight - not to work out why it's
happening.
This is just a guess but have you ever been involved with the military
or other authoritarian organisation?
Stew Dean
David Horn
>
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<i9qapv4jvqpepnmn2...@4ax.com>...
[Snip]
You agreed that this doesn't matter.
Drop it.
David Horn
>
> David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3F957C50...@cox.net>...
>
> > He needs to drop it.
>
> What planet are you on? What is the word 'need' doing in a usenet
> discussion? Are you trying to beat David S in the pompous ass of the
> month award?
Oh, no. You have that award sewn up for the next several years; and for
the last several years.
Now drop it.
[Snip]
Glenn
> > > > > Glenn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > [snip deception]
> > > > Since it appears snipping everything and posting would appear to be "top
> > > > posting"
> > >
> > > Newbie seems to be dismayed that I am snipping his attempts at
> > > misdirection. He'll just have to live with that. We'll stay as topical
> > > as possible.
> > >
> > As topical as possible?
> >
> > All righty,
> >
> > snip
> >
> > That is about as topical as Horn can get!
>
> As we can see, Newbie is again trying to avoid the issue--a topical
> issue with respect to what happened with Newbie's presumed "impression"
> that my words left him with respect to a "chapter entitled such," that
> is, "Biogeography," in ReMine's "The Biotic Message." Newbie wanted to
> leave the impression in earlier comments that he does not run from these
> things, but here we see him plainly avoiding the issue so he can play
> his usual games of ignoring the points (I predict the response to that
> will be "you have no point" and if that doesn't happen, it will be
> because I've been preemptive here).
>
> This is what Newbie snipped:
>
> [Reposted]
>
> > I'll give it a try also. Here you go, Davy. Hope you are satisfied with the
> > answer.
> >
snip
Oops, seems like you snipped my answer!
And then claimed I didn't answer, and
ran from you.
David Horn
As soon as Newbie answers, I will deal with the answer. What Newbie did
was redirect and avoid the issue by concentrating on what was said
between Walter and me.
Newbie read a review in which I criticized Walter ReMine's "The Biotic
Message" and there was specific criticism of his chapter on biogeography
which he titled, "Biogeoegraphy." Newbie read that review and commented
that, after reading it, he had an "impression" that there was
"definetely [sic] ho chapter entitled such." Since I specifically said
there was a chapter so identified, I'm wondering how he came to that
"impression."
Newbie, of course, is never more amusing than when he tries to be
unclear. What Newbie seems to be saying is that he didn't believe I had
or read the book and so he believes I lied when I said there was a
chapter "entitled such." Is this the basis for his "impression?" If
so, he won't come right out and say it. But I already dealt with that
criticism. First, that criticism came long after I had challenged
Newbie repeatedly on this subject. He was obviously stuck for an answer
and he made that one up to try to get out of answering for the gaffe.
Second, I pointed out that I was then embroiled rather acrimoniously on
some levels with Walter, himself, and "sc...@home.com," both of whom
were complaining that I hadn't read the book. Newbie read those
exchanges. If I had misidentified such a chapter, certainly ReMine and
"sc...@home.com" would have said so often and quite loudly, yet neither
did. Newbie, of course, has never read the book and has no basis to make
any claims about my reading or owning it other than his pathological
hatred for me. The fact is that Newbie made a serious error in reading
comprehension and I want to know how he came to the "impression" that he
did.
Newbie has tried all kinds of tactics to get around what was obviously
another example (among many) of poor reading comprehension on his part.
Furthermore, he never seems to want to be responsible for his errors, so
it's always someone else's fault. Newbie wanted the proof. I gave a
quote and a reference. Now he continues to try to find ways to dodge.
We can see in other recent threads that this is par for the course.
Newbie makes a statement. He is challenged. He dodges (and is usually
very clumsy when he does so) and will even make things up to get around
them--all the while ranting at others and calling them "liar."
A great deal of what we do here to discount creationists has to be to
address the credibility of their persons as well as their arguments.
Honest creationists have been few and far between in talk.origins.
Newbie has complained elsewhere in the group that it is not right to
"generalize" about groups of people (Newbie himself, of course, is
immune from this standard, so it's okay if he writes things like
"sheesh! Evolutionsts!" and "evolutionists can't find their buts with
both hands."), but the fact is that we can't seem to get anyone to be
honest about their creationism or to honestly deal with the things they
have said. I find this to be an interesting phenomenon. Newbie is
simply one of the more shrill example. And since the only thing we have
in newsgroups is credibility, if it can be shown that someone like
Newbie is not credible, that has utility.
Newbie still needs to deal with this issue. If he believed I was lying
in the first place, he never said so--even though he was quite
vociferous elsewhere in other threads at the time and using "liar" quite
liberally. So no, he didn't think I was lying at the time. He said
something stupid and he needs to be responsible for it.
David Horn
[Snip]
You wrote this on October 8th:
> Well, it doesn't matter. Neither gen2rev nor I have ever attempted to
> "reason with" Ed.
I think we've reached stalemate then. If you can't admit the obvious
then trying to explain the finer details of things is pointless.
If it makes you any happier - you win - well done. You've bored me
into submission.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On October 8th, you accepted that this stupid argument was in
stalemate.
Did you change your mind?
Drop it.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> >
snip
> >
> > Oops, seems like you snipped my answer!
> > And then claimed I didn't answer, and
> > ran from you.
>
> As soon as Newbie answers, I will deal with the answer. What Newbie did
> was redirect and avoid the issue by concentrating on what was said
> between Walter and me.
Horn will "deal" with the answer as soon as I answer? This guy is a psycopath.
He knows that I did not avoid the issue, that I showed by "concentrating" on the
exchange between ReMine and himself why I would not believe him if he said
the sun would rise tomorrow. What Horn wants me to do is to come away
with what he has said thinking that I am a complete idiot. Sorry, Davy boy.
>
> Newbie read a review in which I criticized Walter ReMine's "The Biotic
> Message" and there was specific criticism of his chapter on biogeography
> which he titled, "Biogeoegraphy." Newbie read that review and commented
> that, after reading it, he had an "impression" that there was
> "definetely [sic] ho chapter entitled such." Since I specifically said
> there was a chapter so identified, I'm wondering how he came to that
> "impression."
Well then, since I specifically say now that Horn is a moron, in the future
he will have no reason not to believe he is a moron.
>
> Newbie, of course, is never more amusing than when he tries to be
> unclear. What Newbie seems to be saying is that he didn't believe I had
> or read the book and so he believes I lied when I said there was a
> chapter "entitled such." Is this the basis for his "impression?" If
> so, he won't come right out and say it. But I already dealt with that
> criticism. First, that criticism came long after I had challenged
> Newbie repeatedly on this subject. He was obviously stuck for an answer
> and he made that one up to try to get out of answering for the gaffe.
> Second, I pointed out that I was then embroiled rather acrimoniously on
> some levels with Walter, himself, and "sc...@home.com," both of whom
> were complaining that I hadn't read the book. Newbie read those
> exchanges.
I did?
>If I had misidentified such a chapter, certainly ReMine and
> "sc...@home.com" would have said so often and quite loudly
They would have?
>
>, yet neither
> did. Newbie, of course, has never read the book
I haven't?
>and has no basis to make
> any claims about my reading or owning it other than his pathological
> hatred for me.
I don't hate you, Paluxy. I don't have that problem. Sorry.
You haven't hurt me, and you won't. And I won't hurt myself by
hating you. I pity you.
Kisses!
snip more bullshit
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F95E7B9...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> snip
> > >
> > > Oops, seems like you snipped my answer!
> > > And then claimed I didn't answer, and
> > > ran from you.
> >
> > As soon as Newbie answers, I will deal with the answer. What Newbie did
> > was redirect and avoid the issue by concentrating on what was said
> > between Walter and me.
>
> Horn will "deal" with the answer as soon as I answer? This guy is a psycopath.
Psychopaths have specific pathology. Perhaps Newbie will be good enough
to explain first, his credentials that permit him to make such a
diagnosis and second, the pathology demonstrated that shows I'm a
psychopath. Referring me to a New Age, metaphysical web site will not
suffice.
> He knows that I did not avoid the issue,
As usual, Newbie avoids this issue by trying to insist what others
"know."
> hat I showed by "concentrating" on the
> exchange between ReMine and himself why I would not believe him if he said
> the sun would rise tomorrow. What Horn wants me to do is to come away
> with what he has said thinking that I am a complete idiot. Sorry, Davy boy.
I will allow the readers to decide if Newbie is a "complete idiot." I
know *my* opinion, of course.
> > Newbie read a review in which I criticized Walter ReMine's "The Biotic
> > Message" and there was specific criticism of his chapter on biogeography
> > which he titled, "Biogeoegraphy." Newbie read that review and commented
> > that, after reading it, he had an "impression" that there was
> > "definetely [sic] ho chapter entitled such." Since I specifically said
> > there was a chapter so identified, I'm wondering how he came to that
> > "impression."
>
> Well then, since I specifically say now that Horn is a moron, in the future
> he will have no reason not to believe he is a moron.
In other words, Newbie cannot answer the question honestly, and so
resorts to his normal tactics.
> > Newbie, of course, is never more amusing than when he tries to be
> > unclear. What Newbie seems to be saying is that he didn't believe I had
> > or read the book and so he believes I lied when I said there was a
> > chapter "entitled such." Is this the basis for his "impression?" If
> > so, he won't come right out and say it. But I already dealt with that
> > criticism. First, that criticism came long after I had challenged
> > Newbie repeatedly on this subject. He was obviously stuck for an answer
> > and he made that one up to try to get out of answering for the gaffe.
> > Second, I pointed out that I was then embroiled rather acrimoniously on
> > some levels with Walter, himself, and "sc...@home.com," both of whom
> > were complaining that I hadn't read the book. Newbie read those
> > exchanges.
>
> I did?
Newbie's input into the threads at the time makes that clear.
> >If I had misidentified such a chapter, certainly ReMine and
> > "sc...@home.com" would have said so often and quite loudly
>
> They would have?
Given that both ReMine and "scott" were using "he didn't read the book"
as their main thesis, certainly any rational person would presume that a
misidentification of a specific chapter by me would be pounced on as
evidence for that. So, yes, of *course* they would have. Newbie would
have. If the situation were reversed, *I* would have.
> >, yet neither
> > did. Newbie, of course, has never read the book
>
> I haven't?
Newbie is stonewalling, as usual. The fact is that Newbie said at the
time that he hadn't read the book and I have no reason to believe that
he has bothered in the intervening time. Certainly he hasn't bothered
with any other effort to learn about these subjects.
> >and has no basis to make
> > any claims about my reading or owning it other than his pathological
> > hatred for me.
>
> I don't hate you, Paluxy. I don't have that problem. Sorry.
> You haven't hurt me, and you won't. And I won't hurt myself by
> hating you. I pity you.
Newbie's attempt at face-saving will likely convince absolutely no one.
All one needs to do is read a bit of Newbie's comments to see the hate.
> Kisses!
>
> snip more bullshit
So I'm a psychopath, a moron, and I write "bullshit," but Newbie doesn't
hate me. I'm guessing that no one will be fooled by this, and I'm still
waiting for an explanation as to how Newbie could make such an obvious
mistake. The problem, of course, is that Newbie is a child who can
never admit a mistake. But he's such an obnoxious child that I think
reminding him of these mistakes is the way to deal with him. As we
sometimes say in Usenet, your mileage may vary.
Boikat
Eddo is probably having the time of his life watching you guys go at each
other. That in and of itself should be enough to stop.
Boikat
David Sienkiewicz
My, my, my, my, my!
Skippy obviously doesn't like being told what to do!
Isn't THAT interesting?
DAMN, I picked a bad time not to be able to post much! < wink >
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F95E0D0...@cox.net...
> > stew dean wrote:
> > >
> > > David Horn <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F957C50...@cox.net>...
> > >
> > > > He needs to drop it.
> > >
> > > What planet are you on? What is the word 'need' doing in a usenet
> > > discussion? Are you trying to beat David S in the pompous ass of the
> > > month award?
> >
> > Oh, no. You have that award sewn up for the next several years; and for
> > the last several years.
> >
> > Now drop it.
> >
> > [Snip]
>
> Eddo is probably having the time of his life watching you guys go at each
> other. That in and of itself should be enough to stop.
Sienkiewicz already brought that up somewhere at least once and it
didn't seem to matter. As for me, I don't post with concerns about what
Conrad thinks. I have little doubt that there is much that amuses
Conrad that most of the rest of us would find mundane, at best.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
>
> [Snip "research"]
He sure did! The entire post.
>
> And yet another prediction of mine comes true. Rather than deal with
> the topical matters and directly and honestly respond to the topical
> questions, Newbie makes every effort to misdirect.
Topical?
I was engaged in a thread with Stew and Sienkiewicz
and gen2rev when Horn showed up. The header is "away from the
group for a few days"...what is topical?
For Horn, what he decides is topical.
>*Now* he wants to
> make allusions to sock-puppetry on the part of Sienkiewicz or me.
*Now* I include Horn in the "topical" matter.
>While this is quite amusing, the reasoning is clearly flawed and the
> conclusions erroneous.
In Horn's dreams. According to his reasoning, his reasoning and
conclusions are sound. He thinks he is persuasive, and the sad thing
is that some will be.
>I won't waste the time of the reader going
> through a point-by-point refutation and showing why most of it is simply
> wrong.
No, Horn wanted to snip it, not because he didn't want to "bother"
the reader, but because he thought snipping and adding empty
rhetoric would "con" the reader better than "refuting" the post
he snipped entirely.
>Like the "who-knows-Ed-Conrad-better" argument that has cropped
> up between Sienkiewicz and Dean, it's off-topic and likely of no concern
> to anyone who might be worth the bother or the time.
Because Horn says it is off-topic!
The "small" problem here is that the argument is not just about
"who knows Ed better", but Horn thinks that will escape
everyones attention."Off-topic" is another way of Horn saying "not topical."
Or does topical really mean sticking to science, as in my answering
Horn's questions, because he is only asking because he has not seen
the answers.
It wouldn't be that Horn wants to discredit me? I wonder if he
would think that was "topical". LMAO
snip
>The fact that he does this kind of thing is actually
>very revealing with respect to his integrity and character. Newbie
>would do well to pause and take note that these sorts of things are why
>he has no credibility in this newsgroup.
Topical?
There you are Horn, some more to play with.
Go do some more "reasoning", like what "topical" is.
ROTFLMAO!
snip
stew dean
Stop restarting the argument then.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > "Glenn" <glenns...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<lhMhb.455$eX6.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> > > "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:35fa3772.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > > snip probable lies
> >
> > < snip rant >
> >
> > The "probable lies" have to do with the statements about my grandson.
> > I'm sure that, when I return, sheldon will be forthright in his
> > evidence that shows that they were, in fact, "probably lies." I look
> > forward to seeing this evidence.
> >
> > Regardless, I shall eviscerate the his "reasoning" when I return, if
> > only because it affords me considerable entertainment.
> >
> > However, I don't know when that will be.
> >
>
> I snipped:
> "An emergency medical situation with one of my grandchildren requires
> my attention, so I must POSTPONE my input into the groups for a time -
> a few days, I suspect, depending on the events."
>
> That was posted two days ago. Sienkiewicz claims he must postpone
> input to the groups for what he suspects is a few days. Two days later,
> he makes this post, which is input to the group. He returns, while a
> medical emergency is supposed to exist in his family, to make this post.
> Apparently his family emergency still requires his attention, yet he returns
> before whatever the situation is, is resolved, what he says he suspects
> was a "few days". The implication originally was that he would not
> return until the situation no longer required his attention.
> In Sienkiewicz style, I interpret that as lying about when he would
> return. He returned before a "few days", and returned before the
> situation was over.
>
> Perhaps the phrase "depending on the events" should be taken
> into account. Sienkiewicz could be home for a short time, from the hospital
> or from the situation, whatever it is. "Depending on events", though, would
> seem to be describing how long his attention would be required.
> Either way, he still lied.
Glen, I think this is in poor taste. David is free, like us all, to
post when and what he wants. David may not think that is how see
things but then I don't take that personally.
Using the recent events with David's family, which I see no reason to
doubt, as ammunition I consider to be not acceptable. To some degree I
appreciate your support but I feel you have grossly over stepped the
line.
Just as I appologised to Gen2rev for wrongly calling him a liar I
think it woud be fair to appologise to David for the same reason.
Stew Dean
David Horn
I cannot "restart" what *you* have never stopped.
Drop it.
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F95CD4C...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> > [Snip "research"]
>
> He sure did! The entire post.
It wasn't relevant. The point wasn't answered. Newbie has no
explanation for his "impression," so he resorts to misdirection. My
snippages keep the topic focused.
> > And yet another prediction of mine comes true. Rather than deal with
> > the topical matters and directly and honestly respond to the topical
> > questions, Newbie makes every effort to misdirect.
>
> Topical?
The topical matter has to do with the credibility of a specific
creationist who attempted to use arguments in a topical discussion.
> I was engaged in a thread with Stew and Sienkiewicz
> and gen2rev when Horn showed up. The header is "away from the
> group for a few days"...what is topical?
> For Horn, what he decides is topical.
Newbie was engaged in one of his typical, off-topic rantings and
perpetuations of personality wars.
> >*Now* he wants to
> > make allusions to sock-puppetry on the part of Sienkiewicz or me.
>
> *Now* I include Horn in the "topical" matter.
And yet, Newbie refuses to deal honestly with any topical questions.
> > While this is quite amusing, the reasoning is clearly flawed and the
> > conclusions erroneous.
>
> In Horn's dreams. According to his reasoning, his reasoning and
> conclusions are sound. He thinks he is persuasive, and the sad thing
> is that some will be.
Newbie has not responded substantively. This sort of comment seems to
be the best he can do.
> >I won't waste the time of the reader going
> > through a point-by-point refutation and showing why most of it is simply
> > wrong.
>
> No, Horn wanted to snip it, not because he didn't want to "bother"
> the reader, but because he thought snipping and adding empty
> rhetoric would "con" the reader better than "refuting" the post
> he snipped entirely.
Refuting Newbie point-by-point requires no more than average cleverness
or intelligence, but is a waste of time. My challenge has been
specific, and Newbie has made every effort to avoid those specifics.
> > Like the "who-knows-Ed-Conrad-better" argument that has cropped
> > up between Sienkiewicz and Dean, it's off-topic and likely of no concern
> > to anyone who might be worth the bother or the time.
>
> Because Horn says it is off-topic!
If Newbie can find an indication that such a thing is topical in the
talk.origins charter, he is invited to try.
> The "small" problem here is that the argument is not just about
> "who knows Ed better",
It boiled down to that. The parties in the argument were justifying
their respective positions by trying to analyze Conrad and play games of
one-upmanship on each other.
> but Horn thinks that will escape
> everyones attention.
Most of the readers here don't suffer from Newbie's pathology or his
lack of ability to read for comprehension.
> "Off-topic" is another way of Horn saying "not topical."
Newbie appears to see that these are two ways of saying the same thing.
It only took how long for this to happen...?
> Or does topical really mean sticking to science, as in my answering
> Horn's questions, because he is only asking because he has not seen
> the answers.
Does Newbie really have to ask what is topical and what is not?
> It wouldn't be that Horn wants to discredit me? I wonder if he
> would think that was "topical". LMAO
It's quite topical. I've already said that a great deal of this goes to
credibility.
> snip
> >The fact that he does this kind of thing is actually
> >very revealing with respect to his integrity and character. Newbie
> >would do well to pause and take note that these sorts of things are why
> >he has no credibility in this newsgroup.
>
> Topical?
Absolutely.
> There you are Horn, some more to play with.
> Go do some more "reasoning", like what "topical" is.
> ROTFLMAO!
And there I am, indeed, still waiting for a reasonable, rational,
intelligent explanation as to why Newbie read my direct identification
of a specific chapter and got the opposite impression. I am still
waiting for the evidence that he says exists that there is a component
or are components to life other than chemical processes. I'm still
waiting for an explanation with respect to what "laws of matter" life
does not obey.
These were obviously empty claims by Newbie, who also thinks that he
doesn't have to support his claims, and that claims stand until
*dis*proven.
In other words, it's typical Newbie.
Glenn
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.03102...@posting.google.com...
I fail to see why anyone would take it personally if he did not see that
the same way.
>
> Using the recent events with David's family, which I see no reason to
> doubt, as ammunition I consider to be not acceptable. To some degree I
> appreciate your support but I feel you have grossly over stepped the
> line.
You've either been convinced by Sienkiewicz that is the case, that I used
his family story as ammunition, or think so yourself. Keep in mind that I have
said that I am not using it as ammunition. The "ammunition" are his
words "attention" and "postpone input".
Can you show me why you think that I use this family story as "ammunition"?
>
> Just as I appologised to Gen2rev for wrongly calling him a liar I
> think it woud be fair to appologise to David for the same reason.
>
For wrongly calling Sienkiewicz a liar? He is a liar.
His intentions can not be determined by his statement,
but unlike you who see not reason to doubt him, I do have reason
to doubt him, although not specifically with regards to a family emergency.
That doubt is well founded, and so he does not qualify for a benifit
of doubt. His implied intentions were not to not post until his attention
was no longer required, but he did. He said that he "must" postpone(not
post) until(implied) his attention is no longer needed: attention that
caused him to claim why he *must postpone* input to the group.
He did not say some attention, and an emergency would imply to me
*full* attention.
Will you apologize to Sienkiewicz for presupposing his demand that
you come up with a convincing explanation before he returns?
He could, and I could, make a "case" that you were lying about that.
In fact, Sienkiewicz has already made a beginning statement about
"implied denial" and an "argument" to support it.
You'll need to apologize for lying about denying you called gen2rev
a liar?
You do realize that, unless this new twist with Horn entering the picture
causes Sienkiewicz to desist, that this "denial" accusation is just
the tip of the iceberg of what Sienkiewicz could and would use as
fuel to further his "enjoyment"?
He *will not* and *will never* back down or give up unless you
submit to his will and honor him as victor, or he, like Horn, will continue
to attempt to discredit you until you leave. Then he would proclaim
victory. In the meantime, you will be "running". You have been
"running" for some time in Sienkiewicz' eyes.
Apoligizing is not going to halt this endless circle of accusations, it
would not be the honest thing to do, not the practical thing to do,
and it not the "fair" thing to do here.
But I wish you luck, in this route. Perhaps after you apologize,
Sienkiewicz will desist.
Glenn
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F95CD4C...@cox.net...
> > > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snip "research"]
> >
> > He sure did! The entire post.
>
> It wasn't relevant. The point wasn't answered. Newbie has no
> explanation for his "impression," so he resorts to misdirection. My
> snippages keep the topic focused.
To Horn's satisfaction, that is.
>
> > > And yet another prediction of mine comes true. Rather than deal with
> > > the topical matters and directly and honestly respond to the topical
> > > questions, Newbie makes every effort to misdirect.
> >
> > Topical?
>
> The topical matter has to do with the credibility of a specific
> creationist who attempted to use arguments in a topical discussion.
Ed's credibility? Ed is a creationist? Horn may try to pull that one,
but whether he is speaking of this or not is unknown. Likely
he means me, and his "topical" matter is "credibility".
What he thinks will escape everyone is that the argument between
Stew and gen2rev, which I and Sienkiewicz and Horn have joined,
is as topical, if credibility is the subject.
>
> > I was engaged in a thread with Stew and Sienkiewicz
> > and gen2rev when Horn showed up. The header is "away from the
> > group for a few days"...what is topical?
> > For Horn, what he decides is topical.
>
> Newbie was engaged in one of his typical, off-topic rantings and
> perpetuations of personality wars.
Perhaps Horn sees this as easily accepted by his readers. The fact
of the matter is that I have stayed on his "topical" subject of credibility
in this thread.
>
> > >*Now* he wants to
> > > make allusions to sock-puppetry on the part of Sienkiewicz or me.
> >
> > *Now* I include Horn in the "topical" matter.
>
> And yet, Newbie refuses to deal honestly with any topical questions.
And what Horn means by "topical" is seen here:
"The topical matter has to do with the credibility..."
>
> > > While this is quite amusing, the reasoning is clearly flawed and the
> > > conclusions erroneous.
> >
> > In Horn's dreams. According to his reasoning, his reasoning and
> > conclusions are sound. He thinks he is persuasive, and the sad thing
> > is that some will be.
>
> Newbie has not responded substantively. This sort of comment seems to
> be the best he can do.
But then I did respond to Horn's post, and responded the same way
to his referenced "talk" with ReMine, and I did stick to Horn's "topical"
subject of credibility. Horn has none, and I showed why.
>
> > >I won't waste the time of the reader going
> > > through a point-by-point refutation and showing why most of it is simply
> > > wrong.
> >
> > No, Horn wanted to snip it, not because he didn't want to "bother"
> > the reader, but because he thought snipping and adding empty
> > rhetoric would "con" the reader better than "refuting" the post
> > he snipped entirely.
>
> Refuting Newbie point-by-point requires no more than average cleverness
> or intelligence, but is a waste of time. My challenge has been
> specific, and Newbie has made every effort to avoid those specifics.
Horn's "challenges" have gone on some time, perpetuated by both himself
and Sienkiewicz. They will continue to make these "challenges" no matter
what they think they "refute".
>
> > > Like the "who-knows-Ed-Conrad-better" argument that has cropped
> > > up between Sienkiewicz and Dean, it's off-topic and likely of no concern
> > > to anyone who might be worth the bother or the time.
> >
> > Because Horn says it is off-topic!
>
> If Newbie can find an indication that such a thing is topical in the
> talk.origins charter, he is invited to try.
The charter, huh. Most regulars here agree on what talk.origins was
created for, and credibility of posters *is* topical.
Perhaps Horn has forgotten what he has said more than
once in this post...LOL. What is topical to Horn is what he says it is
at any time it is convenient for him. Topical to Horn above is
"credibility", and below, topical is *not* credibility, the issue of
what he claims the thread "boils down to", the argument over "who knows
Ed better".
>
> > The "small" problem here is that the argument is not just about
> > "who knows Ed better",
>
> It boiled down to that. The parties in the argument were justifying
> their respective positions by trying to analyze Conrad and play games of
> one-upmanship on each other.
No, it did not "boil down to that". It boiled down to the issue of credibility,
with several specific issues, in real time. It *started* with "who knows
Conrad better", it ended with lies, deception and attempts at manipulation.
>
> > but Horn thinks that will escape
> > everyones attention.
>
> Most of the readers here don't suffer from Newbie's pathology or his
> lack of ability to read for comprehension.
There are many here that suffer from lack of abilities. I wouldn't say most,
but I would not be any more correct in making the claim than
Horn would in making his claim.
>
> > "Off-topic" is another way of Horn saying "not topical."
>
> Newbie appears to see that these are two ways of saying the same thing.
> It only took how long for this to happen...?
ROTFLMAO! Horn wants to pretend now that "credibility" is not topical.
>
> > Or does topical really mean sticking to science, as in my answering
> > Horn's questions, because he is only asking because he has not seen
> > the answers.
>
> Does Newbie really have to ask what is topical and what is not?
Newbie is not asking. But Horn has no problem reading for comprehension.
He is simply a manipulator.
>
> > It wouldn't be that Horn wants to discredit me? I wonder if he
> > would think that was "topical". LMAO
>
> It's quite topical. I've already said that a great deal of this goes to
> credibility.
And although it is quite clear and evident within this post alone that
Horn contradicts himself, that will not affect him in any way, and
he will continue seemingly oblivious to the fact that he has clearly
contradicted himself and tried to manipulate to his own ends what
"topical" is.
Horn is not satisfied with my answer that I wouldn't believe him
on a stack of bibles, and if he said the sun would rise tomorrow, my
impression would be that he was lying. He is not satisfied with
my many attempts to put an end to his leg humping, by saying
I am unwilling to discuss anything with him.
He is not interested in my "answering the topical questions"
because any answers would, and have been, taken as further
fuel for Horn in his attempt to discredit me.
Horn has made his intent quite clear, not to get answers,
or to participate in talk.origins subject of controversy
over origins, but to discredit me.
>
> > snip
> > >The fact that he does this kind of thing is actually
> > >very revealing with respect to his integrity and character. Newbie
> > >would do well to pause and take note that these sorts of things are why
> > >he has no credibility in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Topical?
>
> Absolutely.
And you fell for it!
And since you agree with me that it is topical to post to
issues *concerning this thread*, you need to make some
"corrections" to what you have said earlier in this post about
what topical is, and why you mentioned the charter.
>
> > There you are Horn, some more to play with.
> > Go do some more "reasoning", like what "topical" is.
> > ROTFLMAO!
>
> And there I am, indeed, still waiting for a reasonable, rational,
> intelligent explanation as to why Newbie read my direct identification
> of a specific chapter and got the opposite impression.
>
Already answered and explained.
And you have answered before, and answered in this post. You are
not interested in "waiting for the evidence", you are waiting for
more words for me to stick on your monitor so that you can
play your little game of "discrediting".
>
>I am still
> waiting for the evidence that he says exists that there is a component
> or are components to life other than chemical processes.
>
Already answered and explained.
And you have answered before, and answered in this post. You are
not interested in "waiting for the evidence", you are waiting for
more words for me to stick on your monitor so that you can
play your little game of "discrediting".
>
>I'm still
> waiting for an explanation with respect to what "laws of matter" life
> does not obey.
>
Already answered and explained.
And you have answered before, and answered in this post. You are
not interested in "waiting for the evidence", you are waiting for
more words for me to stick on your monitor so that you can
play your little game of "discrediting".
>
> These were obviously empty claims by Newbie, who also thinks that he
> doesn't have to support his claims, and that claims stand until
> *dis*proven.
Claims do stand as unproven claims until disproven.
Already answered and explained.
You are not really good at this, Horn. I know you will not accept that,
but you have been told and exposed for what you are.
>
> In other words, it's typical Newbie.
>
In your dreams, Horn. You're just a common liar, and not
very good at it.