Something rotten in talk.origins: sneaky dishonest deletia

[pnyikos]

The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
the post to which
this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
timely fashion.

Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts

and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
theme.

On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:26:27 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Feb 15, 12:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:46:55 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:


The following line by you, Casanova, is an example of what I call a
"sneaky, dishonest deletion." The reason for this becomes apparent
below.

> <snip the usual empty rhetoric>

The next three lines are a restoration of part of your empty rhetoric:

> >> >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
>> > >> it? Interesting...
>
>>> >> Your opinion is noted. And rejected. HANL.

Did you snip these three lines so you could fool readers, [especially
readers like jillery, who have me killfiled] into thinking that you
were talking about something completely different here?

> >> >Your pretense at divining my opinion is noted.

> >> I was referring to your stated opinion, seen above.
>
> >To which of my stated opinions were you referring?

Having baited me by "rejecting" something you dishonestly labeled an
opinion of mine, you now switch to a different theme altogether:

> "You are altering the person's text to make it seem like he
> is insulting himself"

This is a lie no matter how you cut it. If you really were referring
to this, despite the evidence to the contrary, you rejected this
FACTUAL statement, labeling it as an "opinion".

But the evidence is overwhelming that you were referring to a bizarre
"opinion" which had no basis whatsoever in what I'd said before, and
which only a rank neophyte at Usenet might possibly hold.

> >I thought you were referring to YOUR stated opinion,

>> viz.,

> > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that
> > > >> I altered it? Interesting...

That is, your (probably grossly insincere) stated "opinion" about what
MY opinion was.

> That seems to be your problem; you don't know the difference
> between "your" and "my",

Now that I've repeated three lines from below , putting them where
they naturally belong, it is clear that you are playing a juvenile
prank.

> not to mention your continuing
> inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
> bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.

You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped
the proof of that. I restore a tiny bit of it now::

> > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> >> > > it? Interesting...
>
> > It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
> > the altered text is an insult.

Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The theme of this thread is  a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>
> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
> the post to which
> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
> timely fashion.

I avoided posting all the evidence that Casanova deleted in order to
not make the post too long. But now I add the rest of what makes his
claim here so flagrantly dishonest:

> On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> > not to mention your continuing
> > inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
> > bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.
>
> You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped
> the proof of that.  I restore a tiny bit of it now::

And after the restoration below, I will simply repost the rest of it,
all of it snipped by Casanova:

> > > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> > >> > > it? Interesting...
>
> > > It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
> > > the altered text is an insult.

The preceding two lines were restored by adding two more
"chevrons" [attribution marks] in the margin. Below, I simply repost
some text that had been snipped by Casanova so he could lie as above.

________begin repost___________________

"Fixed it for you" is understood to refer to the fact that the "fixer"
altered text and thus created what is technically a "forgery" but is
not legally forgery due to the "Fixed it for you" alert.

However, that is irrelevant to the nature of the altered text, which
could be helpful, or innocently jocular [e.g. "fixing" American
spelling to reflect British Commonwealth standards, or vice versa] or
sarcastic, or heavy-handedly insulting.

Your "forgery," I maintain, fell squarely into the last category, and
you have made ZERO attempts so far to show that it was sarcastic in
nature.
=========================== end of repost
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb740c617a6b5a64

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

Whatever you meant to write, what you write above says that your
complaint isn't a claim that Bob flagged his modification (which is
good, as he indubitably flagged his modification). What you write above
says that you object that altered the text to make it an insult, an
insult the original author would be making against himself. Furthermore,
your objection isn't a mild one - such as that what Bod does is boorish,
which I'd venture it is - but that it is "dishonest."

This has confused at least me regarding your point, as you yourself
routinely use insults, often strong insults. Thus either your meaning is
still confused, or your objection isn't insults, but altering someone's
text to look like one's insulting one's self. And you consider this
dishonest (also "sneaky", even if the person making the change indicates
the change has been made.

Mitchell Coffey

[John Harshman]

On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

Starting new threads to attack other posters, responding to your own
posts, obsession with minutia -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?

> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?

Who is wasting whose time? Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia
nostra?

[Burkhard]

Not to mention "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

[raven1]

Peter reminds me more of this old chestnut:
"O Sybilli! Si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen dux"

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 1:10�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Correct.

> What you write above
> says that you object that altered the text to make it an insult, an
> insult the original author would be making against himself. Furthermore,
> your objection isn't a mild one - such as that what Bod does is boorish,
> which I'd venture it is - but that it is "dishonest."

Where did you get that idea? Are you conflating this mild topic with
the topic of sneaky deletia and subsequent obfuscation?

> This has confused at least me regarding your point, as you yourself
> routinely use insults, often strong insults.

"lying" and "hypocrite" are not merely insults: they are
denunciations, often backed up by evidence. As in the post to which
you are replying, wrt "lying."

> Thus either your meaning is
> still confused, or your objection isn't insults, but altering someone's
> text to look like one's insulting one's self.

The original topic, which I did not include to save space, but you
probably remember, was whether altering text in the insulting way Bob
did it was "sarcasm" or "heavy-handed insult". Bob never tried to
argue for the former, he just kept baldly asserting it.

> And you consider this
> dishonest (also "sneaky", even if the person making the change indicates
> the change has been made.

You are now clearly conflating *deleting* with *altering, with a
"fixed it for you" alert.

Try to pay closer attention, please.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 1:23�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> > create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

You nowhere allude to this theme, Harshman. Not an auspicious
beginning.

> Starting new threads to attack other posters,

I only did that in this thread, not the earlier one, in which I
carefully kept people's names out of it to keep people focused on WHAT
was done, rather than who did it.

That was my *express* purpose, which I gave in my first post to the
other thread. The other purpose was to get people really thinking
about my thesis,

"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."

Then Mitchell Coffey came along, "outing" all the people I was
referring to using initials [except for QJ], right on the same thread,
and calling it "boorish" and "dishonest" not to name the people.

I debated with myself long and hard as to which policy to adopt for
this thread. But finally Mitchell's tirade led me to choose this
course.

Remember the Aesop Fable about the man, his son, and his donkey? This
time, Mitchell was reasonably polite to me. I fear he would have
really flown off the handle if I had used initials this time.

> responding to your own
> posts,

What a juvenile nitpick! I wanted the two posts to be on the same
thread.

> obsession with minutia

Imagine, if you will, a newsgroup where the stunt Casanova pulled is
the NORM rather than the exception, and you will have some inkling of
what a hellhole talk.abortion has become.

The nucleus for such a change is here in this newsgroup. I'd name
some names, but I'm sure you'll live up to your nickname,

Dontwanna Hearaboutit.

> -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?
>
> > Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?

FTR, Casanova is NOT one of the people I referred to by those
artificial initials in the first "Something rotten" thread.

> Who is wasting whose time?

You claimed you'd be concerned about virtual witch-hunts if it were an
endemic problem.

If I were to start about 10 threads on this "Something rotten" theme
-- something I would have NO trouble doing -- would you at least be
concerned about there maybe, just maybe, being something rotten in the
state of talk.origins?

Or would you intensify your personal attacks against me?

Just looking at the way you've escalated them from the first thread, I
shudder to think what the end result would be.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 2/18/13 11:53 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>
> You nowhere allude to this theme, Harshman. Not an auspicious
> beginning.

>> -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
>> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?

> Or would you intensify your personal attacks against me?
>
> Just looking at the way you've escalated them from the first thread, I
> shudder to think what the end result would be.

Interpreting what was intended as helpful advice as a personal attack is
not a good sign. Again, I suggest that you pull back and think about the
impression you're making.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Feb 18, 12:35�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The theme of this thread

... is why I generally don't bother reading your posts. Don't worry,
some of your most frequent steel-cage-death-match opponents fall into
the same category. I just recently found out that one of them seems to
be quite well-versed in biology - which was a surprise - but the wheat-
to-chaff ratio is too small for me to go searching.

You might also have something interesting to say, but it's really not
worth my effort to look. Even a lively on-topic discussion presents no
impediment. You barge in anyway to recount the minutiae of some
ancient slight by one of the participants.

I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.

[pnyikos]

You think of "you are well on your way to crankdom" as helpful
advice??? And after using an idiotic formula like "posting replies to
yourself"? Hell, lots of people post replies to themselves when they
corrrect mistakes they made in earlier posts.

Anyway, I don't much care what the intent was; you of all people
should know that what's intended and what the words come across as are
often radically different.

You need to keep your audience in mind. Lots of people here would lap
up your "you are well on your way to crankdom" like a cat laps up
milk.

> Again, I suggest that you pull back and think about the
> impression you're making.

..pot...kettle...

By the way, the first thing you wrote by way of intended "helpful
advice" could be construed in the wrong way. Your unmarked snip of
it, and of my reply, is not the kind of thing Casanova did, so I
won't make an issue of that, but I do think it worth reminding people
of what transpired:

_____________ begin repost____________

> Starting new threads to attack other posters,

I only did that in this thread, not the earlier one, in which I
carefully kept people's names out of it to keep people focused on WHAT
was done, rather than who did it.

That was my *express* purpose, which I gave in my first post to the
other thread. The other purpose was to get people really thinking
about my thesis,

"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."

Then Mitchell Coffey came along, "outing" all the people I was
referring to using initials [except for QJ], right on the same thread,
and calling it "boorish" and "dishonest" not to name the people.

I debated with myself long and hard as to which policy to adopt for
this thread. But finally Mitchell's tirade led me to choose this
course.

Remember the Aesop Fable about the man, his son, and his donkey? This
time, Mitchell was reasonably polite to me. I fear he would have
really flown off the handle if I had used initials this time.

===========end of repost

I'm sure you had *other* threads in mind when you posted that, not the
first "Something rotten" thread, but you can't expect all readers to
know that.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 4:28�pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:35�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The theme of this thread
>
> ... is why I generally don't bother reading your posts.

But why don't I see you in on-topic threads that I start, like the
ones about the issue of how life on earth began?

> Don't worry,
> some of your most frequent steel-cage-death-match opponents fall into
> the same category. I just recently found out that one of them seems to
> be quite well-versed in biology - which was a surprise - but the wheat-
> to-chaff ratio is too small for me to go searching.

Can you remember who it was? I can guarantee that it wasn't Ron O,
the worst of my death-match opponents, not in the thread about the
reconstruction of the first placental. mammals.

In my latest reply to him, I was solidly on-topic; the worst I did was
to call his statement that placental mammals [and] marsupials "may
have originated after the Permian extinction" the understatement of
the year.

I even refrained from adding sci.bio.paleontology, even though it was
solidly on-topic for that newsgroup, because he had flamed me not long
before for adding it on another thread, and I didn't want him to get
stuck into me on account of that.

He got stuck into me anyway, with a wild tirade having nothing to do
with anything I or anyone else had said on that thread.

> You might also have something interesting to say, but it's really not
> worth my effort to look. Even a lively on-topic discussion presents no
> impediment. You barge in anyway to recount the minutiae of some
> ancient slight by one of the participants.

"ancient" means "up to two years ago," as opposed to e.g. 11 years
ago.

But I believe (although I could be wrong about this) that a great
majority of the threads that I join fall into one of two categories:

(1) on topic threads, or at least threads devoid of personal attacks;
and then I "do as the Romans do" almost all the time. Most of the
exceptions come when others begin getting personal.

(2) threads where there is already flamage going on.

> I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
> fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.

I never indulge in tit-for-tat flamewars. As Harry Truman once put
it, "I don't give them hell. I give them the truth, and they think it
is hell."

Peter Nyikos

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:35:23 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>
> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>
>
>
> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
>
> the post to which
>
> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
>
> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
>
> timely fashion.
>
>
>
> Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
>
> Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>
>
>
> and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
>
> theme.

Getting a little paranoid there, Peter?

-John

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> The theme of this thread is to
> create a totally false impression.
>
> I've dealt this trick hundreds of times, and
> this is a good example of such dirty tactics.
>
> Appropriately enough, the post is an example of
> empty rhetoric.
>
> you fool readers have me thinking that you
> were talking about me. If you really were
> FACTUAL, you rejected this opinion
> of a bizarre and rank neophyte. MY opinion.
>
> I've repeated a juvenile prank.
>
> Wasting our time,
> Peter Nyikos

I have deleted a bit of what Peter wrote. It seemed the thing to do.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[John Harshman]

On 2/18/13 2:01 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:14 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 11:53 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 1:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>>>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>
>>> You nowhere allude to this theme, Harshman. Not an auspicious
>>> beginning.
>>>> -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
>>>> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?
>>> Or would you intensify your personal attacks against me?
>>
>>> Just looking at the way you've escalated them from the first thread, I
>>> shudder to think what the end result would be.
>>
>> Interpreting what was intended as helpful advice as a personal attack
>> is not a good sign.
>
> You think of "you are well on your way to crankdom" as helpful
> advice???

It was a preface to helpful advice. Unfortunately, you choose not to
take it.

[Bill]

Even if someone here had called a holocaust-denying, pedophilic,
homophobic, racist, mathematically incompetent lunatic scientologist,
or had artfully snipped your posts to make it look like you were one,
if you just ignored the whole thing everybody would forget it
entirely. The only thing that prevents everybody else from ignoring or
instantly forgetting personal attacks on you (or anyone else) is the
turning of them into endless grudge matches.

You'd be happier if you'd just let it all go.

[jillery]

ISTM even your horrific description above gives rockhead's posts way
too much credit. His incitement of flame wars is far worse than that.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:25:59 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> The theme of this thread is to
>> create a totally false impression.
>>
>> I've dealt this trick hundreds of times, and
>> this is a good example of such dirty tactics.
>>
>> Appropriately enough, the post is an example of
>> empty rhetoric.
>>
>> you fool readers have me thinking that you
>> were talking about me. If you really were
>> FACTUAL, you rejected this opinion
>> of a bizarre and rank neophyte. MY opinion.
>>
>> I've repeated a juvenile prank.
>>
>> Wasting our time,
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>I have deleted a bit of what Peter wrote. It seemed the thing to do.

A beautiful fantasy.

[John Harshman]

And yours isn't? If there is something rotten in TO, it's the people who
won't stop picking at every scab: Peter, you who call him "Rockhead" and
can't resist an opportunity to bash him, and a few others I also try to
ignore except on those rare occasions when they say something. Greg's
post wasn't just about Peter, you will note.

I remember when there were still arguments on TO, including the full
half hour. This, unfortunately, is abuse. So shut your festering gob,
you tit.

[Roger Shrubber]

On Feb 19, 8:01�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:14�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:


> > Interpreting what was intended as helpful advice as a personal attack
> > is not a good sign.
>
> You think of "you are well on your way to crankdom" as helpful
> advice???

What makes advice helpful?
For some people, advising them to not have another drink
is almost guaranteed to have them reaching for another
drink. In that context, I don't think John's advice was
helpful at all.

[Mitchell Coffey]

So your complaint is that Bob was engaged in either sarcastic or
heavy-handed insulting, and that Bob has never indicate that he meant it
as sarcastic insulting rather than heavy-handed insulting; ergo, Bob was
engaged in heavy-handed insulting.

So your complaint is that Bob was engaging in heavy-handed insulting.

You write, above: "You are lying. There is no such continuing inability,

and you snipped the proof of that."

Frankly your stated complaint - that Bob was engaging in heavy-handed
insulting - is so extraordinary that until your previous post I'd
assumed that your complaint was that Bob was somehow deceiving people
into the thinking the OP was insulting him or herself. This seems to be
Bob's thinking too. He wasn't lying.

What's extraordinary about your claim is that heavy-handed insulting is
no big deal; you do it all the time. People don't lie to cover up
heavy-handed insulting. And your parsing the difference between
"sarcastic insulting" and "heavy-handed" insulting is just weird.

Mitchell Reagan Coffey

[jillery]

Back atcha. You have no credibility with me.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Even more appropriate:

Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata
iactabit audacia?

O tempora, O morons!


Mitchell Reagan Coffey

[John S. Wilkins]

Mitchell Coffey <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:

> O tempora, O morons!

A sign of the times
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Mitchell Coffey]

Of course, nothing ever represented Peter's intellectuality better than
these words:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin in
sapien vel nisl porta facilisis quis suscipit dui. Nunc molestie leo et
felis aliquet nec volutpat orci rutrum. Duis venenatis dolor ac ligula
egestas eu pellentesque magna ornare."


Mitchell Reagan Coffey

[Bill]

On Feb 19, 9:05�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.

[Burkhard]

I resent your attempt to impugn Cicero:

"Neque porro quisquam est qui do - Lorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet,
consectetur, adipisci velit..."
"There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants
to have it, simply because it is pain"

[Paul J Gans]

Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 9:05?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

>wrote:
>> On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>> > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>

>> >>>> The theme of this thread is ?a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>> >>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>
>> >>> Starting new threads to attack other posters, responding to your own
>> >>> posts, obsession with minutia -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
>> >>> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?
>>
>> >>>> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
>>
>> >>> Who is wasting whose time? Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia
>> >>> nostra?
>>
>> >> Not to mention "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"
>>
>> > Peter reminds me more of this old chestnut:
>> > "O Sybilli! Si ergo
>> > Fortibus es in ero
>> > O nobili! Themis trux
>> > Sivat sinem? Causen dux"
>>
>> Of course, nothing ever represented Peter's intellectuality better than
>> these words:
>>
>> "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin in
>> sapien vel nisl porta facilisis quis suscipit dui. Nunc molestie leo et
>> felis aliquet nec volutpat orci rutrum. Duis venenatis dolor ac ligula
>> egestas eu pellentesque magna ornare."
>>
>> Mitchell Reagan Coffey

>You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
>or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
>bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.

Believe it or not, I've been told that it represents an average
density of type on a printed page, not too much black, not too
much white. So it is often used as "content" for page makeup.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[John Harshman]

I'd take away his keys, but I don't see how.

[John Harshman]

Your kind makes me puke. You malodorous, toffee-noded pervert.

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<b5c631a9-1c86-4fa6...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

and in this, as in so much else, Cicero really, really did NOT know
what he was talking about... :-)

[Michael Siemon]

In article <kfunon$5ht$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

and it long pre-dates Microsoft...

[Roger Shrubber]

And to be honest, my "drinking" is not setting a very good
example either. But I promise not to drive my car home.
So you better watch where you put _your_ keys.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 3:07�am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b5c631a9-1c86-4fa6-9a83-1c2d93af5...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Ahh, you need to read the next few sentences. There he discusses
situations where people derive pleasure from pain. His argument is
that in these cases, what people are really after is pleasure after
all, it just so happens that unusual things give them pleasure.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:RIydnfP18_E...@giganews.com...

That's hip, dude.

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<3470b118-1e44-4448...@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...

> > > > You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
> > > > or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
> > > > bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.
> >
> > > I resent your attempt to impugn Cicero:
> >
> > > "Neque porro quisquam est qui do - Lorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet,
> > > consectetur, adipisci velit..."
> > > "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants
> > > to have it, simply because it is pain"
> >
> > and in this, as in so much else, Cicero really, really did NOT know
> > what he was talking about... :-)
>
> Ahh, you need to read the next few sentences. There he discusses
> situations where people derive pleasure from pain. His argument is
> that in these cases, what people are really after is pleasure after
> all, it just so happens that unusual things give them pleasure.

OK; you got me. What is this from?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:04:16 -0800, John Harshman

So you show your interest is in namecalling. Nice to know your
moderating facade is so easily broken.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Lorem ipsum text pre-dates the internet, Microsoft and indeed computers.
It has been used as placeholder text for years.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:04:16 -0800, John Harshman

It's ironic that you show yourself to be little different from what
you complain about, just like rockhead.

[John S. Wilkins]

Hey, he was being moderate. The rest of the quote goes:

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT
DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU
VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 2/18/2013 2:30 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:10 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2013 12:35 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>

>>> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
>>> the post to which
>>> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
>>> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
>>> timely fashion.
>>

>>> Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
>>> Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>>
>>> and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
>>> theme.
>>

>>> On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:26:27 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:46:55 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>> The following line by you, Casanova, is an example of what I call a
>>> "sneaky, dishonest deletion." The reason for this becomes apparent
>>> below.
>>
>>>> <snip the usual empty rhetoric>
>>
>>> The next three lines are a restoration of part of your empty rhetoric:
>>

>>>>>>>> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
>>>>>>>> it? Interesting...
>>

>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted. And rejected. HANL.
>>
>>> Did you snip these three lines so you could fool readers, [especially
>>> readers like jillery, who have me killfiled] into thinking that you
>>> were talking about something completely different here?
>>
>>>>>>> Your pretense at divining my opinion is noted.
>>
>>>>>> I was referring to your stated opinion, seen above.
>>
>>>>> To which of my stated opinions were you referring?
>>
>>> Having baited me by "rejecting" something you dishonestly labeled an
>>> opinion of mine, you now switch to a different theme altogether:
>>
>>>> "You are altering the person's text to make it seem like he
>>>> is insulting himself"
>>
>>> This is a lie no matter how you cut it. If you really were referring
>>> to this, despite the evidence to the contrary, you rejected this
>>> FACTUAL statement, labeling it as an "opinion".
>>
>>> But the evidence is overwhelming that you were referring to a bizarre
>>> "opinion" which had no basis whatsoever in what I'd said before, and
>>> which only a rank neophyte at Usenet might possibly hold.
>>
>>>>> I thought you were referring to YOUR stated opinion,
>>
>>>>> viz.,
>>

>>> > > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that
>>> > > > >> I altered it? Interesting...
>>

>>> That is, your (probably grossly insincere) stated "opinion" about what
>>> MY opinion was.
>>
>>>> That seems to be your problem; you don't know the difference
>>>> between "your" and "my",
>>
>>> Now that I've repeated three lines from below , putting them where
>>> they naturally belong, it is clear that you are playing a juvenile
>>> prank.
>>

>>>> not to mention your continuing
>>>> inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
>>>> bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.
>>
>>> You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped
>>> the proof of that. I restore a tiny bit of it now::
>>

>>>>>>>> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
>>>>>>>> it? Interesting...
>>
>>>>> It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
>>>>> the altered text is an insult.
>>

>>> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
>>

>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> Whatever you meant to write, what you write above says that your
>> complaint isn't a claim that Bob flagged his modification (which is
>> good, as he indubitably flagged his modification).
>
> Correct.
>
>
>> What you write above
>> says that you object that altered the text to make it an insult, an
>> insult the original author would be making against himself. Furthermore,
>> your objection isn't a mild one - such as that what Bod does is boorish,
>> which I'd venture it is - but that it is "dishonest."
>
> Where did you get that idea? Are you conflating this mild topic with
> the topic of sneaky deletia and subsequent obfuscation?

Began this post with "The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of

deletion, done to create a totally false impression of what is really

going on." Where did you say this topic was outside of that theme?

>> This has confused at least me regarding your point, as you yourself
>> routinely use insults, often strong insults.
>
> "lying" and "hypocrite" are not merely insults: they are
> denunciations, often backed up by evidence. As in the post to which
> you are replying, wrt "lying."

But they are insults; your attempt to evoke a difference by calling them
"denuncations" is silly. More importantly, you make insults frequently
no less insults than, for instance, "rockhead."

>> Thus either your meaning is
>> still confused, or your objection isn't insults, but altering someone's
>> text to look like one's insulting one's self.
>
> The original topic, which I did not include to save space, but you
> probably remember, was whether altering text in the insulting way Bob
> did it was "sarcasm" or "heavy-handed insult". Bob never tried to
> argue for the former, he just kept baldly asserting it.

So you said.

>> And you consider this
>> dishonest (also "sneaky", even if the person making the change indicates
>> the change has been made.
>
> You are now clearly conflating *deleting* with *altering, with a
> "fixed it for you" alert.

Since it in the title, and you never indicated otherwise, you were
criticizing Bob as being sneaky, dishonest and deleting things.

> Try to pay closer attention, please.

Nope. You said what the theme of the thread was, and you added "sneaky
dishonest deletia" to the title of the thread. You never said anything
that would make something you meant something else.

Then I still don't understand what you complaint about Bob's method is.

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

That's abuse. He wants room 12A, next door.

[Mitchell Coffey]

And it goes way back before Microsoft.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

How can you smell Jillery through the internet?

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Yeah, like I was going to say - THIS WAS FRIGGIN' *ROME* FOR GOD'S SAKE!

I mean, you don't have to convince me Cicero never tried out the house
specialties at Domus Dolor et Disciplina Trimalchionis, but you'd've
thought after all those years he would have at least *heard* of the place!

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Um, John was just quoting from the Monte Python Argument Sketch: "Shut
your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you
vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!"

"[T]he full half hour" and "this ... is abuse" are also from that sketch.

T.O. Old Timers are expected to have committed the full Monte Python
oeuvre to memory. Among other things it assures that Peter Nyikos will
have no idea what's going on, will think up bizarre reasons why such
behavior is illegitimate, and will sputter. Have no mind to John, he
didn't mean nothin'

Mitchell

[jillery]

I admit John Harshman skunked me, until John Wilkins clued me in.
Although I suspect those words are a lot closer to his true opinion of
me than you seem to think.

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kfv5am$fjs$1...@dont-email.me...

That makes me wonder why the original Mr Potato Head didn't come with a body.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Now you got it!

Mitchell

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 3:22�am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article

De finibus bonorum et malorum - from the extremes of good and evil,
written by Cicero around 45 BC. Hat tip to Richard McClintock who
first identified it for what it was. It has been used as a filler txt
by types setters since the 16th century.

[Bill]

See, this is the great thing about t.o. I said something stupid and it
generated a mini-geyser of interesting information.

[John S. Wilkins]

You have to understand that John H has the entire scripts of every
Python sketch, stage act and off the cuff comment in his memory bank and
can recite them at the drop of a hat. As the good bishop said, "Wherever
two or more are gather, they shall recite the Parrot Shop Sketch."

[John S. Wilkins]

He saw what they used for dildos and decided never to mention it again.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:50:01 +1100, in article
<1kykcr0.y4l6nisq5h68N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

Gary: "Well, you've come to the right place, then. If there's one thing
we know, it is science."
Doug: "And math."
Benjamin: "And the words to every Monty Python routine."

The Simpsons: "Homer Goes to College", season 5, episode 084

<http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Homer_Goes_to_College/Quotes>


--
---Tom S.

[jillery]

I do understand. You have to understand that no one expects the
Spanish Inquisition.

[rossum]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:35:23 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

Two monks, Tanzan and Ekido, were walking down a muddy street in
the city. They came on a lovely young girl dressed in fine silks,
who was afraid to cross because of all the mud.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan. And he picked her up in his arms,
and carried her across.

The two monks did not speak again till nightfall. Then, when they
had returned to the monastery, Ekido couldn't keep quiet any
longer.

"Monks shouldn't go near girls,' he said - "certainly not
beautiful ones like that one! Why did you do it?"

"My dear fellow," said Tanzan. "I put that girl down, way back in
the city. It's you who are still carrying her!"


rossum

[John Harshman]

I can never remember.

[John Harshman]

Careful, that's Nyikos-thinking.

[John Harshman]

I can do Firesign Theater too, but fewer seem to recognize it. I draw
the line at Goon Show, though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:15:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:35:23 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>>
>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>
>>
>>

>> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
>>
>> the post to which
>>
>> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
>>
>> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
>>
>> timely fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
>>
>> Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>>
>>
>>
>> and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
>>
>> theme.
>
>

>Getting a little paranoid there, Peter?

"Getting"?

<snip Peter's self-important whining>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:35:23 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

>On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

<snip Peter's usual self-important whining>

HANL, and HLVB.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/18/13 10:24 PM, Glenn wrote:
> [snip context, which seems irrelevant anyway]

>
> That makes me wonder why the original Mr Potato Head didn't come with a body.

The Mr. Potatohead that I remember from when I was 8 years old or so
definitely came with a body, maybe even more than one. What it did not
come with, as I recall, was a head.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Paul J Gans]

Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article
><b5c631a9-1c86-4fa6...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> On Feb 19, 2:12?am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 19, 9:05?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> >
>> > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>> > > > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > >>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >

>> > > >>>> The theme of this thread is ?a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>> > > >>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>> >

Yes, but he wrote it down, thus giving him a major head start
in societies that regarded the written word with a special
kind of reverence.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 3:07?am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article

>> <b5c631a9-1c86-4fa6-9a83-1c2d93af5...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ?Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > On Feb 19, 2:12 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Feb 19, 9:05 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>> > > > > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > >>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>

>> > > > >>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>Ahh, you need to read the next few sentences. There he discusses
>situations where people derive pleasure from pain. His argument is
>that in these cases, what people are really after is pleasure after
>all, it just so happens that unusual things give them pleasure.

Who knew that Cicero was an ancient proponent of kink?

Or maybe he was thinking about tax agents?

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 19, 9:05?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

>> >wrote:
>> >> On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>> >> > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >>

>> >> >>>> The theme of this thread is ?a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>> >> >>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>> >>
>> >> >>> Starting new threads to attack other posters, responding to your
>> >> >>> own posts, obsession with minutia -- you are well on your way to
>> >> >>> crankdom. But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another
>> >> >>> hiatus, for reflection?
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
>> >>
>> >> >>> Who is wasting whose time? Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina,
>> >> >>> patientia nostra?
>> >>
>> >> >> Not to mention "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"
>> >>
>> >> > Peter reminds me more of this old chestnut:
>> >> > "O Sybilli! Si ergo
>> >> > Fortibus es in ero
>> >> > O nobili! Themis trux
>> >> > Sivat sinem? Causen dux"
>> >>
>> >> Of course, nothing ever represented Peter's intellectuality better than
>> >> these words:
>> >>
>> >> "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin in
>> >> sapien vel nisl porta facilisis quis suscipit dui. Nunc molestie leo et
>> >> felis aliquet nec volutpat orci rutrum. Duis venenatis dolor ac ligula
>> >> egestas eu pellentesque magna ornare."
>> >>
>> >> Mitchell Reagan Coffey
>>
>> >You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
>> >or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
>> >bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.
>>

>> Believe it or not, I've been told that it represents an average
>> density of type on a printed page, not too much black, not too
>> much white. So it is often used as "content" for page makeup.

>Lorem ipsum text pre-dates the internet, Microsoft and indeed computers.
>It has been used as placeholder text for years.

Yup. <http://www.lipsum.com/> notes that:

"Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting
industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text
ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of
type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book."

Except that the next paragraph disputes the origin of the text
with:

"Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random
text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature
from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock,
a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked
up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem
Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical
literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes
from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum"
(The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This
book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during
the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor
sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.'

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:04:16 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/18/13 4:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:43:13 -0800, John Harshman
>> >> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2/18/13 3:23 PM, jillery wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:28:15 -0800 (PST), "g...@risky-biz.com"
>> >>>> <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>

>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> The theme of this thread
>> >>>>>

>Hey, he was being moderate. The rest of the quote goes:

>Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT
>DROPPINGS!

>Man: What?

>A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU
>VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

Cicero wrote this?

[Paul J Gans]

Do what I do, carry two sets of keys. That way when I give
one set up, everyone else is happy. Then when I drive home,
I'm happy.

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 2/18/13 10:24 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> [snip context, which seems irrelevant anyway]
>>
>> That makes me wonder why the original Mr Potato Head didn't come with a body.

>The Mr. Potatohead that I remember from when I was 8 years old or so
>definitely came with a body, maybe even more than one. What it did not
>come with, as I recall, was a head.

Ah yes, the problem of childhood literalism coupled to
adult comic sense. I went through similar things and
then, unremembering, did the same to my kids.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 6:26�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:04:16 -0800, John Harshman
> >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On 2/18/13 4:32 PM, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:43:13 -0800, John Harshman

> >> >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

Yep, from "In Verrem": Shut your festering gob, Verres, you tit. You
Licinii make me puke! You corrupt toffee nosed malodorous Sicilian.
Cicero famously won this trial, of course

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 5:15�pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:35:23 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
> > The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>
> > create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>

> > I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
>
> > the post to which
>
> > this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
>
> > be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
>
> > timely fashion.
>
> > Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
>
> > Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>
> > and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
>
> > theme.
>
> Getting a little paranoid there, Peter?
>

> -John

Sorry, I'm not going to carry the donkey to please you. See my reply
to Harshman where tell him why I decided to let Mitchell Coffey ride
the donkey for this thread [keyword: Aesop]. He hated it when I
talked in the abstract about another rotten thing going on in
talk.origins, and all but demanded that I name the people involved.

If I've missed the point of your comment just now, perhaps this might
help. If Gans had said the same thing you did, I would assume he is
clowning around, but I don't know enough about you to guess one way or
another.

For more on this last theme, see the other thread I began yesterday:

Subject: Re: Clowning around with Paul Gans on interstellar travel
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6dc1102bcb7de008

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message news:kg0d2g$omm$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2/18/13 10:24 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > [snip context, which seems irrelevant anyway]
> >
> > That makes me wonder why the original Mr Potato Head didn't come with a body.
>
> The Mr. Potatohead that I remember from when I was 8 years old or so
> definitely came with a body, maybe even more than one. What it did not
> come with, as I recall, was a head.
>

Perhaps you are thinking of some other potatohead.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 5:25�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The theme of this thread is to
> > create a totally false impression.
>
> > I've dealt this trick hundreds of times, and
> > this is a good example of such dirty tactics.
>
> > Appropriately enough, the post is an example of
> > empty rhetoric.
>
> > you fool readers have me thinking that you
> > were talking about me. If you really were
> > FACTUAL, you rejected this opinion
> > of a bizarre and rank neophyte. MY opinion.
>
> > I've repeated a juvenile prank.
>
> > Wasting our time,
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> I have deleted a bit of what Peter wrote. �It seemed the thing to do.

Ah-ah. You forgot to say the magic words.
Ah-ah. You forgot to say the magic words.
Ah-ah. You forgot to say the magic words.
Ah-ah. You forgot to say the magic words.

Get a precocious kid like Bob Casanova to tell you what they are.

[Did anyone reading this NOT know which film I'm alluding to here?]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 5:49�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/18/13 2:01 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 3:14 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> On 2/18/13 11:53 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 18, 1:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:

> >>>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>

> >>>>> The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> >>>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>

> >>> You nowhere allude to this theme, Harshman. �Not an auspicious
> >>> beginning.

> >>>> -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
> >>>> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?

> >>> Or would you intensify your personal attacks against me?
>
> >>> Just looking at the way you've escalated them from the first thread, I
> >>> shudder to think what the end result would be.

>
> >> Interpreting what was intended as helpful advice as a personal attack
> >> is not a good sign.
>
> > You think of "you are well on your way to crankdom" as helpful
> > advice???
>

> It was a preface to helpful advice. Unfortunately, you choose not to
> take it.

I beg to differ with the "Unfortunately". Your advice is a poor
substitute for dealing with the theme of this thread. Do you wish to
create the impression that the kind of behavior documented in the
first two posts (especially the second one) is perfectly all right
with you, no matter how ubiquitous it becomes?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 2/19/13 11:49 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Stockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:35:23 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
>>
>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>
>>> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
>>
>>> the post to which
>>
>>> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
>>
>>> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
>>
>>> timely fashion.
>>
>>> Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
>>
>>> Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>>
>>> and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
>>
>>> theme.
>>
>> Getting a little paranoid there, Peter?
>>
>> -John
>
> Sorry, I'm not going to carry the donkey to please you.

If lots of people keep telling you you're being paranoid, either you're
paranoid or they're all plotting together to convince you you're
paranoid. Which do you think more likely?

[John Harshman]

Did anyone care? That would be a better question.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 6:00�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:35�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

> > create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>
> > I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
> > the post to which
> > this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
> > be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
> > timely fashion.
>
> > Appropriately enough, the post appeared on the thread,
> > Subject: Re: Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
>
> > and this is the second thread on this general "Something rotten"
> > theme.
>

> > On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>

> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:26:27 -0800 (PST), the following

> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> > > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > > >On Feb 15, 12:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:46:55 -0800 (PST), the following

> > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> > > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > The following line by you, Casanova, is an example of what I call a
> > "sneaky, dishonest deletion." �The reason for this becomes apparent
> > below.
>
> > > <snip the usual empty rhetoric>
>
> > The next three lines are a restoration of part of your empty rhetoric:
>
> > > >> >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> > >> > >> it? Interesting...
>
> > >>> >> Your opinion is noted. And rejected. HANL.
>
> > Did you snip these three lines so you could fool readers, [especially
> > readers like jillery, who have me killfiled] into thinking that you
> > were talking about something completely different here?
>
> > > >> >Your pretense at divining my opinion is noted.
> > > >> I was referring to your stated opinion, seen above.
>
> > > >To which of my stated opinions were you referring?
>
> > Having baited me by "rejecting" something you dishonestly labeled an
> > opinion of mine, you now switch to a different theme altogether:
>
> > > "You are altering the person's text to make it seem like he
> > > is insulting himself"
>
> > This is a lie no matter how you cut it. �If you really were referring
> > to this, despite the evidence to the contrary, you rejected this
> > FACTUAL statement, labeling it as an "opinion".
>
> > But the evidence is overwhelming that you were referring to a bizarre
> > "opinion" which had no basis whatsoever in what I'd said before, and
> > which only a rank neophyte at Usenet might possibly hold.
>
> > > >I thought you were referring to YOUR stated opinion,
> > >> viz.,
>
> > � �> > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that
> > � �> > > >> �I altered it? Interesting...
>
> > That is, your (probably grossly insincere) stated "opinion" about what
> > MY opinion was.
>
> > > That seems to be your problem; you don't know the difference
> > > between "your" and "my",
>
> > Now that I've repeated three lines from below , putting them where
> > they naturally belong, it is clear that you are playing �a juvenile
> > prank.
>
> > > not to mention your continuing
> > > inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
> > > bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.
>
> > You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped
> > the proof of that. �I restore a tiny bit of it now::
>
> > > > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> > > >> > > it? Interesting...
>
> > > > It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
> > > > the altered text is an insult.

>
> > Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
>

> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Even if someone here had called a holocaust-denying, pedophilic,
> homophobic, racist, mathematically incompetent lunatic scientologist,
> or had artfully snipped your posts to make it look like you were one,
> if you just ignored the whole thing everybody would forget it
> entirely.

Bill, you are making an awfully big claim here. Do you really think
you know the regulars of this newsgroup that well? Mitchell Coffey,
who is shoving one thing after another from 11 years back in my face,
seems not to fit your image of what is going on.

You made a similar statement in the first "Something rotten in
talk.origins" thread, which I never got around to answering. The
trouble is, that statement was along the same lines as a pair of
statements made by "eridanus," only his were far more sanctimonious
than yours. It turned out on another thread that he does not live by
the "advice" he gave me, himself. And that's a major understatement.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt until I discovered that thread,
and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt too, as long as I don't
see similar things from you.

> The only thing that prevents everybody else from ignoring or
> instantly forgetting personal attacks on you (or anyone else) is the
> turning of them into endless grudge matches.
>
> You'd be happier if you'd just let it all go.

I'm experimenting with doing that in stages. See my two posts in
reply to Gans on the thread,

Subject: Re: Clowning around with Paul Gans on interstellar travel

and my reply to Mark Isaak on this one a few minutes ago.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I didn't read the obsessive documentation, sorry. You make your posts
hard to read, which oddly enough discourages reading. Now, I am
personally annoyed by people who delete most of my post without
responding. I'm also annoyed by people who delete so as to produce a
false quote, even when done for humorous effect. But my personal
annoyance doesn't make it a threat to western civilization. I'm sorry to
say that the main problem is you, and you are a problem mostly to
yourself. If you want to repair TO (to the extent it needs fixing), you
might start by demonstrating proper behavior. And I mean by example, not
by loudly proclaiming what proper behavior is.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 6:23�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:28:15 -0800 (PST), "g...@risky-biz.com"

> >I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
> >fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.

As I said in direct reply to "g...", this value-free description of my
behavior leaves a lot to be desired.

> ISTM even your horrific description above gives rockhead's posts way
> too much credit. �His incitement of flame wars is far worse than that.

Actually, jillery loaded her replies to me with flamebait from the get-
go. I kept my replies polite for a while, and even after we'd crossed
swords, I kept my cool in an argument about a stupid blunder the
blood clotting expert Doolittle had made in criticism of Behe.

I kept my last two replies in that thread flame-free and bait-free,
and she abandoned that thread without answering the last one, later
falsely claiming that she must have done it because she was tired of
my personal attacks.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 6:43�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 2/18/13 3:23 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:28:15 -0800 (PST), "g...@risky-biz.com"

> > <gdguar...@gmail.com> �wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> �wrote:

>
> >>> The theme of this thread
>

> >> ... is why I generally don't bother reading your posts. Don't worry,
> >> some of your most frequent steel-cage-death-match opponents fall into
> >> the same category. I just recently found out that one of them seems to
> >> be quite well-versed in biology - which was a surprise - but the wheat-
> >> to-chaff ratio is too small for me to go searching.
>
> >> You might also have something interesting to say, but it's really not
> >> worth my effort to look. Even a lively on-topic discussion presents no
> >> impediment. You barge in anyway to recount the minutiae of some
> >> ancient slight by one of the participants.
>

> >> I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
> >> fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.
>

> > ISTM even your horrific description above gives rockhead's posts way
> > too much credit. �His incitement of flame wars is far worse than that.
>

> And yours isn't? If there is something rotten in TO, it's the people who
> won't stop picking at every scab: Peter, you who call him "Rockhead" and
> can't resist an opportunity to bash him, and a few others I also try to
> ignore except on those rare occasions when they say something.

That's a relatively new development. For about one and a half years,
you were replying to me far, far more frequently than anyone else
was.

I'll say this for you: you were (and still are) a vast improvement on
the regular who is currently replying to me far, far more frequently
than anyone else is.

Peter Nyikos

[Inez]

On Feb 18, 9:35�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.

<snippage for the most honest and pure of motivations>

Couldn't bring myself to care. You do understand that this is just a
newsgroup designed to draw the kooks away from more serious newsgroups
don't you? All that happens when you choose to be angry about words
written here is that you are more angry. No actual good comes of it.

[John Harshman]

Possibly because during that period you tended to be saying something.
These days you seldom do.

> I'll say this for you: you were (and still are) a vast improvement on
> the regular who is currently replying to me far, far more frequently
> than anyone else is.

I suppose I'm supposed to guess who that is. Please don't tell me.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 7:14�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/18/2013 1:10 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> >> The theme of this thread is �a dishonest kind of deletion, done to
> >> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>

> >> I've dealt with this trick in another newsgroup hundreds of times, and
> >> the post to which
> >> this is a reply is a good example of evidence that this newsgroup will
> >> be headed the same way, if such dirty tactics aren't dealt with in
> >> timely fashion.
>

> > I avoided posting all the evidence that Casanova deleted in order to
> > not make the post too long. �But now I add the rest of what makes his
> > claim here so flagrantly dishonest:

>
> >> On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>> not to mention your continuing
> >>> inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
> >>> bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.
>
> >> You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped
> >> the proof of that. �I restore a tiny bit of it now::
>

> > And after the restoration below, I will simply repost the rest of it,
> > all of it snipped by Casanova:

>
> >>>>>>> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> >>>>>>> it? Interesting...
>
> >>>> It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
> >>>> the altered text is an insult.
>

> > The preceding two lines were restored by adding two more
> > "chevrons" [attribution marks] in the margin. �Below, I simply repost
> > some text that had been snipped by Casanova so he could lie as above.
>
> > ________begin repost___________________
>
> > "Fixed it for you" is understood to refer to the fact that the "fixer"
> > altered text and thus created what is technically a "forgery" but is
> > not legally forgery due to the "Fixed it for you" alert.
>
> > However, that is irrelevant to the nature of the altered text, which
> > could be helpful, or innocently jocular [e.g. "fixing" American
> > spelling to reflect British Commonwealth standards, or vice versa] or
> > sarcastic, or heavy-handedly insulting.
>
> > Your "forgery," I maintain, fell squarely into the last category, and
> > you have made ZERO attempts so far to show that it was sarcastic in
> > nature.
> > =========================== end of repost
> > fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb740c617a6b5a64
>
> So your complaint is that Bob was engaged in either sarcastic or
> heavy-handed insulting, and that Bob has never indicate that he meant it
> as sarcastic insulting

You are so far off base, it's useless trying to communicate with you
until you take the Subject line of this thread seriously.

Maybe reading the *second* post to this thread will bring
enlightenment.

[snip]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 7:32�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:43:13 -0800, John Harshman

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >On 2/18/13 3:23 PM, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:28:15 -0800 (PST), "g...@risky-biz.com"

> >> <gdguar...@gmail.com> �wrote:

>
> >>> On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> �wrote:
>
> >>>> The theme of this thread
>

> >>> ... is why I generally don't bother reading your posts. Don't worry,
> >>> some of your most frequent steel-cage-death-match opponents fall into
> >>> the same category. I just recently found out that one of them seems to
> >>> be quite well-versed in biology - which was a surprise - but the wheat-
> >>> to-chaff ratio is too small for me to go searching.
>
> >>> You might also have something interesting to say, but it's really not
> >>> worth my effort to look. Even a lively on-topic discussion presents no
> >>> impediment. You barge in anyway to recount the minutiae of some
> >>> ancient slight by one of the participants.
>
> >>> I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
> >>> fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.
>
> >> ISTM even your horrific description above gives rockhead's posts way
> >> too much credit. �His incitement of flame wars is far worse than that.
>
> >And yours isn't? If there is something rotten in TO, it's the people who
> >won't stop picking at every scab: Peter, you who call him "Rockhead" and
> >can't resist an opportunity to bash him, and a few others I also try to

> >ignore except on those rare occasions when they say something. Greg's
> >post wasn't just about Peter, you will note.
>
> >I remember when there were still arguments on TO, including the full
> >half hour. This, unfortunately, is abuse. So shut your festering gob,
> >you tit.
>
> Back atcha. �You have no credibility with me.

See, folks, THIS is what is meant by fruitless it-for-tat, as
exemplified by jillery.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

False dichotomy noted.

Simulated amnesia over all the two of us discussed concerning the word
"paranoid," noted.

Keywords: donkey, sponges, intellectual inbreeding, Village Elders.

[Note: this donkey is from a different Aesop fable than the one
alluded to up there.]

Caution: "Simulated" does not mean "Feigned" the way I use it. The
simulation could be like Ali simulating he was hurt when he really
*was* hurt in the 11th round of his first title match with Frazier.
Inter alia.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:09d32ade-339d-4633...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

You may soon need meds and a straight jacket.

[John Harshman]

Was the irony intentional?

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:51:30 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2/18/13 10:27 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:16:37 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
>> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On 2/18/2013 10:49 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:04:16 -0800, John Harshman

>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>>>> Your kind makes me puke. You malodorous, toffee-noded pervert.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you show your interest is in namecalling. Nice to know your
>>>> moderating facade is so easily broken.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Um, John was just quoting from the Monte Python Argument Sketch: "Shut
>>> your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you
>>> vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!"
>>>
>>> "[T]he full half hour" and "this ... is abuse" are also from that sketch.
>>>
>>> T.O. Old Timers are expected to have committed the full Monte Python
>>> oeuvre to memory. Among other things it assures that Peter Nyikos will
>>> have no idea what's going on, will think up bizarre reasons why such
>>> behavior is illegitimate, and will sputter. Have no mind to John, he
>>> didn't mean nothin'
>>
>>
>> I admit John Harshman skunked me, until John Wilkins clued me in.
>> Although I suspect those words are a lot closer to his true opinion of
>> me than you seem to think.
>>
>Careful, that's Nyikos-thinking.


Then I will use as a working hypothesis that your replies to me are
from rejected Monty Python skits and outtakes. It fits the facts and
explains much.

[John Harshman]

On 2/19/13 12:51 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:10 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/19/13 11:49 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Stockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Getting a little paranoid there, Peter?
>>

>>> Sorry, I'm not going to carry the donkey to please you.
>>
>> If lots of people keep telling you you're being paranoid, either you're
>> paranoid or they're all plotting together to convince you you're
>> paranoid. Which do you think more likely?
>
> False dichotomy noted.

I suppose there are indeed other possibilities. But I can't tell what
you think they are. Perhaps you have told me, but your prose is
typically opaque, to the point of uselessness. I've snipped it, as it
can't be salvaged.

[pnyikos]

Perhaps you never looked at the second one. Here, I'll repost a
simplified version.

> On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > not to mention your continuing
> > inability to understand that "There, fixed it for you" is a
> > bald admission that I, and not the OP, altered the text.

> You are lying. There is no such continuing inability, and you snipped

> the proof of that. Reposted below.

> > > > >> So "Fixed it for you" doesn't flag the fact that I altered
> > >> > > it? Interesting...

________begin repost___________________

It does, but as I say, it is irrelevant to whether
the altered text is an insult.

"Fixed it for you" is understood to refer to the fact that the "fixer"
altered text and thus created what is technically a "forgery" but is
not legally forgery due to the "Fixed it for you" alert.

However, that is irrelevant to the nature of the altered text, which
could be helpful, or innocently jocular [e.g. "fixing" American
spelling to reflect British Commonwealth standards, or vice versa] or
sarcastic, or heavy-handedly insulting.

Your "forgery," I maintain, fell squarely into the last category, and
you have made ZERO attempts so far to show that it was sarcastic in
nature.
=========================== end of repost
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb740c617a6b5a64

> Now, I am
> personally annoyed by people who delete most of my post without
> responding. I'm also annoyed by people who delete so as to produce a
> false quote, even when done for humorous effect.

You can see how my annoyance was vanishingly small when Mark did that
on this thread. What Casanova was doing is not so innocent.

> But my personal
> annoyance doesn't make it a threat to western civilization. I'm sorry to
> say that the main problem is you, and you are a problem mostly to
> yourself. If you want to repair TO (to the extent it needs fixing),

I gave up on that when I quit Usenet for 7 years, realizing that, to
paraphrase Simon Bolivar, those who try to repair TO plow the sea.

My main aims in TO since I returned in December 2010 have been to use
this newsgroup as a "proving ground" for my directed panspermia
hypothesis, and to do my bit to keep it from sinking to the state to
which talk.abortion has sunk.

> you
> might start by demonstrating proper behavior. And I mean by example, not
> by loudly proclaiming what proper behavior is.

Or documenting improper behavior? Sorry, it seems to me that a lot of
people are largely oblivious to its nature. Unless you want to argue
that everything off-topic in TO is just a big joke to everyone but me,
you aren't going to make much impression on my behavior.

If you want to go that route, you might begin by telling me that
Mitchell Coffey is just clowning around every single time (and by now
it's close to a hundred if not more times) he accuses me of lying.

Or would that make you too big of a party pooper?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

I'm sure it sounds much better in Latin.

[John Harshman]

The fact that you consider this version simplified is interesting.

That is certainly your claim.

>> But my personal
>> annoyance doesn't make it a threat to western civilization. I'm sorry to
>> say that the main problem is you, and you are a problem mostly to
>> yourself. If you want to repair TO (to the extent it needs fixing),
>
> I gave up on that when I quit Usenet for 7 years, realizing that, to
> paraphrase Simon Bolivar, those who try to repair TO plow the sea.
>
> My main aims in TO since I returned in December 2010 have been to use
> this newsgroup as a "proving ground" for my directed panspermia
> hypothesis, and to do my bit to keep it from sinking to the state to
> which talk.abortion has sunk.

I'm not clear on the difference, but please don't explain.

>> you
>> might start by demonstrating proper behavior. And I mean by example, not
>> by loudly proclaiming what proper behavior is.
>
> Or documenting improper behavior?

Exactly.

> Sorry, it seems to me that a lot of
> people are largely oblivious to its nature. Unless you want to argue
> that everything off-topic in TO is just a big joke to everyone but me,
> you aren't going to make much impression on my behavior.

I realize that I am unlikely to make any impression on your behavior.

> If you want to go that route, you might begin by telling me that
> Mitchell Coffey is just clowning around every single time (and by now
> it's close to a hundred if not more times) he accuses me of lying.
>
> Or would that make you too big of a party pooper?

I don't generally read his posts, so can't tell you what he means.

[John Harshman]

More Nyikos-thinking.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:iaq7i8hs21qjdpbab...@4ax.com...

Get up offa that thing.

[John Harshman]

Actually, some of his speeches on Catiline do sound rather like that
when translated.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >> Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 19, 9:05?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
> >> >> > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> The theme of this thread is ?a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

> >> >> >>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
> >> >>

> >> >> >>> Starting new threads to attack other posters, responding to your
> >> >> >>> own posts, obsession with minutia -- you are well on your way to

> >> >> >>> crankdom. But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another
> >> >> >>> hiatus, for reflection?
> >> >>

> >> >> >>>> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
> >> >>

> >> >> >>> Who is wasting whose time? Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina,
> >> >> >>> patientia nostra?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not to mention "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"
> >> >>
> >> >> > Peter reminds me more of this old chestnut:
> >> >> > "O Sybilli! Si ergo
> >> >> > Fortibus es in ero
> >> >> > O nobili! Themis trux
> >> >> > Sivat sinem? Causen dux"
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, nothing ever represented Peter's intellectuality better than
> >> >> these words:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin in
> >> >> sapien vel nisl porta facilisis quis suscipit dui. Nunc molestie leo et
> >> >> felis aliquet nec volutpat orci rutrum. Duis venenatis dolor ac ligula
> >> >> egestas eu pellentesque magna ornare."
> >> >>
> >> >> Mitchell Reagan Coffey
> >>
> >> >You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
> >> >or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
> >> >bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.
> >>
> >> Believe it or not, I've been told that it represents an average
> >> density of type on a printed page, not too much black, not too
> >> much white. So it is often used as "content" for page makeup.
>
> >Lorem ipsum text pre-dates the internet, Microsoft and indeed computers.
> >It has been used as placeholder text for years.
>
> Yup. <http://www.lipsum.com/> notes that:
>
> "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting
> industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text
> ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of
> type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book."
>
> Except that the next paragraph disputes the origin of the text
> with:
>
> "Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random
> text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature
> from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock,
> a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked
> up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem
> Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical
> literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes
> from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum"
> (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This
> book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during
> the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor
> sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.'

Consider how type was set before Compugraphic and Linotype. Each letter
would be placed manually in a tray to form a line. Each line would be
letter spaced manually to get justification of the right margin. So if
you were asked to set up a galley of dummy text, you'd most likely find
something that had the right "weight" of text and use it, even if it
were previously used in an actual book.

My guess is that the type was left over from an edition of Cicero (whose
name is also a measure roughly equal to a pica, but used on the
Continent) in the 1540s or thereabouts, and rather than reset the dummy
text, they simply took lines from that. Latin was already a mystery to
the lay reader, so it had a comfortable familiarity but was nonsense
text to the typesetter.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:43:13 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2/18/13 3:23 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:28:15 -0800 (PST), "g...@risky-biz.com"
>> <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The theme of this thread
>>>

>>> ... is why I generally don't bother reading your posts. Don't worry,
>>> some of your most frequent steel-cage-death-match opponents fall into
>>> the same category. I just recently found out that one of them seems to
>>> be quite well-versed in biology - which was a surprise - but the wheat-
>>> to-chaff ratio is too small for me to go searching.
>>>
>>> You might also have something interesting to say, but it's really not
>>> worth my effort to look. Even a lively on-topic discussion presents no
>>> impediment. You barge in anyway to recount the minutiae of some
>>> ancient slight by one of the participants.
>>>
>>> I really can't figure what it is that you find so irresistible about
>>> fruitless tit-for-tat flame wars, but I'll leave you to them.
>>
>> ISTM even your horrific description above gives rockhead's posts way
>> too much credit. His incitement of flame wars is far worse than that.
>
>And yours isn't? If there is something rotten in TO, it's the people who
>won't stop picking at every scab: Peter, you who call him "Rockhead" and
>can't resist an opportunity to bash him, and a few others I also try to
>ignore except on those rare occasions when they say something.

I'm not surprised that you claim your sensitivities tested by my use
of "rockhead", but you utterly fail to make any mention of his
obsession with my gender, going out of his way to write "he/she" et
al, even when it was in posts to which you replied.

And I'm not surprised that you repeat that obviously false statement
that I bash him at every opportunity. If that were so, I would not
deliberately avoid reading his posts. And you can't be unaware that
he injects my nym along with his irrelevant insults in his replies to
other posters.

Your statements above show that you're more interested in pointing
fingers. You're not fooling anybody. Let me know when you actually
try to do something about the problem you claim to oppose.

[jillery]

If so, it is a double irony, as you conflated above the aggressor and
the defender.

[John Harshman]

In a fruitless tit-for-tat the two are indistinguishable.

[John Harshman]

Why should I mention Peter's obsessions? Not clear on that.

> And I'm not surprised that you repeat that obviously false statement
> that I bash him at every opportunity. If that were so, I would not
> deliberately avoid reading his posts.

You apparently aren't all that good at avoiding.

> And you can't be unaware that
> he injects my nym along with his irrelevant insults in his replies to
> other posters.

Of course I'm not unaware. He injects all sorts of people at every
opportunity.

> Your statements above show that you're more interested in pointing
> fingers. You're not fooling anybody. Let me know when you actually
> try to do something about the problem you claim to oppose.

The problem is called "Usenet", and I'm not so silly as to imagine I can
do anything about it.

[Steven L.]

On 2/18/2013 9:12 PM, Bill wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:05 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2013 2:07 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:44:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>>> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>

>>>> On 18 Feb, 18:23, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/13 9:35 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The theme of this thread is a dishonest kind of deletion, done to

>>>>>> create a totally false impression of what is really going on.
>>
>>>>> Starting new threads to attack other posters, responding to your own
>>>>> posts, obsession with minutia -- you are well on your way to crankdom.
>>>>> But there's still time to pull back. Perhaps another hiatus, for reflection?
>>
>>>>>> Why are you wasting our time, Casanova?
>>
>>>>> Who is wasting whose time? Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia
>>>>> nostra?
>>
>>>> Not to mention "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"
>>
>>> Peter reminds me more of this old chestnut:
>>> "O Sybilli! Si ergo
>>> Fortibus es in ero
>>> O nobili! Themis trux
>>> Sivat sinem? Causen dux"
>>
>> Of course, nothing ever represented Peter's intellectuality better than
>> these words:
>>
>> "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin in
>> sapien vel nisl porta facilisis quis suscipit dui. Nunc molestie leo et
>> felis aliquet nec volutpat orci rutrum. Duis venenatis dolor ac ligula
>> egestas eu pellentesque magna ornare."
>>
>> Mitchell Reagan Coffey
>
> You'd think Microsoft could have hired a real classicist for an hour
> or two and gotten some amusing Latin text instead of the gibberish. A
> bit of a satire, or some cutting epigrams.

Its use in text boxes predates Microsoft by many years. It's standard
typographer filler text.



--
Steven L.