Ron Okimoto versus The Argument From Design

[Peter Nyikos]

Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.

Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
(2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.


However, the ID movement is broader than all that. This is obvious
from reading the latest book by one of its acknowledged movers and shakers,
Michael Behe, _Darwin Devolves_. And the central "clearinghouse"
for the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (DI) has widened its
advocacy to the design/creation of our whole universe, describing
modern updatings of the ancient/medieval Argument from Design
that go all the way down to subatomic particles and the basic physical constants.


Ron Okimoto is best known for his implacable hatred for the DI,
and his perennial allegation of a "bait and switch scam", involving
the sorts of things I wrote about in the first two paragraphs.

My next post to this thread will focus on this hobby horse of Ron O's.


However, it is noteworthy that Ron O's hatred of The Argument from Design
does not stop there. He has repeatedly posted a list of things that
he considers "the best" that the ID movement has come up with, and
berated Glenn on thread after thread for not arguing for the things
on the list. And the first item on that list is the use of the
basic physical constants of our universe.

This in turn is noteworthy because Ron O seems to have left off
calling himself a "creationist" -- which to him means not what
is usually meant in talk.origins, but simply someone who believes
in a creator. When I explicitly asked him recently whether he
still does this, he answered a completely different question of
the ones I asked him at this point, acting as though *this* question
had never been asked.


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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:


In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no
credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.

Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
other form of "bait" in the 21st century.



Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:

> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.

Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
track him down and inform him of that.


> No IDiots have ever gotten the promised ID science.

Again a misleading equivocation. You dare not even spell out who made what
promise, when or where. Only by being intentionally vague can you continue to
fool readers about there being a bait and switch scam in the 21st century.


> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

This has NOTHING to do with any "bait" but only what you perennially
and illogically [see above] call "the switch." Wells is giving a beautiful
explanation of the "teach the controversy" policy and describing a flawless
use by Stephen Meyer of the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Wells never once supports the 1999 statements about ID science
where they had still been hoping that it could be taught as
an ALTERNATIVE to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public high schools.

Phillip Johnson laid that hope to rest over a decade ago (IIRC), when he
admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley interview that ID science
is nowhere near that stage yet. But there IS some ID science,
especially in the form of hypothesizing an ID answer to
some titanic mysteries about the fine-tuning of the basic

physical constants of our universe.

CAUTION: the identity of the hypothesized designer is not a part
of science, but I have given a hypothesis about the origins of the
designer that stays within the methodology of science. I've done
this many times in talk.origins, especially in replies to John Harshman.


What the article you linked mainly does is to give an account
of a debate in Ohio that I've never seen anyone try to refute.
Yet it has some highly unflattering revelations of some
of the people whose IDeological bedfellow you are. Here is
one of them:

Case Western Reserve Physics professor (and creation-basher) Lawrence Krauss went second, and spent the first few minutes of his talk attacking me and my religious affiliation. This was in direct violation of instructions from the moderator. Krauss then argued that ID is not science because (a) it is not testable, and (b) IDers do not publish in peer-reviewed journals. One of Krauss's slides appeared to compare IDers to flat-earthers, but he quickly skipped over that slide as he mumbled something about a handout. (I had written, and an Ohio IDer had printed and distributed beforehand, a handout showing that the "flat earth" is a myth concocted by 19th-century Darwinists to slander Christians.) Krauss concluded by quoting Bruce Gordon at Baylor University, to show that even advocates of ID do not think it should be included in public school science curricula.


Kenneth Miller comes in for a much longer drubbing. Miller is arguably the
most effective of the anti-ID zealots in producing a highly distorted
impression scientists, the mainstream media, and the general public
have of ID. Even some Roman Catholic right-wing writers who would
ordinarily be allies of the ID movement have been bamboozled
by Miller, a self-identified Roman Catholic.

You must have something akin to a "death wish," Ron O, for providing links that
are so embarrassing to leading anti-ID zealots, whose only difference from
you is, they don't post rabid screeds that would cause the average person to
doubt their sanity.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[RonO]

On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
>
>
> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
Why can't Nyikos address this where it was posted?

I don't know why he even tries to lie about this junk. He has been
running from the Repost since 2014. If he had a legitimate beef it
should have come out then. Why is it that I put in the quotes? I put
them in before Nyikos tried to lie about them once the links went
broken, and I did it so that when he did try to lie about the material
it would be obvious that he should have brought up any objections when
the links were first posted.

Nyikos is such a lying asshole that he really believes that he can lie
about the material that he has been running from for half a decade.
What he is lying about is just part of the holy water repost. It just
has the material that demonstrates why Nyikos has been lying and running
from reality since Dec 2010. This is the first junk that Nyikos was
wrong about, and he has been running and lying about that episode for
nine years. The post that Nyikos ran from still has not been addressed
by Nyikos in all this time, and all he can do is run and lie whenever he
gets the urge to bring up his assoholic behavior again.

>
> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no
> credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
> sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.

Why would Nyikos lie so stupidly about the material being second hand
claims? Wells wrote his report and he participated in the Ohio bait and
switch. Any one can use the link to go to the post and they will find
that the first quoted material comes directly from the Discovery
Institute ID perps themselves. DeWolf was head of legal. Meyer was
director of the ID scam unit and DeForrest claims that he was a fellow
of the Discovery Institute on his web page. This is the guide book that
the used to give out with the IDiot video mentioned in the Wedge
document. The quote says to use Of Pandas and People to teach the ID
claptrap in the public schools. Kenyon was the main author, Thaxton was
the editor, Meyer wrote the teachers notes, and Behe admitted to writing
part of the book, but was not credited. What book did the Dover rubes
buy? Why did the defendants lie about where the money came from to
purchase Of Pandas and People? This is the same material that the More
lawyer quoted when the Discovery Institute rep tried to lie about the
Discovery Institute running the teach ID scam. The More lawyer called
the bait and switch a strategy. It is a bogus strategy that is called
the bait and switch. Sell one thing, but only give the rubes something
else. The More Lawyer is quoted at the end of the post that Nyikos put
up the link for.

I can't make this junk up. For whatever reason Nyikos has to lie about
being wrong about the bait and switch. What is really sad is that if
you go back to the first post Nyikos has been running from for the last
decade you will see that his erroneous claim was that the Discovery
Institute did not participate in the Ohio fiasco. My first evidence
simply had to show that the Discovery Institute reps were there. He
only started lying about the bait and switch scam as some excuse for
running from what he had been wrong about.

I recently put up a link to quotes by Phillip Johnson and one of the
quotes has Phillip Johnson claiming that getting IDiocy into the public
schools was part of the IDiot strategy.

The sad thing is that when Nyikos was still posting to TO the Teach ID
scam was the major emphasis at the Discovery Institute. They only
started the bait and switch with Ohio back in 2002. The first quoted
material was published in 1999. As the More lawyer points out the
Discovery Institute ran the teach ID scam on the Dover rubes and all the
other IDiot rubes that believed that they could teach ID in the public
schools.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

Holy Water Repost:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453


Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.
END Holy water Repost:

Repost what Nyikos linked to:
Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes
Other recipients: talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
thing to do. I just posted links without any quoted material. This
depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
these event fade into history. So I decided to put some quotes in with
the links so that I could use them even after they break.

On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> in 1999. All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> it was founded.
>

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
bait and switch on Ohio and every other legislator or school board that
has needed the ID science since.

>
> ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
> the day before the Bait and Switch went down, where he obviously
> believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
> Ohio.
>

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.

Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.

Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.

© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:

>
> I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
> was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> taught in the public schools.
>

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php



QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:

>
>
> The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
> and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
> Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.
>

http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html


Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
"compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all:
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to speak
for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew in its
president and a half-dozen staff members. If you listened closely, you
never heard a "theory" of intelligent design. It added up to criticism
of evolutionary theory leading to an "inference," as Wells put it. It's
an assertion. It's faith.

That much was clarified later by John Calvert, the Kansas City lawyer
who co-founded the Intelligent Design Network and helped lead efforts to
remove evolution from standardized tests in his state. He said his
target was not simply evolution but the definition of science. He sees
"naturalistic" science as agnostic and atheistic, and intelligent design
as "theistic."

Meyer and Wells insisted there is scientific controversy on the subject,
though evidence suggests it is largely because they say there is. And
because there is, Meyer said, he suggested a "compromise." Don't mandate
"mastery of the scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design,"
but tell students about it. "We think that's fun and exciting, not
something people need to feel threatened about."
END QUOTE:

Calvert's ID Network bit the dust in 2009. It must have been difficult
to sell the switch scam with Intelligent Design in the name of your
creationist scam organization. Now he is associated with a group called
COPE that is selling the creationist switch scam.

>
>
> The Wired article that Nyikos has been given before is also still
> available.
>

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

QUOTE:
Two scientists, biologist Ken Miller from Brown University and physicist
Lawrence Krauss from Case Western Reserve University two hours north in
Cleveland, defended evolution. On the other side of the dais were two
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main
sponsor and promoter of intelligent design: Stephen Meyer, a professor
at Palm Beach Atlantic University's School of Ministry and director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Jonathan
Wells, a biologist, Discovery fellow, and author of Icons of Evolution,
a 2000 book castigating textbook treatments of evolution
END QUOTE:

I will note that after the Ohio bait and switch Meyer quit his religious
college and went to work full time for the ID scam unit.

The article was written in 2004 when Dover was heating up and this
statement:

QUOTE:
Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of
the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the
leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school
board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology
teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:

You can note from the above quote from the IDiot's booklet on teaching
ID that "teach the controversy" had once included intelligent design,
but by this time the bait and switch had gone down many times in the two
years since Dover and ID was being phased out and "critical analysis"
was becoming the buzz phrase of the ID scam.

There are other historical aspects noted in this article for those
interested.

>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html

>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
> about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>

http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html


I have already quoted out of this report, but I've saved a copy of it
onto my computer.

Anyone that doesn't believe that the bait and switch was run on the Ohio
rubes just has to read this report, and understand how the ID perps had
been selling the ID claptrap until they decided not to give the rubes
the ID science. Wells was even making his bogus claims to the board
(quoted previously) when he knew that the bait and switch was going down.

Santorum was a rube that believed the ID perps. He allowed Phillip
Johnson to draft his "amendment" to the No child left behind bill.
Santorums take above is exactly how most IDiot rubes believed ID was
being sold. My experience at ARN made that clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
- show quoted text -
QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?

MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.

Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present

MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.

Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.

Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:

The Thomas More Lawyer called the bait and switch a strategy, but it is
really just a scam that has been run on creationist rubes. The ID perps
sold the rubes that they had the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
ran the bait and switch. The bait and switch was not run on the science
side, the ID perps ran the scam on their own creationist support base.
The Lawyer was not happy about it.
END Repost:

Ron Okimoto


Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
>associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
>either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.
>
>Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
>many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
>either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
>(2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
>to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.

Of course, there is no rational basis for determining which mutations
the presumptive designer "intervened", or what desired goal it has.

>However, the ID movement is broader than all that. This is obvious
>from reading the latest book by one of its acknowledged movers and shakers,
>Michael Behe, _Darwin Devolves_. And the central "clearinghouse"
>for the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (DI) has widened its
>advocacy to the design/creation of our whole universe, describing
>modern updatings of the ancient/medieval Argument from Design
>that go all the way down to subatomic particles and the basic physical constants.

Odd you don't identify how Darwin Devolves makes it obvious how the ID
movement is "broader than all that" Don't you know?

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

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2019 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
> associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
> either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.
>
> Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
> many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
> either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
> (2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
> to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.
>
>
> However, the ID movement is broader than all that.

How so?

>
> This is obvious from reading the latest book by one of its acknowledged movers and shakers,
> Michael Behe, _Darwin Devolves_.

Then why is it that Behe is flat out laughed at by the rest of the
scientific community?

> And the central "clearinghouse" for the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (DI) has widened its
> advocacy to the design/creation of our whole universe, describing
> modern updatings of the ancient/medieval Argument from Design
> that go all the way down to subatomic particles and the basic physical constants.

Can you be more specific and less so deliberately vague for once and
describe exactly why intelligent design is still worth considering?

>
>
> Ron Okimoto is best known for his implacable hatred for the DI,

Any organization that promotes bullshit at the expense of genuine
knowledge deserves such scorn.

[snip JAQing off]


--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." - The Hitch

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[Oxyaena]

On 6/14/2019 5:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
>
>
> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>
> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no
> credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
> sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.
>
> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.
>
>
>
> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
>
>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
>
> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> track him down and inform him of that.

Explain exactly how Ron is libeling Wells. If you can't, you're libeling
Ron.

>
>
>> No IDiots have ever gotten the promised ID science.
>
> Again a misleading equivocation. You dare not even spell out who made what
> promise, when or where. Only by being intentionally vague can you continue to
> fool readers about there being a bait and switch scam in the 21st century.

"cdesign proponensists."

>
>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
> This has NOTHING to do with any "bait" but only what you perennially
> and illogically [see above] call "the switch." Wells is giving a beautiful
> explanation of the "teach the controversy" policy and describing a flawless
> use by Stephen Meyer of the first amendment to the US Constitution.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy

>
> Wells never once supports the 1999 statements about ID science
> where they had still been hoping that it could be taught as
> an ALTERNATIVE to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public high schools.

http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm

Why should we consider Wells a reliable source when he is demonstrably not?

>
> Phillip Johnson laid that hope to rest over a decade ago (IIRC), when he
> admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley interview that ID science
> is nowhere near that stage yet. But there IS some ID science,
> especially in the form of hypothesizing an ID answer to
> some titanic mysteries about the fine-tuning of the basic
> physical constants of our universe.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fine_tuning

>
> CAUTION: the identity of the hypothesized designer is not a part
> of science, but I have given a hypothesis about the origins of the
> designer that stays within the methodology of science. I've done
> this many times in talk.origins, especially in replies to John Harshman.

Care to link them, or are you gonna continue to jerk off to the wind?

[snip idiocy]

> Kenneth Miller comes in for a much longer drubbing. Miller is arguably the
> most effective of the anti-ID zealots in producing a highly distorted
> impression scientists, the mainstream media, and the general public
> have of ID. Even some Roman Catholic right-wing writers who would
> ordinarily be allies of the ID movement have been bamboozled
> by Miller, a self-identified Roman Catholic.

The sheer amount of bullshit I just read is off the charts! This could
be a new record! Someone get the Guinness Book of World Records over here!

[snip psychological projection]

[RonO]

SNIP:

The old link to the Wells report on the bait and switch run on the Ohio
rubes is broken. I found an archived copy in wayback.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http:/www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

This is likely the report Wells had to produce to justify his trip
expenses and report on what he did, and was likely given to the other ID
perps. Somehow the Ohio creationist IDiot supporters got a copy and
obtained permission to post it on their creationist web site.

QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:

The Ohio State board of education had brought the ID perps in to justify
the inclusion of the ID creationist scam into the Ohio public schools,
but the ID perps got cold feet and decided to run and the Ohio rubes had
the bait and switch run on them. The Ohio rubes bent over and took a
switch scam that did not mention that ID had ever existed. The Ohio
rubes removed the switch scam from the education standards after the
IDiot loss in Dover.

As already quoted this is how the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
had been selling the teach ID scam before they decided to start running
the bait and switch.

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

This is the ID perp guide book on teaching ID published in 1999. DeWolf
was head of legal, Meyer was and still is the director of the ID scam
unit, and DeForrest claims to have been a Discovery Institute fellow on
his web page. Like REMINE he seems to have been one of the fellows
never recognized on the Discovery Institute web page. The Ohio bait and
switch went down March 2002.

Beats me why Nyikos has to lie about this junk for nearly a decade, but
Nyikos is just a lying asshole and has been since he first returned to
TO back in Dec 2010.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

If Nyikos doesn't just run as usual he should explain why he has to lie
about this junk. He knows that I do not have some weird hatred of
intelligent design theory. I object to the utter dishonesty of the
creationist ID scam. Any Christian with basic moral values would be
against the ID creationist scam as it stands today. I have the same
objections that created the clergy letter project to combat this issue.

I started calling it IDiocy when the bait and switch went down in Ohio
and not a single IDiot on the ARN board objected. It turned out that
the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest. The ARN IDiots were protected by the moderators, and not a
single one could bring themselves to discuss what had happened. All the
IDiots just went into denial and kept on as if nothing had happened.
Mike Gene was the only one to comment and all he claimed was that he had
given up on teaching the IDiot junk back in 1999. All the IDiots knew
that they expected ID to be taught in Ohio, and when it was obvious that
all the Ohio IDiots had gotten from the ID perps was a switch scam that
did not mention that ID had ever existed they ran and started to deny
reality. Mike Gene continued to support the ID scam when he knew what a
scam it had turned into. He didn't quit the ID scam until after Dover,
and he admitted that the ID science never existed. ID turned out to be
a scam that creationists are running on themselves and Nyikos knows this
for a fact.

The bait and switch went down on the Utah creationist IDiots that wanted
to teach the science of ID in their public schools as the ID perps were
putting up their "best" of IDiocy junk back in Nov 2017 and no other
IDiots have tried to teach the junk since that I am aware of. No IDiots
can stand the "best" of IDiocy and the major support base for the ID
scam has always been YEC, and they have tried to remove things like the
Big Bang and the age of the earth studies as well as biological
evolution from the public school science standards. There is no way
that they would want to teach the "best" of IDiocy, and if you don't
want to teach the best, why teach anything at all?

There is no hatred for design theory because it never existed. There
never was a scientific theory of intelligent design. The ID perps only
made the claims to fool the rubes for a bit and then started to run the
bait and switch scam when they had to put up or shut up. Nyikos knows
that all any IDiots have ever gotten is the IDiot switch scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed, and that has been true since Ohio
in 2002. The switch scam is basically the obfuscation junk that the
scientific creationists would put up to fool the rubes for a bit and
distract them from the fact that no viable creation science existed.
All 6 of the "best" of IDiocy presented by the ID perps were used as
obfuscation and denial arguments by the scientific creationists over 30
years ago. Neither the ID perps nor the scientific creationists ever
tried to use those 6 to produce something positive that they could build
on. They are just used to fool the rubes. I object to the utter
dishonesty. If Nyikos wasn't such a lying assoholic, self proclaimed
church going agnostic he would understand that.

As a side note the fact about the Phillip Johnson quote is that Nyikos
would snip and run from it and could not deal with it when I first
started giving it to him. For whatever Nyikosian reason he had to deny
what Phillip Johnson had said. In one of his running bouts he even made
the claim that you could disregard what Johnson said because he was old.
Johnson was 65 when he made that statement in 2006. How old is
Nyikos? His claims about about how he now views the obvious, is not how
he first dishonestly dealt with the Johnson quote.

It is just a fact that one of the original ring leaders of the ID
creationist scam has admitted that the ID science never existed.
Phillip Johnson was called the godfather of the ID movement by the other
IDiot participants.

http://berkeleysciencereview.com/read/spring-2006/

The article starts on page 31.

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are
just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at
all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

There is no hatred of design theory that can be attributed to me because
I have always claimed that there never has been a scientific theory of
intelligent design. As Phillip Johnson has admitted, I can't hate what
does not exist.

Clergy letter Project:
https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Best if IDiocy:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
> >associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
> >either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.
> >
> >Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
> >many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
> >either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
> >(2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
> >to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.
>
>
> Of course, there is no rational basis for determining which mutations
> the presumptive designer "intervened", or what desired goal it has.

Of course, you are deliberately ignoring the Directed Panspermia
hypothesis of Crick and Orgel, which included some hypotheses
about the desired goal:

F.H.C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed panspermia," *Icarus* 19
(1973) 341-346.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

In _Life Itself_, Crick also gave some ideas as to the "senders"
having altered the design of some organisms.

With "determining" you are setting an impossibly high bar,
which most scientists disdain. We cannot *determine*, for
example, as to whether an anaerobic proto-eukaryote engulfed aerobic
bacteria which evolved into mitochondria, or whether an aerobic bacterium
with extensive cytoplasm engulfed a methanogen to which it contributed
enough genes to form the nucleus of the resulting eukaryote.

Since you have a paranoid aversion to discussing science with me,
you will just have to let the preceding paragraph go unchallenged, won't you?

Maybe Harshman will bail you out, eh?

>
> >However, the ID movement is broader than all that. This is obvious
> >from reading the latest book by one of its acknowledged movers and shakers,
> >Michael Behe, _Darwin Devolves_. And the central "clearinghouse"
> >for the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (DI) has widened its
> >advocacy to the design/creation of our whole universe, describing
> >modern updatings of the ancient/medieval Argument from Design
> >that go all the way down to subatomic particles and the basic physical constants.
>
>
> Odd you don't identify how Darwin Devolves makes it obvious how the ID
> movement is "broader than all that"

It isn't the least bit odd that you would start goading me into
doing posts as long as the 696 line monstrosity that your erstwhile protege
Ron O did in his first post to this thread.

Fact is, I almost included the following paragraph in my OP,
but then decided it would take too much attention away from the main
topic of this thread.

Behe even goes so far as to argue for a form of mind-body dualism
which most professional philosophers disdain. On the other hand,
the Roman Catholic Church, of which Behe is a faithfully believing
member, is very sympathetic towards it. The Vatican long ago
made its peace with the essentially certain fact that the human *body*
evolved from the most primitive organisms; but it insists that the
soul of each human is divinely created, and that ensoulement could
take place as early as the oocyte is penetrated by the sperm.
[However, it leaves the exact time of ensoulement as a mystery.]

And you may recall, from the days when you took Ron O under your wing,
that you argued that the person who did the OP should be able to determine
what is on-topic and what is not.


> Don't you know?

Sorry, you'll just have to be satisfied with the above for the nonce.
I've got lots of bones to pick with Ron O, while you are pinch-hitting
for him in this reply to my OP. Ron O has only replied to my second post,
and then gone into an orgy of replies to himself, not content with the
696 lines that he posted the first time around.

Why don't you reply to one of them, and save him the embarrassment of
being the only person who has replied to him on this thread so far?
Or would you prefer that Oxyaena, Ron O's main bootlicker this past year,
keep him company?

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

Looks like you've finally learned that these multi-line virtual .sigs
are for letting readers with good search engines know that the post
has discussions of matters that are on-topic for the actual origins
of life on earth, or the universe.

IOW, thanks for not riding roughshod over the "-- standard disclaimer--"
as you usually do.

Having left in the above virtual .sig, I leave this post unsigned.

[Peter Nyikos]

NOTE TO READERS: the following is a reply to Ron O's 696-line monstrosity
that I mentioned in reply to jillery less than an hour ago.
Naturally I am snipping almost all of it; and Ron O should have heeded
Paul Gans's impassioned plea to Ron O himself to keep in mind that no one will
want to read a shorter (300 < its length < 500) post that he authored a number
of years back.

However, chances are good that Ron O will accuse me of "snip and run"
cowardice, again heedless of this avuncular advice.

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
> > Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
> >
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>
> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.

Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?

> Why can't Nyikos address this where it was posted?

Because people here deserve to know that you have been living
a lie for over a decade, and the sooner enough people know
about it, the better off talk.origins will be;
and I didn't want the evidence buried
on a long-running thread with a completely different Subject line.



Desperate to escape the evidence that you have been deluding
yourself with nonsense about a "bait and switch scam" by the DI,
you quickly change the subject to a thoroughly dishonest
personal attack:

> I don't know why he even tries to lie about this junk. He has been
> running from the Repost since 2014.

That's nothing. YOU have been running from the actual contents of a post
I did in reply to you way back in 2011; that post goes far towards justifying
Glenn's oft-repeated claim that you are insane:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/56bdb88261fe5e4e?dmode=source
Subject: Re: Misdirection ploys are dishonest
Lines: 177
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <18b3cf07-3a93-472d...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

Oh, sure, you replied to it -- with a mass of slapped-on crud
which I demolished in my reply. Then you slapped on some more
crud in reply to that, and it could have gone on forever like this,
because you are thoroughly obsessed with getting in the last word,
come hell or high water, no matter how long it takes.


<snip garbage that does not address what I wrote about the above link>

> I recently put up a link to quotes by Phillip Johnson and one of the
> quotes has Phillip Johnson claiming that getting IDiocy into the public
> schools was part of the IDiot strategy.

This was the 1999 strategy. The 2002 link above had to do
with a completely different strategy and never mentioned
the old one. And the irony is, YOU posted the link yourself.

> The sad thing is that when Nyikos was still posting to TO the Teach ID
> scam was the major emphasis at the Discovery Institute.

There was no such scam documented by you after 2002.

> They only
> started the bait and switch with Ohio back in 2002.

They announced the new strategy then, as shown by your own link.
The "bait" is a figment of your sick imagination.

The new strategy is slowly bearing fruit as the deficiencies
in the THEORY known as neo-Darwinism become more and more
evident even to evolutionary theorists. Some valiant attempts
were made to update it with the EES [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis]
but even that is mainly a theory of microevolution and never
touches what George Gaylord Simpson called mega-evolution.

> The first quoted
> material was published in 1999. As the More lawyer points out the
> Discovery Institute ran the teach ID scam on the Dover rubes and all the
> other IDiot rubes that believed that they could teach ID in the public
> schools.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
>
> Holy Water Repost:

That's your blasphemous name for the "Repost of 2014" which
is full of personal attacks, most of them trumped-up charges
with no effort to show them.

And it's a huge misdirection ploy -- the very thing you hypocritically
and dishonestly denounced me for back in that February 2011 thread.
The Subject: line was yours, not mine.


<snip contents of your misdirection ploy>

> Repost what Nyikos linked to:
> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes

The subject line was a libel if taken literally.
As I pointed out my second post to this thread.


<snip and cut to the chase>

> > Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
> > other form of "bait" in the 21st century.

You are running away from this challenge, Okimoto. You reposted hundreds of
lines that do NOT constitute credible evidence of any bait,
so it is very likely that you didn't dare to read any of what
I posted below.

> > Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> > that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
> >
> >> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
> >> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
> >
> > Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
> > revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> > If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> > track him down and inform him of that.

You are running away from this question, Ron O. In your sick
mind, you no doubt think that you are not running away from it,
because you left it in. The fact is, your diabolically cunning equivocation
was a dishonest misdirection ploy.

> >
> >> No IDiots have ever gotten the promised ID science.
> >
> > Again a misleading equivocation. You dare not even spell out who made what
> > promise, when or where. Only by being intentionally vague can you continue to
> > fool readers about there being a bait and switch scam in the 21st century.

In the immortal words of someone I believe to be a secret admirer of
yours, Bob Casanova:

<crickets>

> >
> >> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
> >
> > This has NOTHING to do with any "bait" but only what you perennially
> > and illogically [see above] call "the switch." Wells is giving a beautiful
> > explanation of the "teach the controversy" policy and describing a flawless
> > use by Stephen Meyer of the first amendment to the US Constitution.

<crickets>

> > Wells never once supports the 1999 statements about ID science
> > where they had still been hoping that it could be taught as
> > an ALTERNATIVE to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public high schools.
> >
> > Phillip Johnson laid that hope to rest over a decade ago (IIRC), when he
> > admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley interview that ID science
> > is nowhere near that stage yet. But there IS some ID science,
> > especially in the form of hypothesizing an ID answer to
> > some titanic mysteries about the fine-tuning of the basic
> > physical constants of our universe.

You posted misdirection about both Wells and Johnson in the hundreds of lines
that I snipped, yet you are powerless to argue against these plain facts.



<snip of more material that you probably were afraid to even read>

> > You must have something akin to a "death wish," Ron O, for providing links that
> > are so embarrassing to leading anti-ID zealots, whose only difference from
> > you is, they don't post rabid screeds that would cause the average person to
> > doubt their sanity.

Those rabid screeds of February 2011 were a prime example.

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

The above was left in to save the trouble of posting another virtual .sig.

[Peter Nyikos]

A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
for reasons explained here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/6NKAJVC9ibI/nO4Xri2UBgAJ
Subject: Boycott of Erik Simpson and `Oxyaena' ATTN: DIG
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <eafd9791-05a9-4533...@googlegroups.com>

and here, on the same Subject: line, and on the same date:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/6NKAJVC9ibI/GCuqml2fBgAJ
Message-ID: <d1820a6a-25a8-4859...@googlegroups.com>

Except for occasional reminders like this, done in direct follow-up
to the posts of Oxyaena, this boycott works like a killfile.

In particular, it does not exclude replying to people who leave in
text from Oxyaena, nor commenting on statements by Oxyaena that were left
in by them.


The boycott has saved me an enormous amount of time, as explained
in an announcement similar to this one, on another thread; it included
a telling illustrative example:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GdVQyMaeu7c/e3QmmS6wBAAJ
Subject: Re: What does one self-identified Christian leader pray for?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <791f248b-cea6-4c6b...@googlegroups.com>

Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered, for reasons hinted at
in the linked post itself. A prime example was the selfsame thread,

"Subject: Re: What does one self-identified Christian leader pray for?"

in which Oxyaena has made nine (9) posts; however, the announcement I've linked
here was the ONLY follow-up to any Oxyaena post to that thread besides
ONE reply made by the other boycottee, Erik Simpson.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 6/18/2019 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip dick-waving]

I`m sure posting this "reminder" every other day is necessary, since
people apparently have the memory of goldfish.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]

>
> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:

> in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .

Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
too minor to bother with.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[RonO]

On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> NOTE TO READERS: the following is a reply to Ron O's 696-line monstrosity
> that I mentioned in reply to jillery less than an hour ago.
> Naturally I am snipping almost all of it; and Ron O should have heeded
> Paul Gans's impassioned plea to Ron O himself to keep in mind that no one will
> want to read a shorter (300 < its length < 500) post that he authored a number
> of years back.

You have lied repeatedly about what was posted. The only thing that
makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying. Reposting the
entire thing just makes you run faster. For whatever bogus insane
reason you can't do the same stupid and dishonest thing more than your
own stupid limit. Snipping and running from the material is stupid and
dishonest enough to qualify or you wouldn't quit and run away after just
a couple of weeks. Before I came up with this repost it would take
months to get you to run.

I do not expect the repost to keep you away forever, just look what you
have done. I only expect the repost to shorten your stupidity and
assoholic behavior to some reasonable length of time.

Nyikos knows what it was like before the repost came to be. He knows
because he is the one that runs after just a couple weeks of lying about
the same stupid things. Before the repost the lies and assoholic
behavior would go on for months. All he has to do is go back to the
posts that he is running from that he claimed that he would address
tomorrow, and look to see how long it took him to run and stop his
assoholic behavior. What has happened after the repost started?

>
> However, chances are good that Ron O will accuse me of "snip and run"
> cowardice, again heedless of this avuncular advice.

Nyikos knows that snipping and running are one of his favorite ways to
deal with what he has been lying about for nearly a decade. What is sad
is he should understand that because of his Dirty Debating debacle. He
consistently snipped and ran from what he had to lie about. As is also
normal he had to project his stupid dirty debating behavior onto me, and
accused me of falsely accusing him of snipping and running. I could not
figure out what he was talking about because he would link to a post
where he was obviously snipping and running in multiple instances. It
turned out that Nyikos had manipulated what I had written to make it
look like I had falsely accused him of snipping and running. I didn't
realize that because I did not check the manipulation because I already
knew what I had written. Once I realized what Nyikos was going on about
all I had to do was repost what I had actually written. It turned out
that I had specifically stated that Nyikos had not snipped and run as he
usually did, and I then pointed out what he had actually done. Nyikos
ran from his stupidity and started the Scottish verdict thread the next
day as his usual misdirection ploy. In the Dirty debating thread,
Nyikos also lied to Bill about never running misdirection ploys, and
what did he resort to when his dirty debating tactics blew up in his face?

This is just the stupid things that I have had to deal with. Nyikos
can't deny any of it because he knows it is all true. The dirty
debating post that he ran from to start the Scottish Verdict thread is
still unanswered by Nyikos. Why? Because Nyikos knows what he did and
has been running from it for years.

>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
>>> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>>
>> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
>
> Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
> fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?

No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
keep doing it?

>
>
>> Why can't Nyikos address this where it was posted?
>
> Because people here deserve to know that you have been living
> a lie for over a decade, and the sooner enough people know
> about it, the better off talk.origins will be;
> and I didn't want the evidence buried
> on a long-running thread with a completely different Subject line.

Beats me why Nyikos has to keep lying about the same junk, but the
reason he posts it here is so that he doesn't have to deal with what he
snipped out. He obviously did not repost the post. Instead of dealing
with it, he started this thread. Any other reasons are just lies. It
is simmply what Nyikos does. Why didn't he repost the entire respost to
be the asshole that everyone knows that he is?

>
>
>
> Desperate to escape the evidence that you have been deluding
> yourself with nonsense about a "bait and switch scam" by the DI,
> you quickly change the subject to a thoroughly dishonest
> personal attack:

You are just a lying asshole. That is the fact of any discourse with
you. The repost is just a way to make that plain even to someone as
lost as you are. It is why you have to run from it. You can't stand
the holy water repost in the light of day.

>
>
>> I don't know why he even tries to lie about this junk. He has been
>> running from the Repost since 2014.
>
> That's nothing. YOU have been running from the actual contents of a post
> I did in reply to you way back in 2011; that post goes far towards justifying
> Glenn's oft-repeated claim that you are insane:

What am I supposed to be running from? Projection is stupid. The
Projectionist realizes what he is and does, and has to project that
behavior onto others. Beats me what it does for the assholes that use
it. Really, it may be some type if defense mechanism, but the asshole
has to understand what he is in order to do it.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/56bdb88261fe5e4e?dmode=source

This link brings me to your post that I am responding to.

> Subject: Re: Misdirection ploys are dishonest
> Lines: 177
> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:19:44 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <18b3cf07-3a93-472d...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>
> Oh, sure, you replied to it -- with a mass of slapped-on crud
> which I demolished in my reply. Then you slapped on some more
> crud in reply to that, and it could have gone on forever like this,
> because you are thoroughly obsessed with getting in the last word,
> come hell or high water, no matter how long it takes.
>
>
> <snip garbage that does not address what I wrote about the above link>

I can't figure out what you are going on about. Just go to the post
that you linked to, it seems to be this post that I am responding to,
and address the issue in context.

>
>
>
>> I recently put up a link to quotes by Phillip Johnson and one of the
>> quotes has Phillip Johnson claiming that getting IDiocy into the public
>> schools was part of the IDiot strategy.
>
> This was the 1999 strategy. The 2002 link above had to do
> with a completely different strategy and never mentioned
> the old one. And the irony is, YOU posted the link yourself.

What an utter asshole. The whole point of running a bait and switch
scam is that you put up the bait. The ID perps obviously claimed to be
able to teach the ID science for years before Ohio in 2002. The switch
scam that the Ohio IDiot rubes got instead of the teach ID scam does not
mention that ID ever existed. That is called the bait and switch. The
More lawyer called it a strategy, but the strategy is called the bait
and switch when you sell the rubes one thing, and then only give them
something else. You have known this for nearly a decade, and you can
still lie about it.

The Johnson quote about teaching ID actually comes from 2003 so that
shoots down your latest attempts to lie about the obvious.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

QUOTE:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the
issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God,
before the academic world and into the schools.
American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
END QUOTE:

Phillip Johnson did not give up on the Teach ID scam until after Dover.
Nyikos knows that Phillip Johnson was one of the most vocal supporters
for teaching ID in Dover among the ID perps. He was the one that got on
the Nova PBS video of the Dover IDiot fiasco defending the teach ID scam.

What is sad is that the other ID perps likely ran the bait and switch on
Johnson in 2002. Johnson was likely not among the group that decided to
run the bait and switch. Wells lists Meyer, Minnich and DeWolf as going
to Ohio. Other accounts claim that the Discovery Institute President
and half a dozen staffers also came to support Wells and Meyer. Johnson
quit his blog at ARN one month after the bait and switch went down on
Ohio, and claimed that others would continue the IDiot efforts. My
guess is that he decided to quit when he got Wells' report on the Ohio
bait and switch. He found out that the teach ID scam was essentially dead.

Johnson did come back to support the teach ID scam during the Dover
fiasco. My guess is that he wanted to hold the other ID perp's feet to
the fire, but half of them ran away before testifying anyway.

>
>
>> The sad thing is that when Nyikos was still posting to TO the Teach ID
>> scam was the major emphasis at the Discovery Institute.
>
> There was no such scam documented by you after 2002.

What a lying asshole. I only had to demonstrate that the ID perps were
running the teach ID scam before they started running the bait and
switch. Why would I need the evidence after they started running the
bait and switch.

Not only that, but the ID perps published their Dover propaganda
pamphlet in 2007. Glenn first posted the edition that was modified in
2009. It had the old ID perp education policy on teaching ID where they
still had the paragraph claiming to be able to teach the scientific
theory of ID in the public schools. This paragraph was not deleted from
their web page edition until 2013 (the thread is part of the repost).
It is obvious that the ID perps were still running the teach ID scam
because in that pamphlet they state such outright. You know that
because you snipped and ran from the Scottish verdict quote 3 times. 3
times was over your self imposed limit for doing something obviously
stupid and dishonest more than twice in one thread so you came back and
put the quote back in and from then on you have lied about what that
quote means. It is a stupid thing to do because the whole point of that
propaganda pamphlet is the ID perps claiming that the Dover decision was
wrong and that ID can still be legally taught out side of Dover.

Nyikos ignores this and lies about it, but anyone can read the current
the propaganda pamphlet (only the pictures have changed, most of the
text is still the same and they added a reference in the 2015 edition.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Beyond the question of what a school board should
mandate as part of its science curriculum, there is the
question of whether a teacher has a constitutional right
to teach more than the school board requires with regard
to the theory of intelligent design. In December, 2005, a
federal trial judge in Pennsylvania made a controversial
ruling that it would be unconstitutional to teach the
theory of intelligent design in public school science class.
However, the decision in that case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School Board (M.D. Penn. 2005), was never appealed to
an appellate court. Beyond the actual parties to a lawsuit,
trial opinions such as Kitzmiller do not have the force of
law. Moreover, the decision in the Kitzmiller ruling was
based upon evidence and characterizations of intelligent
design that have been sharply contested by leading
proponents of intelligent design. Accordingly, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard remains
the federal courts’ authoritative pronouncement on the
teaching of scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:

The ID perps are claiming that ID can still be legally taught in the
public schools outside of Dover. The whole point of the pamphlet is
that the judge's decision was wrong, and what was that decision?

This kind of pro teach ID junk is all through the pamphlet. It is
obvious that the iD perps were still running the teach ID scam even
after their loss in Dover.

Beats me why Nyikos wants to lie about this junk when even the ID perps
are still willing to put this junk up on their web page and keep
updating it.

>
>
>> They only
>> started the bait and switch with Ohio back in 2002.
>
> They announced the new strategy then, as shown by your own link.
> The "bait" is a figment of your sick imagination.

Why lie about this when you still haven't addressed those posts that you
told Glenn that you would deal with tomorrow half a decade ago? The
evidence that you are lying right now was in those posts and you had to
run from.

Since you snipped and ran from that same evidence that was posted below
I will put it in again to demonstrate what a lying asshole you are.

If you run or snip out this material again doesn't that mean that you
are the lying asshole that you know that you are?

REPOSTED material:

END REPOSTED material:

Nyikos knows that this is how the ID perps were running the teach ID
scam before they started running the bait and switch. He understands
what this means and that is why he has been running from this quoted
material for years.

Anyone interested can read the post that Nyikos is snipping and running
from again. They will find at the bottom of the post the More lawyer,
that defended the Dover IDiots, calling the Discovery Institute rep on
his lie about the Discovery Institute never advocating teaching ID. The
More lawyer describes the bait and switch, but calls it a strategy and
mentions Ohio as an example.

This is the evidence that Nyikos has been running from and lying about
for years. Those posts were not addressed tomorrow and Nyikos snipped
and ran from the same evidence here at this time. For whatever reason
Nyikos has the toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his
head no one can see him. He thinks that he can remove the material from
a post and lie about it because it is no longer in the post. I don't
know how this works in his warped mind, but he obviously does it over
and over again.

>
> The new strategy is slowly bearing fruit as the deficiencies
> in the THEORY known as neo-Darwinism become more and more
> evident even to evolutionary theorists. Some valiant attempts
> were made to update it with the EES [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis]
> but even that is mainly a theory of microevolution and never
> touches what George Gaylord Simpson called mega-evolution.

What is sad is that the "new strategy" is just the lame creationist
obfuscation scam. It is just the denial junk that creationist have used
to fool the rubes for decades. Texas and Louisiana demonstrated that
the rubes don't like the switch scam because it doesn't mention
creationism nor ID. Why would even a stupid IDiot rube want to
obfuscate and issue if they could not say why? Back in 2013 when the ID
perps finally removed the paragraph claiming that they had a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy,
that they have up on their web site, both Louisiana and Texas tried to
implement the switch scam by giving teachers textbook supplements on
what they wanted taught. My guess is that the ID perps finally removed
that paragraph because of what Texas and Lousiana tried to do with the
switch scam. That paragraph on teaching the scientific theory of ID is
still in the education policy included the propaganda pamphlet that the
ID perps keep updating. The ID perps had to run the bait and switch
again on the IDiot rubes because they had ID as a topic in the
supplements (both states). The Lousiana rubes even openly talked about
creationism and IDiocy. That tells you what the rubes make of the new
strategy. No one has tried to implement the switch scam since at the
state level. They rely on ignorant, incompetent and/or dishonest local
teachers to teach the IDiot junk, and the ID perps can't provide them
with the materials to do it or the game would be up.

>
>
>
>> The first quoted
>> material was published in 1999. As the More lawyer points out the
>> Discovery Institute ran the teach ID scam on the Dover rubes and all the
>> other IDiot rubes that believed that they could teach ID in the public
>> schools.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
>>
>> Holy Water Repost:
>
> That's your blasphemous name for the "Repost of 2014" which
> is full of personal attacks, most of them trumped-up charges
> with no effort to show them.
>
> And it's a huge misdirection ploy -- the very thing you hypocritically
> and dishonestly denounced me for back in that February 2011 thread.
> The Subject: line was yours, not mine.

The holy water repost works again.

Repost Repost so Nyikos can run again:

END repost of Holy water repost:

>
>
> <snip contents of your misdirection ploy>
>
>
>> Repost what Nyikos linked to:
>> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes
>
> The subject line was a libel if taken literally.
> As I pointed out my second post to this thread.
>
>
> <snip and cut to the chase>

This is what Nyikos linked to and he can't deal with it so he had to
snip it out again. The reason that he started a new thread was so that
he could run from this material.

Repost snippped out material:

Repost what Nyikos linked to:
Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes

END Repost of the post Nyikos linked to:

>
>>> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
>>> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.
>
> You are running away from this challenge, Okimoto. You reposted hundreds of
> lines that do NOT constitute credible evidence of any bait,
> so it is very likely that you didn't dare to read any of what
> I posted below.

The scottish verdict quote pamphlet qualifies and the ID perps still
keep updating it and they still claim to be able to teach the junk in
the public schools.

Why lie about the 21st century when you are running from being wrong
about the bait and switch that started in 2002?

Something published in 2000. Why would the 21st century matter? This
was obviously the way the ID perps ran the teach ID scam until they
started running the bait and switch.

Utah L. Rev. (2000). Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design,and
the Public School Science Cirriculum.

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/fte2.htm

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific

controversy about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be

reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the
problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the
previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to
permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an

alternative to Darwinian evolution--and this includes the use of

textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the
theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and

citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-

minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

Does this look familiar? Same conclusion, but the body of the article
has some legal justification for it.

Nyikos was just wrong about how the ID perps were selling the teach ID
scam. It doesn't matter what they did after they started running the
bait and switch even though they are still claiming to be able to teach
the junk in their Dover propaganda pamphlet that they last updated in 2015.

>
>
>>> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
>>> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
>>>
>>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
>>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
>>>
>>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
>>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
>>> track him down and inform him of that.
>
> You are running away from this question, Ron O. In your sick
> mind, you no doubt think that you are not running away from it,
> because you left it in. The fact is, your diabolically cunning equivocation
> was a dishonest misdirection ploy.

You can read the report by Wells. It is not a second hand report.
Wells participated in the bait and switch and wrote the report. You
know that Wells admits that the ID perps got together before presenting
their dog and pony show to the Ohio IDiot rubes and decided that they
would not push for teaching ID. This is in direct contrast to the
quotes that you have been running from for years on how the ID perps had
been selling the rubes the teach ID scam. Meyer knew that he had told
the Ohio IDiots to teach ID, but he was the one that ran the bait and
switch on them.

What a bonehead. The Dover rubes did everything that the ID perps
wanted them to do. They wanted to teach the science of ID in the Dover
public schools. They bought Of Pandas and People to help them teach the
IDiot junk. The ID perps tried to run the bait and switch, but the
Dover rubes said no and wouldn't take the switch scam and went forward
with trying to teach the IDiot junk anyway.

Why would anyone want to lie about something this obvious? What had the
ID perps told the Ohio rubes about teaching ID in the public schools
before the bait and switch went down? What does Wells admit that they
decided to do instead?

You are just tragically assoholic.

>
>
>>>
>>>> No IDiots have ever gotten the promised ID science.
>>>
>>> Again a misleading equivocation. You dare not even spell out who made what
>>> promise, when or where. Only by being intentionally vague can you continue to
>>> fool readers about there being a bait and switch scam in the 21st century.
>
> In the immortal words of someone I believe to be a secret admirer of
> yours, Bob Casanova:

Why are you snipping and running from those quotes that you were going
to address tomorrow. Projection about crickets is tragically lame and
stupid on your part. We both know why the crikets are chriping and it
is due to you. What have you been running from and lying about for
years? Why does the repost work, and why do you have to keep snipping
and running from it?

>
> <crickets>
>
>
>>>
>>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>>>
>>> This has NOTHING to do with any "bait" but only what you perennially
>>> and illogically [see above] call "the switch." Wells is giving a beautiful
>>> explanation of the "teach the controversy" policy and describing a flawless
>>> use by Stephen Meyer of the first amendment to the US Constitution.

So why snip and run from the quote out of this link? It is because you
know that they decided to run the bait and switch instead of teach the
ID scam junk. You are just sad.

>
>
> <crickets>
>
>>> Wells never once supports the 1999 statements about ID science
>>> where they had still been hoping that it could be taught as
>>> an ALTERNATIVE to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public high schools.

What about that quote about Wells telling the Ohio rubes that ID could
be forced into the public schools? A witness said that who was there.
The audio was available when I first put up this evidence, and you could
have listened to it yourself to see if it was true, but what does it
matter? Why would Wells need to agree with the teach ID scam? He has
been an ID perp since the start of the ID scam unit, but not for any ID
science. Wells never claimed to come up with any ID science of his own.
His shtick was the obfuscation creationist scam. All he had was the
lame old denial arguments that had failed the scientific creationists
decades before. "No moths on tree trunks" etc.

>>>
>>> Phillip Johnson laid that hope to rest over a decade ago (IIRC), when he
>>> admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley interview that ID science
>>> is nowhere near that stage yet. But there IS some ID science,
>>> especially in the form of hypothesizing an ID answer to
>>> some titanic mysteries about the fine-tuning of the basic
>>> physical constants of our universe.
>
> You posted misdirection about both Wells and Johnson in the hundreds of lines
> that I snipped, yet you are powerless to argue against these plain facts.

I already posted about your lame lies about the Johnson quote. You know
that you snipped and ran from the quotes twice before running when I
first presented those quotes to you. Why did you have to snip and run?
Why did you claim that Johnson was old as some excuse to discount what
he had said? Johnson was 65 when he made his admission that the ID
science had never existed. How old were you in 2011 when you were
snipping and running from what Johnson had said? Does that explain your
assoholic behavior?

Lying about the junk now is stupid and bogus.

You should go back to those early posts and demonstrate that you did not
snip and run from the quote when I first posted it. You then snipped
and ran from the quote a second time when I put it back in. I do not
believe that you have forgotten what you did with the Johnson quote
years ago because you ran from doing that for years. Why start lying
about the past now? Why was it so effective for me to put the Johnson
quote into a post for years after that? Why start lying about your
views on the quote now?

>
> <snip of more material that you probably were afraid to even read>
>
>
>
>>> You must have something akin to a "death wish," Ron O, for providing links that
>>> are so embarrassing to leading anti-ID zealots, whose only difference from
>>> you is, they don't post rabid screeds that would cause the average person to
>>> doubt their sanity.

This is why you snipped and ran from those embarrassing links, and you
will snip and run again and again. They obviously embarrass you and not
me. That is why the repost has worked for half a decade. You will lie
about it for a couple weeks and then what? You will come back in a
couple months to lie about it again, and then what? The only good thing
about it is that I don't have to deal with your assoholic lies for a few
months.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

This moment of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
brought to you by:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
>for reasons explained here:

<snip remaining self-serving spew>

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:53:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]
>>
>> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
>> in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .
>
>Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>too minor to bother with.

You raise an interesting conundrum: If no one answers a post, is it
because everybody agrees with it, or is it because nobody has read it?
Since there's no way to tell the difference, perhaps the use of
killfiles should be reevaluated. I for one don't want to give the
impression I agree with a post just because I think the poster offers
no redeeming value.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
>> >associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
>> >either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.
>> >
>> >Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
>> >many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
>> >either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
>> >(2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
>> >to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.
>>
>>
>> Of course, there is no rational basis for determining which mutations
>> the presumptive designer "intervened", or what desired goal it has.
>
>Of course, you are deliberately ignoring the Directed Panspermia
>hypothesis of Crick and Orgel, which included some hypotheses
>about the desired goal:
>
> F.H.C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed panspermia," *Icarus* 19
>(1973) 341-346.
>http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

Of course, you are deliberately injecting into this topic unsupported
speculations from two dead scientists which nobody mentioned in this
topic before now, so why should I have mentioned them?

And even if anybody had previously mentioned these speculations in
this topic, you *still* haven't identified which mutations Crick and
Orgel thought their DPs intervened, or to what their DP's desired
goals were. IOW your cite is just another bald reference you expect
others to guess what you think is relevant about it.

>In _Life Itself_, Crick also gave some ideas as to the "senders"
>having altered the design of some organisms.

Apparently you have conveniently forgotten how to cite or quote. Is
anybody surprised.

>With "determining" you are setting an impossibly high bar,
>which most scientists disdain. We cannot *determine*, for
>example, as to whether an anaerobic proto-eukaryote engulfed aerobic
>bacteria which evolved into mitochondria, or whether an aerobic bacterium
>with extensive cytoplasm engulfed a methanogen to which it contributed
>enough genes to form the nucleus of the resulting eukaryote.
>
>Since you have a paranoid aversion to discussing science with me,
>you will just have to let the preceding paragraph go unchallenged, won't you?
>
>Maybe Harshman will bail you out, eh?

Maybe Harshman will grow as tired of your "testiness" as he alleges
about me, and stop enabling you. But after so many years, I have no
expectation of that happening before the Heat Death of the Universe.

>> >However, the ID movement is broader than all that. This is obvious
>> >from reading the latest book by one of its acknowledged movers and shakers,
>> >Michael Behe, _Darwin Devolves_. And the central "clearinghouse"
>> >for the ID movement, the Discovery Institute (DI) has widened its
>> >advocacy to the design/creation of our whole universe, describing
>> >modern updatings of the ancient/medieval Argument from Design
>> >that go all the way down to subatomic particles and the basic physical constants.
>>
>>
>> Odd you don't identify how Darwin Devolves makes it obvious how the ID
>> movement is "broader than all that"
>
>It isn't the least bit odd that you would start goading me into
>doing posts as long as the 696 line monstrosity that your erstwhile protege
>Ron O did in his first post to this thread.

It isn't the least bit odd that you would call noting your failure to
back up your claims as "goading". A verifiable reference would be
more than enough to show you're posting something other than
ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

Of course, you have no problem using multiple posts to spew one
self-serving excuse after another. Not sure how even you can't figure
out that the best way to avoid having to back up irrelevant noise is
to not to post it in the first place. Of course, then you wouldn't
have anything to post, but imagine all the time you would save, you
might have time to actually teach your students.

>Fact is, I almost included the following paragraph in my OP,
>but then decided it would take too much attention away from the main
>topic of this thread.

Since you admit that the point isn't especially relevant to "the main
topic of this thread", that makes your point you raised just more of
your obfuscating noise.

> Behe even goes so far as to argue for a form of mind-body dualism
> which most professional philosophers disdain. On the other hand,
> the Roman Catholic Church, of which Behe is a faithfully believing
> member, is very sympathetic towards it. The Vatican long ago
> made its peace with the essentially certain fact that the human *body*
> evolved from the most primitive organisms; but it insists that the
> soul of each human is divinely created, and that ensoulement could
> take place as early as the oocyte is penetrated by the sperm.
> [However, it leaves the exact time of ensoulement as a mystery.]

You're going to have to do a lot better than to baldly assert
ensoulment as something related to ID. To the best of my knowledge,
your heroes Crick and Orgel made no reference to it, and neither did
Behe in Darwin Devolves or in any of his other books, and neither has
any other ID proponent. And based on your complete lack of
substantiation for it, ensoulment remains as just more of your
obfuscating noise.

>And you may recall, from the days when you took Ron O under your wing,
>that you argued that the person who did the OP should be able to determine
>what is on-topic and what is not.

Then decide what is on-topic, and stop posting about things even you
admit is irrelevant to it. Not sure how even you *still* don't
understand this.

>> Don't you know?
>
>Sorry, you'll just have to be satisfied with the above for the nonce.

Sorry, I don't accept your self-serving excuses for not backing up
issues you raise. Either these issues are relevant, and so deserve
your support, or they are meaningless noise, and so should not have
mentioned them in the first place. Pick your poison.

>I've got lots of bones to pick with Ron O, while you are pinch-hitting
>for him in this reply to my OP. Ron O has only replied to my second post,
>and then gone into an orgy of replies to himself, not content with the
>696 lines that he posted the first time around.

Your bone-picking with other posters has nothing to do with my posts.
This is just more of your obfuscating noise.

>Why don't you reply to one of them, and save him the embarrassment of
>being the only person who has replied to him on this thread so far?
>Or would you prefer that Oxyaena, Ron O's main bootlicker this past year,
>keep him company?

Why don't you back up your own claims? Don't you know how?

>> >Peter Nyikos
>> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> >University of South Carolina
>> >http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
>Looks like you've finally learned that these multi-line virtual .sigs
>are for letting readers with good search engines know that the post
>has discussions of matters that are on-topic for the actual origins
>of life on earth, or the universe.
>
>IOW, thanks for not riding roughshod over the "-- standard disclaimer--"
>as you usually do.
>
>Having left in the above virtual .sig, I leave this post unsigned.

To the contrary, the most I do with your .sig is to point out its
irrelevance to the topic or to anything anybody said in it. It's just
more of your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.
Don't like that I point out these things? Then stop posting your
.sig. Not sure how even you *still* don't understand this.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/19 9:24 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:53:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]
>>>
>>> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
>>> in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .
>>
>> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>> too minor to bother with.
>
> You raise an interesting conundrum: If no one answers a post, is it
> because everybody agrees with it, or is it because nobody has read it?
> Since there's no way to tell the difference, perhaps the use of
> killfiles should be reevaluated. I for one don't want to give the
> impression I agree with a post just because I think the poster offers
> no redeeming value.

There have been many posts that I did not respond to because someone
else already had, and others because I had already responded to the
point I disagreed with (usually the day before in the same thread). But
very few of the posts I disagree with have gone unchallenged. The
largest exception, I think, is posts which say nothing of substance.
That does not apply to Oxyaena's posts.

[RonO]

SNIP:

I messed up on this citation. Google found the original pdf when I
searched for the Utah law review article, but the pdf just had the
citation up under the title. It is the ID perp booklet, but they just
say to also see the Utah law review article. It is a pretty tragic
piece of literature. It is difficult to determine exactly what they are
claiming in the Utah Law review article, but according to them they are
claiming something similar enough to the guide book to warrent a look.
It seems to be an exercise on how far you can bend reality to your own
purposes. As Phillip Johnson admitted there never was any ID science.
That is why the bait and switch started to go down after all this
prevarication.

http://dewolflaw.net/utah.pdf

This link is to the Utah law review article. They are claiming that
intelligent design is not the same as creationism, and the article is
basically a long winded attempt to pretend that ID is scientific enough
to teach in the public schools as part of their teach the controversy
creationist scam. As noted before the ID scam was included in the teach
the controversy scam before the bait and switch started to go down.
This is evident in this article.

QUOTE:
VIII. CONCLUSION
Until recently, the Darwinian perspective has enjoyed a monopoly over
the curriculum in public school biology classes. Nevertheless, a number
of factors have undermined the basis for that monopoly. First,
dissenting scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian
mechanism as an explanation for the origin of apparent design has broken
the Darwinian hegemony in the scientific world. Second, within the
philosophy of science, the failure of demarcation arguments has meant
that both Darwinian evolutionary theory and design theory now enjoy
equivalent methodological status, thereby denying any legal basis for
excluding opposing theories from consideration. New constitutional
precedents have also changed the context of this curriculum debate. In
1986, Edwards v. Aguillard379 affirmed the right of teachers to discuss
alternative scientific theories of origin in their classrooms. In
addition, subsequent cases such as Rosenberger have made it more
difficult to use the Establishment Clause to limit academic freedom and
the rights of free expression.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Oxyaena]

I`m sorry I just woke up and my mind is a bit muddled, can you clarify?
What doesn't apply to my posts? If you're saying my posts are of
substance, thank you.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/19/2019 2:30 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:

Upon further reading, I think what you're saying is you had no need to
respond because you already agreed with what I wrote. Is that correct?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > [oxymoron about boycott clipped]

I can't make sense out of your use of "oxymoron"; it obviously isn't
a wordplay on "Oxyaena is a moron" -- that would be way too honest
and candid of you.

[Of course, "moron" here is NOT being used in the original sense
of feeble-mindedness: Oxyaena merely uses her high intelligence
to make her asinine behavior entertaining.]

> > Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:

You snipped all data about the linked post, lest your use of "Generally"
below should be seen for the misdirection that it is. I have reposted
it below, along with a very telling excerpt from it that shows
how cunning your misdirection is.

> > in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .
>
> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
> too minor to bother with.

"Generally" doesn't apply here. "Everyone" who has read my post carefully
[that might NOT include you, Mark] knows that my boycott works like a killfile:

[repost of text snipped by you:]

In particular, it does not exclude replying to people who leave in
text from Oxyaena, nor commenting on statements by Oxyaena that were left
in by them.

The boycott has saved me an enormous amount of time, as explained
in an announcement similar to this one, on another thread; it included
a telling illustrative example:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GdVQyMaeu7c/e3QmmS6wBAAJ
Subject: Re: What does one self-identified Christian leader pray for?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <791f248b-cea6-4c6b...@googlegroups.com>

[end of first repost]


Now comes a SECOND repost, from the post linked above,
including the telling illustrative example:

________________________________________________________

The boycott has saved me an enormous amount of time, because
I am free to choose those posts where I can make the most
powerful points, often killing two birds with one stone.
An excellent example of this occurred two weeks ago, where
the other "bird" consisted of jillery shackling herself to
a particularly transparent and stupid lie by Oxyaena:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/iTUoa_fABwAJ
Subject: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries of Evolution: Sexual Reproduction; Part A, meiosis
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 09:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c3adf309-d759-4f96...@googlegroups.com>

The altered Subject: line is due to Oxyaena, whose "OP" would make
a perfect candidate for a real Chez Watt, were that old custom
of talk.origins still in effect.

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


Generally, Mark, the things you post in replies to posts of mine
need to be taken with many heavy grains of salt.


Peter Nyikos

QUOTE OF THE DAY

What part of "Thou Shalt Not" don't you understand?
- God

-- one of many messages that rotate on a Dallas, TX billboard
at intervals of a few seconds

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 23:30:25 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 6/18/19 9:24 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:53:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]
>>>>
>>>> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
>>>> in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .
>>>
>>> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>>> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>>> too minor to bother with.
>>
>> You raise an interesting conundrum: If no one answers a post, is it
>> because everybody agrees with it, or is it because nobody has read it?
>> Since there's no way to tell the difference, perhaps the use of
>> killfiles should be reevaluated. I for one don't want to give the
>> impression I agree with a post just because I think the poster offers
>> no redeeming value.
>
>There have been many posts that I did not respond to because someone
>else already had, and others because I had already responded to the
>point I disagreed with (usually the day before in the same thread). But
>very few of the posts I disagree with have gone unchallenged. The
>largest exception, I think, is posts which say nothing of substance.
>That does not apply to Oxyaena's posts.

I agree with your opinion about Oxyaena's posts. Nevertheless, how
would an unbiased third party evaluate a non-response to his posts, as
alleged by Nyikos the peter? Is the reason as you propose above,
because everybody agrees with them? Or because nobody read them?

If there is no way to tell the difference, then trolls could claim as
you propose, that non-response to their posts implies agreement to
them.

More to the case under discussion, Nyikos the peter alludes that lack
of response to Oxyaena's posts implies at least indifference to
Oxyaena's comments, contrary to your proposal. Again, how does the
mere lack of response help to determine which of these mutually
exclusive claims is correct?

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>> too minor to bother with.
>
>"Generally" doesn't apply here. "Everyone" who has read my post carefully
>[that might NOT include you, Mark] knows that my boycott works like a killfile:

Nope. Your boycott is nothing like a killfile, in theory or in
practice. Instead, it is just another excuse for you to ejaculate

your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

[Mark Isaak]

Pretty much. The "does not apply" means your posts are not those that
lack substance. The "not responding because there's no disagreement"
applies generally, to your posts and others.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/19/19 7:21 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]
>
> I can't make sense out of your use of "oxymoron";

"Oxymoron" was not my best word choice. "Self-contradictory statement"
would be better.

>>> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
>

> You snipped all [. . .]

Duh. I was not responding to everything you wrote.

I snipped even more from your last post. Contact your therapist to help
you cope.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
> >> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
> >> too minor to bother with.
> >
> >"Generally" doesn't apply here. "Everyone" who has read my post carefully
> >[that might NOT include you, Mark] knows that my boycott works like a killfile:
>
>
> Nope.

As is usual with trolls, the use of "Nope" rather than simply "No"
should send up red flags whenever you indulge in it.

>Your boycott is nothing like a killfile, in theory or in practice.

Of course, you dare not explain why you allege that it is nothing
like a killfile, since there is no explanation that does not
apply to Oxaena's past use of killfiles, IN SPADES.

And so, you are justifying what I wrote about you about half an
hour after you posted this allegation:

you and Mark and Oxyaena campaign arduously against my boycott.

> Instead, it is just another excuse for you to ejaculate
> your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

If you think this is a justification of your allegation, you
will naturally raise suspicions by Glenn that you are almost
as insane as he believes Ron Okimoto to be.

CAUTION: If you ignore the "If" clause above, you will just be
adding fuel to those suspicions.


As for your use of the word "spew" about myself, it has been established
beyond a reasonable doubt that it

almost invariably refers to text that justifiably puts you or
your friends in a bad light.

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/7eYujW1pAQAJ
Subject: Jillery's use of "spew" unmasked WAS: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries
of Evolution: ...
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c12979f1-2413-4a2f...@googlegroups.com>


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 23:30:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/18/19 9:24 PM, jillery wrote:

[To Mark Isaak:]

> >> You raise an interesting conundrum: If no one answers a post, is it
> >> because everybody agrees with it, or is it because nobody has read it?
> >> Since there's no way to tell the difference, perhaps the use of
> >> killfiles should be reevaluated. I for one don't want to give the
> >> impression I agree with a post just because I think the poster offers
> >> no redeeming value.

If Mark were to announce a killfiling of the poster, no reasonable person should
get that impression. There are quite a few people, including Oxyaena,
Bob Casanova, Erik Simpson, Hemidactylus, and yourself, who
can set anyone straight who DOES get the wrong impression.

I, on the other hand, believe it is necessary to post reminders in
every thread where Oxyaena and/or Erik replies to me or makes misleading
comments about me. Mark Isaak himself enabled me to make some points
explaining the difference about an hour ago, on another thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/WTpSj1aZGPQ/uPiLUCI_AwAJ
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos and his "moralising"
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <671c3ba1-50d8-4914...@googlegroups.com>

The following post, from the same Subject: line, provides some
essential context for that explanation, including comments on
Bob Casanova's behavior elsethread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/WTpSj1aZGPQ/WB3KM9UFAwAJ
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <26535983-7551-4b32...@googlegroups.com>

> >There have been many posts that I did not respond to because someone
> >else already had, and others because I had already responded to the
> >point I disagreed with (usually the day before in the same thread). But
> >very few of the posts I disagree with have gone unchallenged. The
> >largest exception, I think, is posts which say nothing of substance.
> >That does not apply to Oxyaena's posts.

But not in the way MARK implies: Oxyaena says many things of libelous
or entertainingly asinine substance. And the two of you -- Mark
and yourself, but there are others I could name -- have no problem with
seeing the majority Oxyaena's posts go unanswered, while you and
Mark and Oxyaena (and some of those others) campaign arduously against
my boycott.

I gave the reasons for my boycott against Oxyaena in the part Mark
snipped. In my reply which laid bare the chicanery behind that snip,
I also posted other reasons why my boycott saves me a lot of trouble
in countering misleading (and worse) comments about me by Oxyaena.

>
> I agree with your opinion about Oxyaena's posts.

I do believe you take great delight in Oxyaena's libels and in her
asinine but entertaining cracks about me. After all, you go along
with many of them, as documented here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/iTUoa_fABwAJ
Subject: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries of Evolution: Sexual Reproduction; Part A, meiosis
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 09:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c3adf309-d759-4f96...@googlegroups.com>

The linked post documents how you shackled yourself to
a particularly transparent and stupid lie by Oxyaena.

The altered Subject: line is due to Oxyaena, whose "OP" would make
a perfect candidate for a real Chez Watt, were that old custom
of talk.origins still in effect.

> Nevertheless, how
> would an unbiased third party evaluate a non-response to his posts, as
> alleged by Nyikos the peter?

What *allegation*, as opposed to mere suggestion, are you referring to me
here?

> Is the reason as you propose above,
> because everybody agrees with them? Or because nobody read them?

The reason I propose is that, in many cases, even your polemical
and propagandistic talents are inadequate to neutralize what I
write. That is why you have to resort to massive snips to keep
the facade of disagreement alive, as documented in innumerable
posts like the following:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GdVQyMaeu7c/Jxt9dOybBQAJ

Subject: Re: What does one self-identified Christian leader pray for?

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b2dac0d8-2bac-450b...@googlegroups.com>

Of course, to get the full benefit of the documentation,
one has to go backwards along the posts leading up to
it, to see how persistently you played snip-n-deceive all
along the way.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > NOTE TO READERS: the following is a reply to Ron O's 696-line monstrosity
> > that I mentioned in reply to jillery less than an hour ago.
> > Naturally I am snipping almost all of it; and Ron O should have heeded
> > Paul Gans's impassioned plea to Ron O himself to keep in mind that no one will
> > want to read a shorter (300 < its length < 500) post that he authored a number
> > of years back.

So far from heeding it, you have now posted the 1182 line monstrosity
to which I am replying. Do you realize how you are just adding fuel
to the fire of Glenn's taunt that you are insane?

Poor Hemidactylus shot his credibility to pieces for you last year by

(1) agreeing with you that Glenn is insane and then

(2) viciously attacking me, in a long series of one-on-one that culminated
in libeling me, in order to punish me for telling him that the evidence I've seen indicates that you are more likely to be insane than Glenn.
And now you are adding to that evidence.

>
> You have lied repeatedly about what was posted.

A libel, which you make no attempt to justify.

> The only thing that
> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.

Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
lies that justify "earlier" lies...

I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011, in several threads,
before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the last word
on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.

> Reposting the
> entire thing just makes you run faster. For whatever bogus insane
> reason you can't do the same stupid and dishonest thing more than your
> own stupid limit. Snipping and running from the material is stupid and
> dishonest enough

In your deluded mind, snipping and "running" [read: exposing
your post as the dishonest misdirection ploy that it is] is
proof of stupidity and dishonesty when *I* do it.

And so, you are falling in line with the "prediction" that I
made below:


<snip remainder of long misdirection ploy>

> > However, chances are good that Ron O will accuse me of "snip and run"
> > cowardice, again heedless of this avuncular advice.
>
> Nyikos knows that snipping and running are one of his favorite ways to
> deal with what he has been lying about for nearly a decade.

Liar. Substitute "I have" for "he has" and your sentence becomes
truthful.


<snip long, completely undocumented misdirection ploy
that reads like the gibbering of a barely sane [IF THAT] person>

> > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
> >>> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
> >>>
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
> >>
> >> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
> >
> > Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
> > fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?
>
> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
> keep doing it?

You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
of deceit and hypocrisy.

And you have consistently run away from ALL demonstrations of
NEW deceit by you, but your sick mind tells you that you have
not run away, because you have left it in without even commenting
on it and PROBABLY NOT EVEN READ more than a few lines of it!

And so my documentation of dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
by you just keeps piling up, never countered by you.

> >
> >
> >> Why can't Nyikos address this where it was posted?
> >
> > Because people here deserve to know that you have been living
> > a lie for over a decade, and the sooner enough people know
> > about it, the better off talk.origins will be;
> > and I didn't want the evidence buried
> > on a long-running thread with a completely different Subject line.
>
> Beats me why Nyikos has to keep lying about the same junk,

This is just one of your formulaic responses to avoid dealing
with the truth about your beloved bait and switch scam
about a "bait and switch scam by the DI" where people never
get to see any REAL bait in the 21st century.

> but the
> reason he posts it here is so that he doesn't have to deal with what he
> snipped out.

What I snipped out was a personal attack. You denounced personal
attacks in the midst of arguing about your bait and switch scsam
as "dishonest misdirection ploys" but you are such a
consummate hypocrite that you exempt yourself from this denunciation.

> > Desperate to escape the evidence that you have been deluding
> > yourself with nonsense about a "bait and switch scam" by the DI,
> > you quickly change the subject to a thoroughly dishonest
> > personal attack:
>
> You are just a lying asshole. That is the fact of any discourse with
> you. The repost is just a way to make that plain even to someone as
> lost as you are. It is why you have to run from it. You can't stand
> the holy water repost in the light of day.

Liar. I keep replying to bits and pieces of the irrelevant
misdirection-ploy personal attack against me in it, while watching
your replies degenerate. After three posts it usually becomes
obvious that you are desperate to change the subject,
and refuse to address my evidence of lies by yourself,
and so I quit responding to what has become sheer garbage.

The "documentation" of lies by myself in it never holds
water. You have never given a self-contained proof of
a SINGLE lie by me.

> >> I don't know why he even tries to lie about this junk. He has been
> >> running from the Repost since 2014.
> >
> > That's nothing. YOU have been running from the actual contents of a post
> > I did in reply to you way back in 2011; that post goes far towards justifying
> > Glenn's oft-repeated claim that you are insane:
>
> What am I supposed to be running from?

Read the linked post and find out, coward.


> Projection is stupid.

That has never deterred you from lying that I am projecting; it
hasn't deterred you here:

> Projectionist realizes what he is and does, and has to project that
> behavior onto others. Beats me what it does for the assholes that use
> it. Really, it may be some type if defense mechanism, but the asshole
> has to understand what he is in order to do it.

You aren't even trying to show that it is I who is projecting here,
and not yourself.

> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/56bdb88261fe5e4e?dmode=source
>
> This link brings me to your post that I am responding to.
>
> > Subject: Re: Misdirection ploys are dishonest
> > Lines: 177
> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:19:44 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID: <18b3cf07-3a93-472d...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > Oh, sure, you replied to it -- with a mass of slapped-on crud
> > which I demolished in my reply.

Here is that demolition:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/xgyxNEUmzpY/7rx1p_2CAycJ

Subject: Re: Misdirection ploys are dishonest

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <645fca37-0057-42d6...@n16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>

> > Then you slapped on some more
> > crud in reply to that, and it could have gone on forever like this,

It actually did go on for some time, with me eventually killing
two lying birds with one stone, the other being Rodjk #613.
Unlike you, Rodjk #613 finally realized that he had bitten off
more than he could chew, and so ceased to shackle himself to your
deceit after I posted this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xgyxNEUmzpY/Vyk0wl4AXJ4J

Subject: Re: Misdirection ploys are dishonest

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <0514dd0e-7684-4226...@q14g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>

> > because you are thoroughly obsessed with getting in the last word,
> > come hell or high water, no matter how long it takes.

All of a sudden, you are tongue-tied here, Ron O.

> >
> > <snip garbage that does not address what I wrote about the above link>
>
> I can't figure out what you are going on about.

You are imitating one of Harshman's and Simpson's favorite scams here, by
playing dumb.

> Just go to the post
> that you linked to, it seems to be this post that I am responding to,

Liar. It is only vaguely about the same thing.

> and address the issue in context.

> >> I recently put up a link to quotes by Phillip Johnson and one of the
> >> quotes has Phillip Johnson claiming that getting IDiocy into the public
> >> schools was part of the IDiot strategy.
> >
> > This was the 1999 strategy. The 2002 link above had to do
> > with a completely different strategy and never mentioned
> > the old one. And the irony is, YOU posted the link yourself.
>
> What an utter asshole. The whole point of running a bait and switch
> scam is that you put up the bait.

How unreflective you are! It is precisely the alleged bait IN 2002
that you have been living a lie about for over a decade. And worse
yet, you even went on lying that the bait was still around in 2005,
and then even in 2011, and the first two links I gave above show
how you piled one false accusation of dishonesty after another
as part of a massive misdirection ploy to avoid documenting
the existence of bait or EVEN, at that point, of a switch!


<snip for focus>

> The Johnson quote about teaching ID actually comes from 2003

Irrelevant to the actual bait that you kept alleging.

> so that
> shoots down your latest attempts to lie about the obvious.
>
> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
>
> QUOTE:
> Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the
> issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God,
> before the academic world and into the schools.
> American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
> END QUOTE:

That is NOT the same thing as a claim able to teach ID science
on a public school level as an alternative to evolution.
In your unguarded moments, you claimed that THAT was the "bait".

And nothing you posted below consists of documentation of
that alleged bait at any time in the 21st century.


I have snipped it, but will deal with it if one other person
besides Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, both of whom are being
boycotted by me, endorses some of it. I will then deal
with the endorsed part.

> >> Holy Water Repost:
> >
> > That's your blasphemous name for the "Repost of 2014" which
> > is full of personal attacks, most of them trumped-up charges
> > with no effort to show them.
> >
> > And it's a huge misdirection ploy -- the very thing you hypocritically
> > and dishonestly denounced me for back in that February 2011 thread.
> > The Subject: line was yours, not mine.
>
> The holy water repost works again.

Keep adding to the evidence that you are insane. Glenn will
be delighted.


<snip re-repost of thoroughly hypocritical misdirection ploy>

> > <snip contents of your misdirection ploy>
> >
> >
> >> Repost what Nyikos linked to:
> >> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes
> >
> > The subject line was a libel if taken literally.
> > As I pointed out my second post to this thread.
> >
> >
> > <snip and cut to the chase>

> This is what Nyikos linked to and he can't deal with it

I certainly can, because it didn't come any closer to documenting
the "bait" than anything I snipped out above. And it's old hat,
from years ago.

> >>> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
> >>> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.
> >
> > You are running away from this challenge, Okimoto. You reposted hundreds of
> > lines that do NOT constitute credible evidence of any bait,
> > so it is very likely that you didn't dare to read any of what
> > I posted below.
>
> The scottish verdict quote pamphlet qualifies

No, it does not. You think you scored a victory on that thread
because I let your last post, which was just a bunch of crud barely
related to the issue, go unanswered.

>
> Why lie about the 21st century when you are running from being wrong
> about the bait and switch that started in 2002?

IF you show how I was wrong about the "bait" part, then there will
be something worth responding to.

>
> Something published in 2000. Why would the 21st century matter?

Because, Rip van Okimoto, we've been in it for almost twenty years,
and it's about time you woke up. :-)


Concluded tomorrow.



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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here in talk.origins, "Intelligent Design" (ID) is generally
> >> >associated only with claims that some intelligent designer
> >> >either conjured up, or redesigned, living organisms.
> >> >
> >> >Conjuration, of course, includes abiogenesis, and that is where
> >> >many ID proponents draw the line, thereafter hypothesizing only that
> >> >either (1) the designer left evolution to run its course, or
> >> >(2) only intervened on certain later occasions to produce mutations
> >> >to help move evolution along towards some desired goal.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, there is no rational basis for determining which mutations
> >> the presumptive designer "intervened", or what desired goal it has.
> >
> >Of course, you are deliberately ignoring the Directed Panspermia
> >hypothesis of Crick and Orgel, which included some hypotheses
> >about the desired goal:
> >
> > F.H.C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed panspermia," *Icarus* 19
> >(1973) 341-346.
> >http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
>
>
> Of course,

Like your "Nope" (instead of a plain No) and like Ray Martinez's "Imagine that",
this should send red flags up that what you say next needs to be taken with
many huge grains of salt:

> you are deliberately injecting into this topic unsupported
> speculations from two dead scientists

They supported it and so did I in a huge series of FAQ drafts.
You are just hanging on for dear life to the illusion that
anything short of a "demonstration" is unsupported.

> which nobody mentioned in this
> topic before now, so why should I have mentioned them?

Here, you reveal that when you are pontificating
on the subject of ID, you make a mental reservation that
you are ONLY referring to supernatural designers.

But it took my calling you out on your misleading opening
gambit to worm this revelation out of you.

>
> And even if anybody had previously mentioned these speculations in
> this topic, you *still* haven't identified which mutations Crick and
> Orgel thought their DPs intervened,

You are amusing when you channel Dr. Dr. Kleinman like this.
It's really funny, the way you keep raising various bars impossibly high.

For example:

There has been a thread going on for WEEKS now with timid feelers
posted about the impenetrable mystery of what sequence of mutations could
possibly have made meiosis evolve from mitosis -- or EVEN
whether the evolution went in that direction instead of
mitosis first evolving from meiosis.

And your only "contribution" to that thread was a bunch
of personal attacks on me, gleefully joined by Oxyaena
and Bob Casanova.

You are a simpleton when it comes to science, and this
simple-mindedness causes you to issue completely clueless
challenges like the bit about identifying mutations, and
the next one:

> or to what their DP's desired
> goals were. IOW your cite

is something you didn't bother to read, otherwise you would have
read the overarching goal that they wrote about.

> is just another bald reference you expect
> others to guess what you think is relevant about it.

Or maybe you DID read it and were lying about it just now.

>
> >In _Life Itself_, Crick also gave some ideas as to the "senders"
> >having altered the design of some organisms.
>
>
> Apparently you have conveniently forgotten how to cite or quote. Is
> anybody surprised.

Is anyone surprised that you are behaving like a juvenile jerk here?
I was dealing with lots of perpetrators of injustice besides yourself,
and I didn't want to take even a minute to search my files for this:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137

I have posted this dozens of times since I returned to talk.origins
in 2010, but you are addicted to posting cheap (worthless, really)
shots like the above.

Is anyone surprised?

>
> >With "determining" you are setting an impossibly high bar,
> >which most scientists disdain. We cannot *determine*, for
> >example, as to whether an anaerobic proto-eukaryote engulfed aerobic
> >bacteria which evolved into mitochondria, or whether an aerobic bacterium
> >with extensive cytoplasm engulfed a methanogen to which it contributed
> >enough genes to form the nucleus of the resulting eukaryote.
> >
> >Since you have a paranoid aversion to discussing science with me,
> >you will just have to let the preceding paragraph go unchallenged, won't you?
> >
> >Maybe Harshman will bail you out, eh?

He didn't, even though I linked this post on that "Mysteries of Evolution..."
thread. He just went along with the conventional wisdom that the first
alternative is correct, without giving any telling evidence.

Documentation on request.

>
> Maybe Harshman will grow as tired of your "testiness"

Read: my calling attention his relentless flamebait of all varieties
without losing my cool, as on the "Mysteries of Evolution..."
thread about which I talked above.

> as he alleges
> about me, and stop enabling you.

Is this a veiled reference to him boycotting your posts?
IOW, is "enablement" referring to direct replies to you in which
he debates/discusses something you wrote?

> But after so many years, I have no
> expectation of that happening before the Heat Death of the Universe.

In marked contrast, Harshman was resistant to Hemidactylus's criticism a number
of years back about how he is "enabling" me to keep posting to
talk.origins by responding to me on scientific issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style on

He just keeps responding to me about science. He can't help himself.
That's the way he is.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style off


Continued in my next reply, tomorrow, to this post, right where
I left off here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
keeps on going.

Is anyone surprised?

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:53:27 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 6/18/19 10:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [oxymoron about boycott clipped]
>>
>> Another time-saving consideration not mentioned in this linked post:
>> in many threads, most of Oxyaena's posts go unanswered . . .
>
>Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>too minor to bother with.

Or in some cases, that everyone knows that responding to a
particular moron is an exercise in futility. Or that the
moron has been killfiled for reasonable cause.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...

OK, time to vote:

Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
count should suffice.

(BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)

[Oxyaena]

On 6/19/2019 3:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
> keeps on going.

That's just laughable, no one's campaigning to get rid of your stupid
boycott. Stop being so goddamn insufferable.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>
> OK, time to vote:
>
> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
> count should suffice.
>
> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>

Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?

[erik simpson]

And I didn't get any more mentions than you did! Mortification! Peter's been
chasing his tail with ever-increasing vigor lately. Hard to guess what will
come of it.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Generally, when a post goes unanswered, it means that everyone who has
>> >> read it agrees with it. Or at least, that any disagreement they have is
>> >> too minor to bother with.
>> >
>> >"Generally" doesn't apply here. "Everyone" who has read my post carefully
>> >[that might NOT include you, Mark] knows that my boycott works like a killfile:
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>
>As is usual with trolls, the use of "Nope" rather than simply "No"
>should send up red flags whenever you indulge in it.

When did you decide "nope" carries so much emotional baggage? And who
made you grammar cop? And who do you think you're fooling, troll?

>>Your boycott is nothing like a killfile, in theory or in practice.
>
>Of course, you dare not explain why you allege that it is nothing
>like a killfile, since there is no explanation that does not
>apply to Oxaena's past use of killfiles, IN SPADES.

Of course, I have explained multiple times, and all quite recently,
how your boycott is nothing like a killfile. You even replied to
those posts, so I know you know I did.

>And so, you are justifying what I wrote about you about half an
>hour after you posted this allegation:

Only if I accept your personal self-serving definition of
"justifying".

> you and Mark and Oxyaena campaign arduously against my boycott.
>
>
>> Instead, it is just another excuse for you to ejaculate
>> your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.
>
>If you think this is a justification of your allegation, you
>will naturally raise suspicions by Glenn that you are almost
>as insane as he believes Ron Okimoto to be.

Glenn isn't involved here, which makes your comment above just more of
your irrelevant spew.

>CAUTION: If you ignore the "If" clause above, you will just be
>adding fuel to those suspicions.

Nope. With or without your "if", your comment is just more of your
irrelevant spew.

>As for your use of the word "spew" about myself, it has been established
>beyond a reasonable doubt that it
>
> almost invariably refers to text that justifiably puts you or
> your friends in a bad light.
>
>-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/QWR6N--M754/7eYujW1pAQAJ
>Subject: Jillery's use of "spew" unmasked WAS: Re: Chez Watt was Re: Mysteries
> of Evolution: ...
>Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <c12979f1-2413-4a2f...@googlegroups.com>

Once again, only if I accept your personal self-serving definitions of
"unmasked" and "justifiably" and "established beyond a reasonable
doubt".

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>keeps on going.
>
>Is anyone surprised?

Of course, there is no such campaign, except perhaps in your
delusional mind. But since you are bothered by my noting your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter, you could
avoid that problem by stop posting same, which is totally different
from stopping your boycott. Not sure how even you *still* can't
understand this.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

What is with you, that you constantly exercise your compulsion to post
asinine irrelevancies? Are you incapable of sticking to your own
expressed issues, nevermind anything anybody else posted, nevermind
the actual topic under discussion? Do you have to act like a mentally
challenged but spoiled brat so often?

[erik simpson]

Peter has some sort of psychic hardon for Glenn. I recall a cringeworthy
overture Peter made to him some time back, seemingly trying to recruit him as
an "ally". Glenn, as I recall, fairly politely told him to go away.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:44:19 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>
wrote:

>On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>
>> OK, time to vote:
>>
>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>> count should suffice.
>>
>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>>
>
>Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?

Nope. Hemi is mentioned once, and me not at all, so obviously it must
be me.

[jillery]

If only that worked when I told him that.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/19/19 12:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
> keeps on going.

On the contrary. The campaign is to get you to *start* a proper boycott
of Oxyaena. All the members of the Illuminati and the Trilateral
Commission have signed on.

[erik simpson]

I think you first have to get him to think that you're on his 'side'. I don't
have any idea of how he got that notion wrt Glenn, but his thinking is way
outside my ken.

[Mark Isaak]

I think it is safe to say that *every* post gets read (if written in
English ASCII).

> If there is no way to tell the difference, then trolls could claim as
> you propose, that non-response to their posts implies agreement to
> them.

The vast majority, if not all, troll posts get responded to initially;
only after the trolling becomes obvious and tiresome does everybody give
up on them. Some exceptions exist for posts which are wildly off topic,
but I don't think we need concern ourselves with those.

> More to the case under discussion, Nyikos the peter alludes that lack
> of response to Oxyaena's posts implies at least indifference to
> Oxyaena's comments, contrary to your proposal.

Indifference is relative. If you posted that snakes sometimes shed
their skin, I would be almost completely indifferent, mostly *because* I
agree with you. If you posted that snakes never shed their skin, I
would be different.

[RonO]

On 6/19/2019 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> NOTE TO READERS: the following is a reply to Ron O's 696-line monstrosity
>>> that I mentioned in reply to jillery less than an hour ago.
>>> Naturally I am snipping almost all of it; and Ron O should have heeded
>>> Paul Gans's impassioned plea to Ron O himself to keep in mind that no one will
>>> want to read a shorter (300 < its length < 500) post that he authored a number
>>> of years back.
>
> So far from heeding it, you have now posted the 1182 line monstrosity
> to which I am replying. Do you realize how you are just adding fuel
> to the fire of Glenn's taunt that you are insane?

What is sad is that Nyikos knows why I post it, and just has to lie
about it. I wouldn't have to post the same material every few months if
Nyikos would not keep coming back with the same assoholic lies. That is
just a fact.

>
> Poor Hemidactylus shot his credibility to pieces for you last year by
>
> (1) agreeing with you that Glenn is insane and then
>
> (2) viciously attacking me, in a long series of one-on-one that culminated
> in libeling me, in order to punish me for telling him that the evidence I've seen indicates that you are more likely to be insane than Glenn.
> And now you are adding to that evidence.

What gets me is how Nyikos uses these posts to bad mouth other posters
when he is lying and running from his own bogus and assoholic behavior.

Nyikos knows that he at one time thought that Hemi supported his
assoholism. For whatever reason Nyikos kept pestering Hemi with his
claims that his knockdowns were still coming. This went on for years,
and Nyikos' original claim was that the knockdowns would appear in a
couple of weeks. The saddest thing is that the knockdowns were just
lies about the past and assoholic Nyikosian stupidity. Nyikos will not
even tell me what the last Knockdown was and give me a link to it even
though he finally told Hemi that he had delivered it. If I were Hemi it
would have been unnerving to have such a assoholic keep coming back to
me with claims that he was going to knockdown someone else on TO. It is
even worse when the knockdowns never really were knockdowns. Nyikos can
tell every one about the quote that he took out of context for his first
knockdown, and the google story that could never have happened for his
second knockdown. He can then state what his third knockdown was
supposed to be and provide a link to it.

>
>
>>
>> You have lied repeatedly about what was posted.
>
> A libel, which you make no attempt to justify.

The truth is just the truth. You could demonstrate otherwise, but you
never do. Snipping and running isn't justifying anything. Lying about
the same junk isn't justifying anything, and that is all you do.

>
>
>> The only thing that
>> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.
>
> Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
> lies that justify "earlier" lies...

Why lie about something this stupid. You know why you had to run from
the posts that you claimed that you would deal with the next day, and
why those posts have never been dealt with.

>
> I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011, in several threads,
> before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the last word
> on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
> departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
> that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.

You were first wrong about the Discovery Institute's involvement in
Ohio. Once you found out that you were wrong you ran and started lying
about the bait and switch. It is just what you do. The lies had to
multiply because you kept being wrong about more and more junk. That is
why the repost works. You have a limit for lying for some insane reason
known only to you, you can only lie about something a certain number of
times in a thread before you have to quit. Doesn't this mean that you
understand that you are lying? Just because you only do the same bogus
and dishonet thing twice doesn't mean that it isn't bogus and dishonest.

>
>
>> Reposting the
>> entire thing just makes you run faster. For whatever bogus insane
>> reason you can't do the same stupid and dishonest thing more than your
>> own stupid limit. Snipping and running from the material is stupid and
>> dishonest enough
>
> In your deluded mind, snipping and "running" [read: exposing
> your post as the dishonest misdirection ploy that it is] is
> proof of stupidity and dishonesty when *I* do it.

It has worked for half a decade so why start lying about it now?

>
> And so, you are falling in line with the "prediction" that I
> made below:
>
>
> <snip remainder of long misdirection ploy>

REPOST what Nyikos sniped out and claimed that it was a misdirection
ploy. Yes projection is a way of life for Nyikos:
You have lied repeatedly about what was posted. The only thing that
makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying. Reposting the

entire thing just makes you run faster. For whatever bogus insane
reason you can't do the same stupid and dishonest thing more than your
own stupid limit. Snipping and running from the material is stupid and

dishonest enough to qualify or you wouldn't quit and run away after just
a couple of weeks. Before I came up with this repost it would take
months to get you to run.

I do not expect the repost to keep you away forever, just look what you
have done. I only expect the repost to shorten your stupidity and
assoholic behavior to some reasonable length of time.

Nyikos knows what it was like before the repost came to be. He knows
because he is the one that runs after just a couple weeks of lying about
the same stupid things. Before the repost the lies and assoholic
behavior would go on for months. All he has to do is go back to the
posts that he is running from that he claimed that he would address
tomorrow, and look to see how long it took him to run and stop his
assoholic behavior. What has happened after the repost started?
END REPOSTED material:

Where is the misdirection ploy?

>
>>> However, chances are good that Ron O will accuse me of "snip and run"
>>> cowardice, again heedless of this avuncular advice.
>>
>> Nyikos knows that snipping and running are one of his favorite ways to
>> deal with what he has been lying about for nearly a decade.
>
> Liar. Substitute "I have" for "he has" and your sentence becomes
> truthful.

Why would you lie about snipping and running when you did it above and
you routinely do it in response to the holy water repost?

>
>
> <snip long, completely undocumented misdirection ploy
> that reads like the gibbering of a barely sane [IF THAT] person>

REPOST what Nyikos snipped out and is lying about:

Nyikos knows that snipping and running are one of his favorite ways to

deal with what he has been lying about for nearly a decade. What is sad
is he should understand that because of his Dirty Debating debacle. He
consistently snipped and ran from what he had to lie about. As is also
normal he had to project his stupid dirty debating behavior onto me, and
accused me of falsely accusing him of snipping and running. I could not
figure out what he was talking about because he would link to a post
where he was obviously snipping and running in multiple instances. It
turned out that Nyikos had manipulated what I had written to make it
look like I had falsely accused him of snipping and running. I didn't
realize that because I did not check the manipulation because I already
knew what I had written. Once I realized what Nyikos was going on about
all I had to do was repost what I had actually written. It turned out
that I had specifically stated that Nyikos had not snipped and run as he
usually did, and I then pointed out what he had actually done. Nyikos
ran from his stupidity and started the Scottish verdict thread the next
day as his usual misdirection ploy. In the Dirty debating thread,
Nyikos also lied to Bill about never running misdirection ploys, and
what did he resort to when his dirty debating tactics blew up in his face?

This is just the stupid things that I have had to deal with. Nyikos
can't deny any of it because he knows it is all true. The dirty
debating post that he ran from to start the Scottish Verdict thread is
still unanswered by Nyikos. Why? Because Nyikos knows what he did and
has been running from it for years.
END REPOSTED material:

Why is it that the material he snipped out directly addresses his lie
above about snipping and running? I couldn't make this junk up. Who
would believe me, but Nyikos actually does it.

>
>
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
>>>>> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>>>>
>>>> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
>>>
>>> Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
>>> fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?
>>
>> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
>> keep doing it?
>
> You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
> has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
> last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
> earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
> of deceit and hypocrisy.

You are the one that keeps coming back to me to lie about the past. I
have repeatedly told you that I do not want to discuss anything with
you. The holy water repost makes your stupid bouts of assoholic
behavior as short as they probably can be. Look how you are doing
anything that you can to avoid addressing the holy water repost.

>
> And you have consistently run away from ALL demonstrations of
> NEW deceit by you, but your sick mind tells you that you have
> not run away, because you have left it in without even commenting
> on it and PROBABLY NOT EVEN READ more than a few lines of it!

New deceit? You just find more junk to lie about because that is what
an assoholic like you does. Why would I want to discuss anything with a
lying asshole like you?

>
> And so my documentation of dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
> by you just keeps piling up, never countered by you.

Projection is really stupid. Who runs from the holy water repost? Who
had to run from the posts that they claimed that they would address
tomorrow? It may be some type of defense mechanism, but you have to
understand what a lying asshole you are in order to project your own
bogus behavior onto someone else.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why can't Nyikos address this where it was posted?
>>>
>>> Because people here deserve to know that you have been living
>>> a lie for over a decade, and the sooner enough people know
>>> about it, the better off talk.origins will be;
>>> and I didn't want the evidence buried
>>> on a long-running thread with a completely different Subject line.
>>
>> Beats me why Nyikos has to keep lying about the same junk,
>
> This is just one of your formulaic responses to avoid dealing
> with the truth about your beloved bait and switch scam
> about a "bait and switch scam by the DI" where people never
> get to see any REAL bait in the 21st century.

Beats me why Nyikos has to lie about this junk. What do the ID perps do
whenever any IDiot wants to teach the science of ID in the public
schools? They did not stop that behavior in 2002, they started running
the bait and switch in 2002 and they have continued to do it since then.
They have not stopped doing it. The IDiot rubes never get the ID
science to teach all they ever get is the obfuscation switch scam that
does not mention that ID ever existed. The ID perps have never stopped
doing this after they started doing it in 2002. Nyikos can't point to a
single group of IDiots that ever got the ID science to teach in the
public schools, and how many have wanted to do it? The Utah IDiots were
the latest victims and they wanted to teach the ID junk, but the ID
perps ran the bait and switch on them as they were putting up their
"best" of IDiot junk in Nov 2017 and then the ID perps had the nerve to
complain that the Utah IDiots had dropped the issue and did not bend
over and take the switch scam from the same guys that had lied to them
about the science of ID, around a year later. Does Nyikos doubt that
the bait and switch will go down on the next group of IDiots that want
to teach the science of ID in the public schools?

>
>
>> but the
>> reason he posts it here is so that he doesn't have to deal with what he
>> snipped out.
>
> What I snipped out was a personal attack. You denounced personal
> attacks in the midst of arguing about your bait and switch scsam
> as "dishonest misdirection ploys" but you are such a
> consummate hypocrite that you exempt yourself from this denunciation.

REPOST the truth that Nyikos snipped out:
Beats me why Nyikos has to keep lying about the same junk, but the

reason he posts it here is so that he doesn't have to deal with what he

snipped out. He obviously did not repost the post. Instead of dealing
with it, he started this thread. Any other reasons are just lies. It
is simmply what Nyikos does. Why didn't he repost the entire repost to
be the asshole that everyone knows that he is?
END REPOST of the truth that Nyikos can't deal with:

>
>
>>> Desperate to escape the evidence that you have been deluding
>>> yourself with nonsense about a "bait and switch scam" by the DI,
>>> you quickly change the subject to a thoroughly dishonest
>>> personal attack:
>>
>> You are just a lying asshole. That is the fact of any discourse with
>> you. The repost is just a way to make that plain even to someone as
>> lost as you are. It is why you have to run from it. You can't stand
>> the holy water repost in the light of day.
>
> Liar. I keep replying to bits and pieces of the irrelevant
> misdirection-ploy personal attack against me in it, while watching
> your replies degenerate. After three posts it usually becomes
> obvious that you are desperate to change the subject,
> and refuse to address my evidence of lies by yourself,
> and so I quit responding to what has become sheer garbage.

You lie about bits and pieces, but that is the only way that you can
keep lying about the repost. You have to stop lying about those bits
and pieces when you reach your limit for lying and move on to other bits
and pieces. When I repost the entire repost snipping and running from
the bits and pieces that you have already reached your limit for lying
about isn't an option because that would demonstrate that you are really
that type of assoholic liar, so you have to run and come back a few
months later when you think that you can start lying about the junk again.

This is how it has been for half a decade. It is why it only takes a
couple weeks to get you to run when before it used to take months.

>
> The "documentation" of lies by myself in it never holds
> water. You have never given a self-contained proof of
> a SINGLE lie by me.

That must be why you consistently run from the repost and those posts
that you were going to address tomorrow still have not been addressed.

Why keep lying about lying?

>
>
>>>> I don't know why he even tries to lie about this junk. He has been
>>>> running from the Repost since 2014.
>>>
>>> That's nothing. YOU have been running from the actual contents of a post
>>> I did in reply to you way back in 2011; that post goes far towards justifying
>>> Glenn's oft-repeated claim that you are insane:
>>
>> What am I supposed to be running from?
>
> Read the linked post and find out, coward.
>
>
>> Projection is stupid.
>
> That has never deterred you from lying that I am projecting; it
> hasn't deterred you here:
>
>> Projectionist realizes what he is and does, and has to project that
>> behavior onto others. Beats me what it does for the assholes that use
>> it. Really, it may be some type if defense mechanism, but the asshole
>> has to understand what he is in order to do it.
>
> You aren't even trying to show that it is I who is projecting here,
> and not yourself.

Look in the mirror and read what you have written.

Why would I have to comment on every stupid lie you tell? Projection is
stupid. Who keeps coming back to lie about the same stupid junk? What
don't you get about your own stupid behavior? Why do you have to keep
running from your past lies, but you have to keep coming back again and
again? Do I post to you? In your case projection is likely a sign of
insanity. Really, given what you are currently doing, how stupid is it
to claim that I am the one that is obsessed with getting the last word?
Who keeps coming back to lie about the same junk year after year? The
holy water repost has been working for half a decade.

>
>
>>>
>>> <snip garbage that does not address what I wrote about the above link>
>>
>> I can't figure out what you are going on about.
>
> You are imitating one of Harshman's and Simpson's favorite scams here, by
> playing dumb.

Just go to the post and respond in context. The post will show up on
eternal september and Google and you can make your claims about that
post. I don't know what you are talking about. My guess is that you
don't either or you would have at least quoted what you are talking about.

>
>
>> Just go to the post
>> that you linked to, it seems to be this post that I am responding to,
>
> Liar. It is only vaguely about the same thing.

Just respond to the post in context and then it should be apparent what
you are talking about, or at least quote the part that you are talking
about. Really, you likely can't figure out what you are talking about
from what you have written. Did you really count down to line 177? Why
not just repost the post and address it in context?

>
>> and address the issue in context.
>
>>>> I recently put up a link to quotes by Phillip Johnson and one of the
>>>> quotes has Phillip Johnson claiming that getting IDiocy into the public
>>>> schools was part of the IDiot strategy.
>>>
>>> This was the 1999 strategy. The 2002 link above had to do
>>> with a completely different strategy and never mentioned
>>> the old one. And the irony is, YOU posted the link yourself.
>>
>> What an utter asshole. The whole point of running a bait and switch
>> scam is that you put up the bait.
>
> How unreflective you are! It is precisely the alleged bait IN 2002
> that you have been living a lie about for over a decade. And worse
> yet, you even went on lying that the bait was still around in 2005,
> and then even in 2011, and the first two links I gave above show
> how you piled one false accusation of dishonesty after another
> as part of a massive misdirection ploy to avoid documenting
> the existence of bait or EVEN, at that point, of a switch!

Why keep lying? You are the one that has been lying about the issue in
any way that you can. Just go back to the orignal post that you are
running from and demonstrate that to yourself. You were just plain
wrong about the Dicovery Institute's involvement in the Ohio fiasco.
You only started lying about the bait and switch that went down in Ohio
because you were wrong. All the junk that you have been wrong about and
lied about for the last decade is because you are just an assoholic liar
that can't cope with reality.

>
>
> <snip for focus>

Repost what Nyikos snipped out and ran from:

What an utter asshole. The whole point of running a bait and switch

scam is that you put up the bait. The ID perps obviously claimed to be
able to teach the ID science for years before Ohio in 2002. The switch
scam that the Ohio IDiot rubes got instead of the teach ID scam does not
mention that ID ever existed. That is called the bait and switch. The
More lawyer called it a strategy, but the strategy is called the bait
and switch when you sell the rubes one thing, and then only give them
something else. You have known this for nearly a decade, and you can
still lie about it.
END reposted material:

It is obvious why Nyikos snipped and ran because he can't deal with what
the ID perps did. It is why the holy water repost works.

>
>
>> The Johnson quote about teaching ID actually comes from 2003
>
> Irrelevant to the actual bait that you kept alleging.
>
>> so that
>> shoots down your latest attempts to lie about the obvious.
>>
>> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the
>> issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God,
>> before the academic world and into the schools.
>> American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
>> END QUOTE:
>
> That is NOT the same thing as a claim able to teach ID science
> on a public school level as an alternative to evolution.
> In your unguarded moments, you claimed that THAT was the "bait".

Lie to yourself all that you want, but it doesn't matter does it? Who
has running in their future over and over?

>
> And nothing you posted below consists of documentation of
> that alleged bait at any time in the 21st century.

Why not ask Glenn about the propaganda pamphlet that he keeps putting
up. They last updated it in 2015 and it still has the education policy
with the paragraph claiming that ID is a scientific theory that can be
taught in the public schools. You remember when the ID perps took that
paragraph out of the education policy up on their web page it was
already 6 years ago. It is part of the holy water repost.

How can anyone keep lying to themselves about this issue. Not only
that, but all I need to do is demonstrate that the ID perps sold the
rubes the teach ID scam before they started running the bait and switch
in 2002. Why would I have to demonstrate that they did it after even
though they never stopped selling the teach ID scam. Really, why do you
think that the ID perps keep updating that propaganda pamphlet on why
the rubes can still teach ID in the public schools?

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

Was this written by ID perps that had given up on teaching ID in the
public schools? Nyikos knows what the scottish verdict qoute means. He
knows what the conclusions to the IDiot guide book means, and all he can
do is snip and run

Repost material that made Nyikos snip and run:
Phillip Johnson did not give up on the Teach ID scam until after Dover.
Nyikos knows that Phillip Johnson was one of the most vocal supporters
for teaching ID in Dover among the ID perps. He was the one that got on
the Nova PBS video of the Dover IDiot fiasco defending the teach ID scam.

What is sad is that the other ID perps likely ran the bait and switch on
Johnson in 2002. Johnson was likely not among the group that decided to
run the bait and switch. Wells lists Meyer, Minnich and DeWolf as going
to Ohio. Other accounts claim that the Discovery Institute President
and half a dozen staffers also came to support Wells and Meyer. Johnson
quit his blog at ARN one month after the bait and switch went down on
Ohio, and claimed that others would continue the IDiot efforts. My
guess is that he decided to quit when he got Wells' report on the Ohio
bait and switch. He found out that the teach ID scam was essentially dead.

Johnson did come back to support the teach ID scam during the Dover
fiasco. My guess is that he wanted to hold the other ID perp's feet to
the fire, but half of them ran away before testifying anyway.

>
>
>> The sad thing is that when Nyikos was still posting to TO the Teach ID
>> scam was the major emphasis at the Discovery Institute.
>
> There was no such scam documented by you after 2002.

What a lying asshole. I only had to demonstrate that the ID perps were
running the teach ID scam before they started running the bait and
switch. Why would I need the evidence after they started running the
bait and switch.

Not only that, but the ID perps published their Dover propaganda
pamphlet in 2007. Glenn first posted the edition that was modified in
2009. It had the old ID perp education policy on teaching ID where they
still had the paragraph claiming to be able to teach the scientific
theory of ID in the public schools. This paragraph was not deleted from
their web page edition until 2013 (the thread is part of the repost). It
is obvious that the ID perps were still running the teach ID scam
because in that pamphlet they state such outright. You know that
because you snipped and ran from the Scottish verdict quote 3 times. 3
times was over your self imposed limit for doing something obviously
stupid and dishonest more than twice in one thread so you came back and
put the quote back in and from then on you have lied about what that
quote means. It is a stupid thing to do because the whole point of that
propaganda pamphlet is the ID perps claiming that the Dover decision was
wrong and that ID can still be legally taught out side of Dover.

Nyikos ignores this and lies about it, but anyone can read the current
the propaganda pamphlet (only the pictures have changed, most of the
text is still the same and they added a reference in the 2015 edition.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Beyond the question of what a school board should
mandate as part of its science curriculum, there is the
question of whether a teacher has a constitutional right
to teach more than the school board requires with regard
to the theory of intelligent design. In December, 2005, a
federal trial judge in Pennsylvania made a controversial
ruling that it would be unconstitutional to teach the
theory of intelligent design in public school science class.
However, the decision in that case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School Board (M.D. Penn. 2005), was never appealed to
an appellate court. Beyond the actual parties to a lawsuit,
trial opinions such as Kitzmiller do not have the force of
law. Moreover, the decision in the Kitzmiller ruling was
based upon evidence and characterizations of intelligent
design that have been sharply contested by leading
proponents of intelligent design. Accordingly, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard remains
the federal courts’ authoritative pronouncement on the
teaching of scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:

The ID perps are claiming that ID can still be legally taught in the
public schools outside of Dover. The whole point of the pamphlet is
that the judge's decision was wrong, and what was that decision?

This kind of pro teach ID junk is all through the pamphlet. It is
obvious that the iD perps were still running the teach ID scam even
after their loss in Dover.

Beats me why Nyikos wants to lie about this junk when even the ID perps
are still willing to put this junk up on their web page and keep
updating it.

>
>
>> They only
>> started the bait and switch with Ohio back in 2002.
>
> They announced the new strategy then, as shown by your own link.
> The "bait" is a figment of your sick imagination.

Why lie about this when you still haven't addressed those posts that you
told Glenn that you would deal with tomorrow half a decade ago? The
evidence that you are lying right now was in those posts and you had to
run from.

Since you snipped and ran from that same evidence that was posted below
I will put it in again to demonstrate what a lying asshole you are.

If you run or snip out this material again doesn't that mean that you
are the lying asshole that you know that you are?

REPOSTED material:
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:
END REPOSTED material:

Nyikos knows that this is how the ID perps were running the teach ID
scam before they started running the bait and switch. He understands
what this means and that is why he has been running from this quoted
material for years.

Anyone interested can read the post that Nyikos is snipping and running
from again. They will find at the bottom of the post the More lawyer,
that defended the Dover IDiots, calling the Discovery Institute rep on
his lie about the Discovery Institute never advocating teaching ID. The
More lawyer describes the bait and switch, but calls it a strategy and
mentions Ohio as an example.

This is the evidence that Nyikos has been running from and lying about
for years. Those posts were not addressed tomorrow and Nyikos snipped
and ran from the same evidence here at this time. For whatever reason
Nyikos has the toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his
head no one can see him. He thinks that he can remove the material from
a post and lie about it because it is no longer in the post. I don't
know how this works in his warped mind, but he obviously does it over
and over again.

>
> The new strategy is slowly bearing fruit as the deficiencies
> in the THEORY known as neo-Darwinism become more and more
> evident even to evolutionary theorists. Some valiant attempts
> were made to update it with the EES [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis]
> but even that is mainly a theory of microevolution and never
> touches what George Gaylord Simpson called mega-evolution.

What is sad is that the "new strategy" is just the lame creationist
obfuscation scam. It is just the denial junk that creationist have used
to fool the rubes for decades. Texas and Louisiana demonstrated that
the rubes don't like the switch scam because it doesn't mention
creationism nor ID. Why would even a stupid IDiot rube want to
obfuscate and issue if they could not say why? Back in 2013 when the ID
perps finally removed the paragraph claiming that they had a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy,
that they have up on their web site, both Louisiana and Texas tried to
implement the switch scam by giving teachers textbook supplements on
what they wanted taught. My guess is that the ID perps finally removed
that paragraph because of what Texas and Lousiana tried to do with the
switch scam. That paragraph on teaching the scientific theory of ID is
still in the education policy included the propaganda pamphlet that the
ID perps keep updating. The ID perps had to run the bait and switch
again on the IDiot rubes because they had ID as a topic in the
supplements (both states). The Lousiana rubes even openly talked about
creationism and IDiocy. That tells you what the rubes make of the new
strategy. No one has tried to implement the switch scam since at the
state level. They rely on ignorant, incompetent and/or dishonest local
teachers to teach the IDiot junk, and the ID perps can't provide them
with the materials to do it or the game would be up.

>
>
>
>> The first quoted
>> material was published in 1999. As the More lawyer points out the
>> Discovery Institute ran the teach ID scam on the Dover rubes and all the
>> other IDiot rubes that believed that they could teach ID in the public
>> schools.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
END Repost of material that made Nyikos snip and run:

>
>
> I have snipped it, but will deal with it if one other person
> besides Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, both of whom are being
> boycotted by me, endorses some of it. I will then deal
> with the endorsed part.

The above reposted material was snipped out because it contains the same
material that Nyikos has been running from for years. The quote from
the IDiot guidebook is the same quote that is in the post that Nyikos
lied to Glenn that he would address tomorrow, but has gone unanswered to
this day. The reason is that Nyikos can't deny how the ID perps were
selling the teach ID scam before they started running the bait and
switch. It isn't second hand. The ID perps themselves wrote it.

>
>>>> Holy Water Repost:
>>>
>>> That's your blasphemous name for the "Repost of 2014" which
>>> is full of personal attacks, most of them trumped-up charges
>>> with no effort to show them.
>>>
>>> And it's a huge misdirection ploy -- the very thing you hypocritically
>>> and dishonestly denounced me for back in that February 2011 thread.
>>> The Subject: line was yours, not mine.
>>
>> The holy water repost works again.
>
> Keep adding to the evidence that you are insane. Glenn will
> be delighted.

How many times will Nyikos snip and run from the repost this time?

>
>
> <snip re-repost of thoroughly hypocritical misdirection ploy>

Repost Repost so Nyikos can run again:
Holy Water Repost:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.
END Holy water Repost:
END repost of Holy water repost:

>
>
>>> <snip contents of your misdirection ploy>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Repost what Nyikos linked to:
>>>> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes
>>>
>>> The subject line was a libel if taken literally.
>>> As I pointed out my second post to this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip and cut to the chase>
>
>> This is what Nyikos linked to and he can't deal with it
>
> I certainly can, because it didn't come any closer to documenting
> the "bait" than anything I snipped out above. And it's old hat,
> from years ago.

Why lie you have just removed the material again without marking your snips.

Repost what was snipped out:
This is what Nyikos linked to and he can't deal with it so he had to
snip it out again. The reason that he started a new thread was so that
he could run from this material.

Repost snippped out material:

Repost what Nyikos linked to:
Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 with quotes

Other recipients: talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
thing to do. I just posted links without any quoted material. This
depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
these event fade into history. So I decided to put some quotes in with
the links so that I could use them even after they break.

On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> in 1999. All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> it was founded.
>

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
bait and switch on Ohio and every other legislator or school board that
has needed the ID science since.

>
> ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
> the day before the Bait and Switch went down, where he obviously
> believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
> Ohio.
>

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.

Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.

Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.

© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:

>
> I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
> was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> taught in the public schools.
>

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php


QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:

>
>
> The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
> and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
> Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.
>

http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html

Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
"compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all:
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to speak
for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew in its
president and a half-dozen staff members. If you listened closely, you
never heard a "theory" of intelligent design. It added up to criticism
of evolutionary theory leading to an "inference," as Wells put it. It's
an assertion. It's faith.

That much was clarified later by John Calvert, the Kansas City lawyer
who co-founded the Intelligent Design Network and helped lead efforts to
remove evolution from standardized tests in his state. He said his
target was not simply evolution but the definition of science. He sees
"naturalistic" science as agnostic and atheistic, and intelligent design
as "theistic."

Meyer and Wells insisted there is scientific controversy on the subject,
though evidence suggests it is largely because they say there is. And
because there is, Meyer said, he suggested a "compromise." Don't mandate
"mastery of the scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design,"
but tell students about it. "We think that's fun and exciting, not
something people need to feel threatened about."
END QUOTE:

Calvert's ID Network bit the dust in 2009. It must have been difficult
to sell the switch scam with Intelligent Design in the name of your
creationist scam organization. Now he is associated with a group called
COPE that is selling the creationist switch scam.

>
>
> The Wired article that Nyikos has been given before is also still
> available.
>

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

QUOTE:
Two scientists, biologist Ken Miller from Brown University and physicist
Lawrence Krauss from Case Western Reserve University two hours north in
Cleveland, defended evolution. On the other side of the dais were two
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main
sponsor and promoter of intelligent design: Stephen Meyer, a professor
at Palm Beach Atlantic University's School of Ministry and director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Jonathan
Wells, a biologist, Discovery fellow, and author of Icons of Evolution,
a 2000 book castigating textbook treatments of evolution
END QUOTE:

I will note that after the Ohio bait and switch Meyer quit his religious
college and went to work full time for the ID scam unit.

The article was written in 2004 when Dover was heating up and this
statement:

QUOTE:
Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of
the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the
leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school
board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology
teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:

You can note from the above quote from the IDiot's booklet on teaching
ID that "teach the controversy" had once included intelligent design,
but by this time the bait and switch had gone down many times in the two
years since Dover and ID was being phased out and "critical analysis"
was becoming the buzz phrase of the ID scam.

There are other historical aspects noted in this article for those
interested.

>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
> about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>

http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

I have already quoted out of this report, but I've saved a copy of it
onto my computer.

Anyone that doesn't believe that the bait and switch was run on the Ohio
rubes just has to read this report, and understand how the ID perps had
been selling the ID claptrap until they decided not to give the rubes
the ID science. Wells was even making his bogus claims to the board
(quoted previously) when he knew that the bait and switch was going down.

Santorum was a rube that believed the ID perps. He allowed Phillip
Johnson to draft his "amendment" to the No child left behind bill.
Santorums take above is exactly how most IDiot rubes believed ID was
being sold. My experience at ARN made that clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
- show quoted text -
QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?

MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.

Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present

MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.

Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.

Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:

The Thomas More Lawyer called the bait and switch a strategy, but it is
really just a scam that has been run on creationist rubes. The ID perps
sold the rubes that they had the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
ran the bait and switch. The bait and switch was not run on the science
side, the ID perps ran the scam on their own creationist support base.
The Lawyer was not happy about it.
END Repost:
END Repost of the post Nyikos linked to:
End reposted repost:

Why would Nyikos have to delete the post that he linked to? Why can't
he deal with reality?

>
>
>>>>> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
>>>>> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.
>>>
>>> You are running away from this challenge, Okimoto. You reposted hundreds of
>>> lines that do NOT constitute credible evidence of any bait,
>>> so it is very likely that you didn't dare to read any of what
>>> I posted below.
>>
>> The scottish verdict quote pamphlet qualifies
>
> No, it does not. You think you scored a victory on that thread
> because I let your last post, which was just a bunch of crud barely
> related to the issue, go unanswered.

Why not? Why did you snip and run from the material quoted from it
above? Why lie about something so stupid. You know why you snipped and
ran from the scottish verdict quote three times. This exceeded your
limit for lying so you came back and put the quote back in and have lied
about it since.

>
>
>>
>> Why lie about the 21st century when you are running from being wrong
>> about the bait and switch that started in 2002?
>
> IF you show how I was wrong about the "bait" part, then there will
> be something worth responding to.

You keep snipping and running from the guide book. You know how the ID
perps were selling the ID scam to the rubes before Ohio because the
guide book was written in 1999. The reason that you have to snip and
run is because you know what that booklet means. Lying about the past
is stupid.

Go back and face the guide book quote with out snipping and running and
confront reality. The ID perps claim that they have a scientific theory
of ID that can be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and
People can be used to teach the junk. No denial is possible. That is
why those posts were never addressed tomorrow and why the holy water
repost keeps working.

>
>
>>
>> Something published in 2000. Why would the 21st century matter?
>
> Because, Rip van Okimoto, we've been in it for almost twenty years,
> and it's about time you woke up. :-)
>
>
> Concluded tomorrow.
>

How many times have I read that before. How many times has it been a
lie? You have snipped and lied about the same material twice in your
post above. It is material that demonstrates that you are a lying
asshole, and you can't deal with it. Will you break your own stupid
rule about doing something stupid and dishonest more than twice? Will
your above bogus stupidity ever be addressed openly and honestly?

Really, if you start breaking your own crazy rules wouldn't it be time
to commit yourself to the loony bin? If you break those rules would it
mean that you are the lying asshole that you claim not to be? A sane
person would already understand that doing something bogus and dishonest
twice means that you know that it is bogus and dishonest, but you did it
a second time. A third time doesn't add much to demonstrating how
stupid and dishonest you are. Really, how many second times has it
already been for the material that you snipped and ran from in other
past threads? How many times have you run from the guide book quote
authored by Meyer, DeWolf and DeForrest in 1999? Why can't you address
that quote directly without snipping it out and running from it?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:49:20 -0700, Mark Isaak

There are lots of reasons why people don't respond, best known only to
them. So non-response says nothing about their opinions. Assuming
what people think based on non-response all too conveniently
overreaches the evidence. If people's opinions really matter, then
instead of relying on self-serving and intellectually dishonest wish
fulfillment, just ask them directly. What's so hard about that?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
> >...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
> >Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
> >Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
> >...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>
> OK, time to vote:
>
> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
> count should suffice.
>
> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
> --

Based *partly* on the above, you are obsessed with me.

I wish you weren't, but you are obviously in love with
your obsession. For one thing, it regularly forces you
to play snip-n-deceive in order to prevent your asinine comments
about me from being refuted by what you left in.


By the way, what you posted here is NOT an example of
snip-n-deceive. It's an example of the morality-free
tactic of snip-n-snark. That's a term I learned from you
a number of years ago, when you weren't obsessed with me yet.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/19/19 12:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
> > keeps on going.
>
> On the contrary. The campaign is to get you to *start* a proper boycott
> of Oxyaena.

Stop trying to force YOUR idea of a boycott on me. Jillery already went
that route, and failed, partly because, LIKE YOU, she didn't try to
spell out what HER idea of proper boycott was.

Mine is exactly like a killfile, with one small difference: on each thread,
I announce the existence of a boycott against Oxyaena in direct follow
up to a post of hers, BUT I not only do not leave in any words by Oxyaena,
I even delete the attribbution line at the beginning which identifies
the person to whom I am following up.

You already know this, don't you? You are just ACTING as though
you didn't know it, aren't you?

> All the members of the Illuminati and the Trilateral
> Commission have signed on.

Come on, be original. You are talking like a clone of Hemidactylus.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>keeps on going.

I'm not sure how you see a "relentless campaign" from
jillery's post, still visible in its entirety below, but I'm
sure you *do* see it.

>Is anyone surprised?

By any irrational accusation/assertion from you? Not at all.

Oh, and I'm sure Oxyaensa is *devastated* by your
"boycott"...not.

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> This moment of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
>> brought to you by:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
>> >for reasons explained here:
>>
>> <snip remaining self-serving spew>
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:43:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:40:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>> >Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>> >Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>> >...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>
>> OK, time to vote:
>>
>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>> count should suffice.
>>
>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)

>And I didn't get any more mentions than you did! Mortification!

Less! You only got ONE! I got TWO!

PHTHBBBTTTT!

(With apologies to Bill the Cat...)

> Peter's been
>chasing his tail with ever-increasing vigor lately. Hard to guess what will
>come of it.

Ever-increasing isolation from reality? The fact that he
imagines his "boycotts" have relevance to anyone else is
just one more indication.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:44:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>:

>On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>
>> OK, time to vote:
>>
>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>> count should suffice.
>>
>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>>
>
>Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?

Yeah, yeah; be a smartass and bask in your glory! Don't even
think about the rest of us!

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:58:08 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:44:19 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>>>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>>>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>>>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>>
>>> OK, time to vote:
>>>
>>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>>> count should suffice.
>>>
>>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>>>
>>
>>Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?
>
>
>Nope. Hemi is mentioned once, and me not at all, so obviously it must
>be me.

Ah, so it's like golf; low score wins?

[erik simpson]

Actually, in a contest like this, everybody wins.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is just a camouflaged form of the baseless allegation,
"You compulsively post asinine irrelevancies."

You are just exercising your talent for propaganda with the
extra verbiage.

> Are you incapable of sticking to your own
> expressed issues,

I choose not to do so on occasion. And if hypocrisy weren't a way
of life for you, you would be inhibited from posting crap like
the above by your recollection of how you behaved in a thread
begun by Ron O.

Ron O had begun a thread on the subject of the evolution of turtles.
I responded with some observations which scrupulously stuck to that topic.
Ron O then told me that he was only interested in me responding to
some personal attacks that he had posted. He NEVER returned to
the topic of turtles or even to anything to do with science.

You aided, abetted, and comforted him in a long series of commiserations
over what a sadist I supposedly am, beating on a poor innocent waif
like Ron O. As part of it, you actually said that in your opinion,
the person who began the thread should have the say-so as to what
was on-topic for that thread. You defied Burkhard, Shrubber, and Norman
(and maybe Harshman -- I'd have to check) who disagreed with you
on that bizarre opinion.

I stayed completely out of that fray, scrupulously sticking to
discussing turtle evolution with Harshman, Norman, and others
who were interested.

The upshot was that Burkhard and Shrubber <plonked> Okimoto and
Burkhard <plonked> you [maybe Shrubber did too -- I'll have to check].

And when Okimoto thanked you, you candidly admitted that you were
more doing it to help yourself than to help him. You were already
that obsessed with me back then.

> nevermind anything anybody else posted, nevermind
> the actual topic under discussion? Do you have to act like a mentally
> challenged but spoiled brat so often?

Like I said, hypocrisy is a way of life for you. I might even revive
that years-old turtle genome thread to show what a consummate hypocrite
you are acting like here.


By the way, you are acting according to that old thread in one
BIG respect: you confined yourself to personal attacks and snipped
everything having to do with science AND intelligent design.

It looks like I've successfully showed what double standards you
have for scientific evidence vs ID evidence -- very lenient
towards the former, and setting impossibly high bars for the latter.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

You missed the point that the whole idea that people are trying to stop
your boycott, much less that there is a "relentless campaign" to do so,
is laughable.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/20/2019 1:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip bullshit]

>
> Like I said, hypocrisy is a way of life for you. I might even revive
> that years-old turtle genome thread to show what a consummate hypocrite
> you are acting like here.

You're *really* not helping your case here.

[snip bullshit]

[Oxyaena]

On 6/20/2019 12:27 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip shrieking]

A brief synopsis of the complete idiocy I just snipped as follows is:

"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Oxyaena]

In the category of "inverted mirrors"

> Based *partly* on the above, you are obsessed with me.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/20/2019 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:44:19 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>:
>
>> On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>>>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>>>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>>>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>>
>>> OK, time to vote:
>>>
>>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>>> count should suffice.
>>>
>>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>>>
>>
>> Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?
>
> Yeah, yeah; be a smartass and bask in your glory! Don't even
> think about the rest of us!
>

Hey don't be mad, MARK got second place after all.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
have been living a lie for the last decade:

> >>> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> >>> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
> >>>
> >>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
> >>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
> >>>
> >>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
> >>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> >>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> >>> track him down and inform him of that.
> >
> > You are running away from this question, Ron O. In your sick
> > mind, you no doubt think that you are not running away from it,
> > because you left it in. The fact is, your diabolically cunning equivocation
> > was a dishonest misdirection ploy.
>

You are still running away from the question, coward:

> You can read the report by Wells.

I did, yesterday, and I've got it in front of me now.

Here is the url for it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html


> It is not a second hand report.
> Wells participated in the bait and switch and wrote the report.

You aren't denying that you implied that Wells actually
revealed in the linked report that a bait and switch took place.

Do you want to deny it now, before the evidence that you
were deliberately trying to mislead readers becomes overwhelming?
You are really piling on the evidence below.


> You know that Wells admits that the ID perps

Misleading editorializing with "perps" noted.

> got together before presenting

> their dog and pony show

Pejorative editorializing noted.


> to the Ohio IDiot rubes

Misleading editorializing with "rubes" noted.



> and decided that they
> would not push for teaching ID.

Suddenly you become laconic. You mean "teaching ID in the public schools [1]

as an alternative to evolution."

THIS is the alleged "bait" that you keep referring to.


[1] Note to non-USA speakers of English: "public schools" means
state-supported schools on the primary and secondary level.



> This is in direct contrast to the
> quotes that you have been running from for years on how the ID perps had
> been selling the rubes the teach ID scam.

I have NOT been running from quotes which are dated later than 1999,
prevaricator. The quotes that date to 2002 give no support for the
"bait" having been tendered to the Ohio people whom you call "rubes",
thereby engaging in the fallacy of Begging the Question.


> Meyer knew that he had told
> the Ohio IDiots to teach ID,

You have ceased to talk about Wells's report, and you may be committing
libel against Meyer even if one notes that you aren't talking about
the Wells report.

That all depends on what you mean by "Meyer had told" Is this your
diabolically misleading way of saying that a 1997 paper co-authored by Meyer
had gotten into the hands of unspecified people whom you
call "IDiots" rather than "rubes"?


> but he was the one that ran the bait and
> switch on them.

The lie you have been living for over a decade is that you
think you have shown credible evidence for the "bait" part.
You have not.


> What a bonehead.

As I have shown in my four replies to you on this thread, including this one,
you are describing YOURSELF here.

You have lied, year in and year, out that "Projection is a way of life"
for me. It's obvious that you are projecting every time you write this lie.

The likely explanation for why you lie this way is that people whom you
made false accusations against many years ago hurled that "Projection"
accusation against you, and it stung you so much that you thought it would
make a great polemical weapon against people whom you hate, like myself.


> The Dover rubes did everything that the ID perps
> wanted them to do.

Undocumented claim, devoid of specifics, noted.

You don't even specify who the alleged "rubes" were: the school board?
the individual teachers? WHO?


Continued tomorrow. Family duties take precedence over posting
for the rest of today.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/19/19 12:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>> > keeps on going.
>>
>> On the contrary. The campaign is to get you to *start* a proper boycott
>> of Oxyaena.
>
>Stop trying to force YOUR idea of a boycott on me. Jillery already went
>that route,

Nope.

>and failed, partly because, LIKE YOU, she didn't try to
>spell out what HER idea of proper boycott was.

Liar.

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Your verbose propaganda disqualifies you from complaining about
alleged propaganda from me. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

<snip remaining spew from your puckered sphincter>

[RonO]

On 6/20/2019 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
> have been living a lie for the last decade:

I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule.
I inadvertantly posted the quote that you have been running from since
you lied about addressing it tomorrow half a decade ago. I didn't do it
on purpose. I thought that it was part of another ID perp scam
document, but it turned out to be the same old teach ID scam booklet,
just on the Gonzaga web site.

This means that when you snipped and ran from the material that was
between where you left off and where you started this post you snipped
and ran from the same material more than your limit for doing something
bogus and dishonest in the same thread. Now, you are going to have to
put the quote back in and lie about it in any way that you can so that
you can convince yourself that you really aren't the type of lying
asshole that you have been for nearly a decade.

Really read what you snipped out and are running from without marking
your snips.

>
>>>>> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
>>>>> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
>>>>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
>>>>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
>>>>> track him down and inform him of that.
>>>
>>> You are running away from this question, Ron O. In your sick
>>> mind, you no doubt think that you are not running away from it,
>>> because you left it in. The fact is, your diabolically cunning equivocation
>>> was a dishonest misdirection ploy.
>>
>
> You are still running away from the question, coward:

No I didn't. Why lie to yourself? You know that the report by Wells is
not second hand as you lied about it in your initial post in this
thread. What am I supposed to be running from?

>
>> You can read the report by Wells.
>
> I did, yesterday, and I've got it in front of me now.
>
> Here is the url for it:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
>
>> It is not a second hand report.
>> Wells participated in the bait and switch and wrote the report.
>
> You aren't denying that you implied that Wells actually
> revealed in the linked report that a bait and switch took place.

Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the Ohio rubes the
ID science to teach. It is quoted in the part of the repost that you
have snipped and run from twice already in this thread.

QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:

You know how the ID perps were selling the teach ID scam before they
came to Ohio.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific

controversy about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be

reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the
problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the
previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to
permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an

alternative to Darwinian evolution--and this includes the use of

textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the
theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and

citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-

minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/fte2.htm

You know that Meyer (one of the ID perps that decided to run the bait
and switch on the Ohio rubes) was one of the authors of this guide book
on teaching ID in the public schools. Where do you think that the Ohio
rubes got the idea that they could teach the bogus ID scam in the public
schools? Who did they bring in to tell them about teaching the ID scam
in the public schools?

Lying about reality like you do is stupid. You now have to deal with
snipping and running from the above quote three times in the same
thread. You have run from the post that you never addressed tomorrow
for half a decade with this same quote because you know what it means.
The stupid assoholic behavior should end, but it never does.

Wells is clearly stating that instead of giving the rubes the ID science
that they were only going to give them the switch scam. The switch scam
that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.

The same bait and switch has gone down on every IDiot that has ever
wanted to teach the science of intelligent design in the public schools
since Ohio. Not a single IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science
to teach, ever. You know this for a fact, and you still have to lie
about reality.

To make it clearer this is how the More lawyer saw their "strategy" from
what you have already snipped out twice in this thread.

QUOTE:

END QUOTE:

Read the last paragraph as many times as you need to, in order to
understand how assoholic you have been for nearly a decade.

The More lawyer calls what the ID perps do a strategy, but you know that
it is the bait and switch scam. Sell the rubes one thing, but only give
them crap that they never wanted.

>
> Do you want to deny it now, before the evidence that you
> were deliberately trying to mislead readers becomes overwhelming?
> You are really piling on the evidence below.

Projection is stupid. You are obviously the one that is deliberately
trying to mislead anyone that you think is interested. If you didn't
understand how you are lying you would have addressed those posts half a
decade ago. Really, you know that you have been running from the same
quote for half a decade. You know for a fact that the ID perps had been
selling the rubes the teach ID scam for years before they started
running the bait and switch. The Dover rubes did what the ID perps
recommended in the guide book, and what happened when the bait and
switch failed? Who wanted to teach ID in the public schools? Who
claimed that ID was a scientific theory that could be taught in the
public schools? Who bought Of Pandas and People to teach the junk?

>
>
>> You know that Wells admits that the ID perps
>
> Misleading editorializing with "perps" noted.

Facts are just something that you can't deal with.

>
>> got together before presenting
>> their dog and pony show
>
> Pejorative editorializing noted.

Reality sucks when you have to keep lying about it. You should just
stop doing that.

>
>
>> to the Ohio IDiot rubes
>
> Misleading editorializing with "rubes" noted.

They were IDiot rubes and you know that for a fact. Just because they
bent over and took the switch scam from the ID perps that had lied to
them about the ID science doesn't mean that they aren't rube victims.

>
>
>
>> and decided that they
>> would not push for teaching ID.
>
> Suddenly you become laconic. You mean "teaching ID in the public schools [1]
> as an alternative to evolution."

I had already quoted what Wells wrote, and you are the one that keeps
snipping it out. I don't know how removing the material from a post
allows you to lie about it. The quote exists in the post that you are
responding to.

>
> THIS is the alleged "bait" that you keep referring to.
>
>
> [1] Note to non-USA speakers of English: "public schools" means
> state-supported schools on the primary and secondary level.

The ID perps ran the bait and switch on the Ohio State board of
Education. What do you not get about public schools?

>
>
>
>> This is in direct contrast to the
>> quotes that you have been running from for years on how the ID perps had
>> been selling the rubes the teach ID scam.
>
> I have NOT been running from quotes which are dated later than 1999,
> prevaricator. The quotes that date to 2002 give no support for the
> "bait" having been tendered to the Ohio people whom you call "rubes",
> thereby engaging in the fallacy of Begging the Question.

You have already snipped and run from that material 3 times in this
thread. That seems to count as running to me.

Do you understand what you write? Why would I need anything after 1999?
Do you have any material that indicates that the ID perps changed
their minds before Dover. I have already quoted from the Utah Law
review article that the ID perps published in 2000 in another post in
this thread, and they were still claiming that the scientific theory of
ID could be taught in the public schools. They spent pages and pages
trying to justify it legally.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/h3KqDeXnzhc/n8stdGY2AwAJ

Unfortunately for you the ID perps did not change their tune until Ohio
in 2002. Just try to find something where they claim that they were
wrong about teaching the junk.

The sad thing is that after Ohio they kept claiming that they could
teach the ID junk they just started claiming that they did not think
that ID should be mandated or required to be taught, and I don't recall
those changes to their education policy until around Dover.

Go for it, and try to find something where they changed their minds
about running the teach ID scam. What are they still doing in their
Anti Dover propaganda pamphlet? Has ID been banned from the public
schools? Just imagine you would not have had to lie repeatedly about
the scottish verdict quote if you had not snipped it out and run from it
3 times in one thread. The ID perps are still claiming that ID can be
taught in the public schools. They just updated that pamphlet in 2015.
It has a 2014 reference added to it.

>
>
>> Meyer knew that he had told
>> the Ohio IDiots to teach ID,
>
> You have ceased to talk about Wells's report, and you may be committing
> libel against Meyer even if one notes that you aren't talking about
> the Wells report.
>
> That all depends on what you mean by "Meyer had told" Is this your
> diabolically misleading way of saying that a 1997 paper co-authored by Meyer
> had gotten into the hands of unspecified people whom you
> call "IDiots" rather than "rubes"?

It is just a fact that all IDiots that fell for the ID scam run by the
Discovery Institute are rubes. A lot of them like Santorum quit and
went back to calling what they supported creationism. The only IDiots
left are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest. At this time
rube and IDiot are interchangeable because the ones that are left are
actually worse off than that. Look at yourself as an example.

What else is there to say about Wells' report? He wrote that they
decided not to give the rubes the teach ID scam, and what did they
decide to give the rubes instead?

It is 1999 not 1997, and it is the material that you can't bring
yourself to address. The material that you have snipped and run from 3
times already in this thread. The guide book used to be given out with
the IDiot video that is mention in the wedge document. That is probably
how the More lawyer got the booklet. It used to be free to download
from the Discovery Institute web page, but now you have to pay $7 for it
because their link no longer works.

http://www.discovery.org/a/58/

Why keep lying about what you are running from? You know why you are
running from it and can't bring yourself to address it. Lying and being
an asshole about it is stupid at this time.

>
>
>> but he was the one that ran the bait and
>> switch on them.
>
> The lie you have been living for over a decade is that you
> think you have shown credible evidence for the "bait" part.
> You have not.

Meyer was the one that proposed his "compromise" instead of teaching
IDiocy. Meyer was coauthor of the quote that you have snipped and run
from 3 times in this thread and could not address in the posts that you
lied about addressing tomorrow half a decade ago. Meyer above all
others knew that he was running the bait and switch on the Ohio IDiot
rubes. It was likely why he had to quit his job at his Christian
college. How could he walk down the halls when everyone knew what he
had done? Just imagine how he had been selling what he was doing to his
colleagues for years, but what did he end up doing? Meyer hid out for
months after the Ohio Bait and switch. West had to lead the Texas IDiot
textbook fiasco a couple months later. It was obvious that their
participation had been planned far ahead of time, but none of them
wanted to be there. This was the Texas fiasco where Dembski deleted
mention of his affiliation with the Discovery Institute from the
materials that he gave the Texas textbook board. Where one of the guys
associated with the Discovery Institute flat out lied about being
associated with the Discovery Institute when asked about his association
by a board member. These guys knew what they had done and were ashamed
of it. I recall this junk because I was posting at ARN during this time
and all the IDiots were just running in denial. No one would discuss
what was happening. The bait and switch quickly went down on Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Montana within a couple months of Ohio. There was no
denying what was happening, but the IDiots kept denying it.

>
>
>> What a bonehead.
>
> As I have shown in my four replies to you on this thread, including this one,
> you are describing YOURSELF here.

Projection is stupid. Who has been so much worse than a bonehead. Your
assoholic behavior is beyond rational description. You have been lying
about this junk for nearly a decade. You can't even admit that the
first thing that you were wrong about was that the ID perps participated
in Ohio. When it was obvious that they had participated you ran and
never did address that post even though you told me to hop to getting
you the evidence. You started lying about the bait and switch because
you had to run from being wrong about something that stupid. Nearly a
decade of assoholic behavior because you were wrong and the ID perps
were definitely at the Ohio bait and switch.

>
> You have lied, year in and year, out that "Projection is a way of life"
> for me. It's obvious that you are projecting every time you write this lie.
>
> The likely explanation for why you lie this way is that people whom you
> made false accusations against many years ago hurled that "Projection"
> accusation against you, and it stung you so much that you thought it would
> make a great polemical weapon against people whom you hate, like myself.

It is obvious that projection is a way of life for you. Just think how
much trouble it has gotten you into when you project your own lies onto
me and have to run. Who was the dirty debater? If you hadn't put up
that thread you likely would have never started your stupid knock down
claims and you wouldn't have had to run from lying about the knockdowns
for years. You are just sad.

>
>
>> The Dover rubes did everything that the ID perps
>> wanted them to do.
>
> Undocumented claim, devoid of specifics, noted.

You know what the Dover rubes did because you have read the judges
decision and the court testimony. Read the quote by the ID perps that
you have snipped and run from 3 times in this thread. The Dover rubes
wanted to teach the science of ID. Like the ID perps told them to do
they bought Of Pandas and People in order to teach the IDiot junk. They
even lied under oath about where the money came from to buy those books

What documentation do you need?

>
> You don't even specify who the alleged "rubes" were: the school board?
> the individual teachers? WHO?

The IDiot rubes were the IDiots that had believed the ID perps about the
teach ID scam. They were the defendants, the IDiots that wanted to
teach the junk in the public schools. Why lie about this junk?

>
>
> Continued tomorrow. Family duties take precedence over posting
> for the rest of today.

Why bother you have already snipped and run from the guide book quote, 3
times in this thread. This is the same quote that you have been running
from for half a decade and never could bring yourself to address
tomorrow. You usually run or snip it out, but you never have snipped it
out and run 3 times in the same thread. How are you going to fix that?
I guess you can claim that I tricked you, but I didn't mean to. You are
the one that couldn't face the material and had to snip and run from it
no matter how many times you have seen it before. You just didn't
realize that it was the same material that you had snipped and run from
twice already.

This likely means that you are the type of lying asshole that would snip
and run from something 3 times instead of face reality. Doing something
bogus and dishonest twice is good enough to demonstrate what a lying
asshole you are, but for some reason 3 times is over your limit.

Ron Okimoto


>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Are you incapable of sticking to your own
>> expressed issues,
>
>I choose not to do so on occasion.

More precisely, you almost never do, but instead almost always waste
multiple posts to rationalize "not to do so", just as you do here in
this thread.

>And if hypocrisy weren't a way of life for you, you would be inhibited from posting crap like
>the above by your recollection of how you behaved in a thread
>begun by Ron O.

The above is just more of your Big Lies. Once again you allude to a
thread from years ago, with a self-serving and cherrypicked rendition
of it. And even if your version was even approximately technically
correct, it would still be entirely irrelevant to your arguments in
this thread.

Putting aside for the moment your baseless allegations of my "way of
life" and how that supposedly justifies your compulsive hypocrisy, you
again assert a false equivalence. The two cases then and now are not
equivalent and neither are the arguments made. I challenged you here
to support here the comments you made here, which you *still* have not
done. Why is that?

>Ron O had begun a thread on the subject of the evolution of turtles.
>I responded with some observations which scrupulously stuck to that topic.
>Ron O then told me that he was only interested in me responding to
>some personal attacks that he had posted. He NEVER returned to
>the topic of turtles or even to anything to do with science.
>
>You aided, abetted, and comforted him in a long series of commiserations
>over what a sadist I supposedly am, beating on a poor innocent waif
>like Ron O. As part of it, you actually said that in your opinion,
>the person who began the thread should have the say-so as to what
>was on-topic for that thread. You defied Burkhard, Shrubber, and Norman
>(and maybe Harshman -- I'd have to check) who disagreed with you
>on that bizarre opinion.
>
>I stayed completely out of that fray, scrupulously sticking to
>discussing turtle evolution with Harshman, Norman, and others
>who were interested.
>
>The upshot was that Burkhard and Shrubber <plonked> Okimoto and
>Burkhard <plonked> you [maybe Shrubber did too -- I'll have to check].
>
>And when Okimoto thanked you, you candidly admitted that you were
>more doing it to help yourself than to help him. You were already
>that obsessed with me back then.
>
>
>> nevermind anything anybody else posted, nevermind
>> the actual topic under discussion? Do you have to act like a mentally
>> challenged but spoiled brat so often?
>
>Like I said, hypocrisy is a way of life for you.

Yes, you are one of many posters who imagines their pronouncements are
TRUTHS WRITTEN BY THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

>I might even revive
>that years-old turtle genome thread to show what a consummate hypocrite
>you are acting like here.

I have no doubt you will continue to post that and even more examples
of your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>By the way, you are acting according to that old thread in one
>BIG respect: you confined yourself to personal attacks and snipped
>everything having to do with science AND intelligent design.

Since you mention it, you *still* haven't shown how "ensoulment" has
anything to do with ID. Don't you know what you're talking about?


>It looks like I've successfully showed...


... for self-serving definitions of "successfully showed"...


> what double standards you...


... for self-serving definitions of "double standards"...

>have for scientific evidence vs ID evidence -- very lenient
>towards the former, and setting impossibly high bars for the latter.

Your blatant hypocrisy and hubris boggles. You posted no evidence for
ID, which suggests you think it's impossible to post any evidence for
ID. Are you and drdr taking stupid lessons from each other?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/20/19 9:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/19/19 12:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
> >>> keeps on going.
> >>
> >> On the contrary. The campaign is to get you to *start* a proper boycott
> >> of Oxyaena.
> >
> > Stop trying to force YOUR idea of a boycott on me. Jillery already went
> > that route, and failed, partly because, LIKE YOU, she didn't try to
> > spell out what HER idea of proper boycott was.
> >
> > Mine is exactly like a killfile, with one small difference: on each thread,
> > I announce the existence of a boycott against Oxyaena in direct follow
> > up to a post of hers, BUT I not only do not leave in any words by Oxyaena,
> > I even delete the attribbution line at the beginning which identifies
> > the person to whom I am following up.
> >
> > You already know this, don't you? You are just ACTING as though
> > you didn't know it, aren't you?
> >
> >
> >> All the members of the Illuminati and the Trilateral
> >> Commission have signed on.
> >
> > Come on, be original. You are talking like a clone of Hemidactylus.
>
> You missed the point that the whole idea that people are trying to stop
> your boycott,

A "point" that you are making up after the fact, now that
I have successfully called your bluff about the existence
of a concept, "proper boycott". I wonder how jillery might
have reacted to my calling her bluff about "the spirit of killfiles".

This bluff was a back-up to her initial effort to discredit
my boycotts, which was to lie that I had already violated
my description, in a reply by me to Erik Simpson.

Jillery tried to make hay of the word "lie" but I explained
that her failure to acknowledge my correction was a *prima facie*
case for having lied. She spurned my offer to retract the claim
of lying if she would retract her claim that I had violated
my own description of the terms of the boycott.


And that's just the beginning of that particular encounter.
Unlike you, but almost as much as her benefactee Ron O,
jillery is obsessed with getting in the last word. This
obsession often results in jillery indulging in copious displays
of snip-n-deceive, as she did during the encounter I've described here.

If these go on long enough, jillery will eventually
signal to knowledgeable people like yourself, that she
is going into troll-imitating mode. The signal is to
lead her posts off with a hundreds-of-times-used modification
of the attribution line to me with added words that include
"spew," "ejaculated" and "puckered sphincter."

> much less that there is a "relentless campaign" to do so,
> is laughable.

What laughter there is, springs from the dirty minds
of the most relentless campaigners, jillery and Oxyaena,
over the way they sneer about fantasized anatomical deficiencies
of mine, and lie that the boycott is a substitute for those
alleged deficiencies.

And, lest there be any question of WHICH these alleged
deficiencies were, the criticsm of this kind of dirty-minded
talk by Hemidactylus should lay them to rest.

That's the cue for Casanova to post flamebait about how
I am obsessed with jillery, Oxyaena, Hemidactylus, and yourself,
and for you to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil" about any of the four of them.

If Casanova does that, will you cheerfully join in the fun
of playing "blame the victim"?


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>> >Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>> >Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>> >...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>>
>> OK, time to vote:
>>
>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>> count should suffice.
>>
>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>> --
>
>Based *partly* on the above, you are obsessed with me.

Wrong again; when you include my name in one of your rants
I'm likely to respond, but that isn't "obsession". I simply
find you annoying, but amusing (in a creepy sort of way).

<snip rant>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:03:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:00:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:58:08 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:44:19 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 6/19/2019 3:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> >>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> ...Oxyaena...Bob Casanova...Erik Simpson...Hemidactylus...Oxyaena...
>> >>>> Erik...Mark Isaak...Bob Casanova's...Oxyaena's...MARK...Oxyaena...
>> >>>> Mark...Oxyaena's...Mark...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...Oxyaena's...
>> >>>> ...Oxyaena's...Oxyaena...Oxyaena...
>> >>>
>> >>> OK, time to vote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Based on the above, who is Peter's obsession? A simple word
>> >>> count should suffice.
>> >>>
>> >>> (BTW, color me relieved that I'm only there twice...)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Ugh this is too hard, uhh, is it Hemi?
>> >
>> >
>> >Nope. Hemi is mentioned once, and me not at all, so obviously it must
>> >be me.
>>
>> Ah, so it's like golf; low score wins?

>Actually, in a contest like this, everybody wins.

Especially whoever sells Peter his blood pressure meds?

[Peter Nyikos]

Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until Monday)
to post my first reply to the following post:

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/20/2019 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

...the second reply of perhaps four to Ron O's 1089 line monstrosity.

> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

... that 1089 line monstrosity. I had said I would continue my replies to
it today, but am postponing that until Monday.

> >> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
> > have been living a lie for the last decade:
>
> I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule.

Liar. There is no such rule, and I explained in my first, long
reply to your 1086 line monstrosity just what your sick fantasy
of there being such a rule is based on:



________________excerpt_______________________________

> The only thing that
> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.

Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
lies that justify "earlier" lies...

I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011, in several threads,
before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the last word
on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.

++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of first excerpt, beginning of second +++++++

> >> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
> >
> > Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts

> > for this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?

>
> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
> keep doing it?

You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
of deceit and hypocrisy.

And you have consistently run away from ALL demonstrations of
NEW deceit by you, but your sick mind tells you that you have
not run away, because you have left it in without even commenting
on it and PROBABLY NOT EVEN READ more than a few lines of it!

And so my documentation of dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
by you just keeps piling up, never countered by you.

================== end of second excerpt ============================

> I inadvertantly posted the quote that you have been running from since
> you lied about addressing it tomorrow half a decade ago.

It wasn't a lie: it was a promise TO GLENN from which Glenn had
implicitly released me from BEFORE the promise was made, by
telling me I was just wasting my time on you. I had forgotten
about it when I made the promise.

Documentation of Glenn's release will be provided once you
post the documentation of the exact words of my promise.

> I didn't do it
> on purpose. I thought that it was part of another ID perp scam
> document, but it turned out to be the same old teach ID scam booklet,
> just on the Gonzaga web site.

You have yet to provide credible evidence of there being any kind
of scam. How many times have I had to tell you that without there
being evidence of a bait, there can be no legitimate use of the
words "switch" and "scam"?


<snip of misdirection ploy, in defiance of your hypocritical
Subject: line in 2011 that claimed, "Misdirection ploys are dishonest>

> >>>>> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> >>>>> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
> >>>>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
> >>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> >>>>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> >>>>> track him down and inform him of that.
> >>>
> >>> You are running away from this question, Ron O. In your sick
> >>> mind, you no doubt think that you are not running away from it,
> >>> because you left it in. The fact is, your diabolically cunning equivocation
> >>> was a dishonest misdirection ploy.
> >>
> >
> > You are still running away from the question, coward:
>
> No I didn't.

You are running away from the question RIGHT NOW, liar!
Any person with an elementary school comprehension of the
English language can see that you have failed to answer the question
of whether or not you are making the libelous claim I identified.

A simple Yes or No is all it takes to answer it, but you
cowardly play a game of "leave it in and run from it and lie
that you didn't run from it".

> Why lie to yourself? You know that the report by Wells is
> not second hand as you lied about it in your initial post in this
> thread.

You are confused, Ron O. I never claimed THE WELLS REPORT was second hand.
And the statement about which you are confused is in the second
post to this thread. [Interesting irony there about the word "second".]

> What am I supposed to be running from?

The question which I am repeating here from above:

> >>>>> Are you claiming that Wells actually
> >>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?

Answer Yes or No.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until Monday)
> to post my first reply to the following post:
>
> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/20/2019 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> ...the second reply of perhaps four to Ron O's 1089 line monstrosity.

Just reposting the material that you have snipped and run from for half
a decade. You should actually address it some time instead of run and
lie about it repeatedly, until you reach your limit for lying.

>
>
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> ... that 1089 line monstrosity. I had said I would continue my replies to
> it today, but am postponing that until Monday.

What is weird is that you are reposting something that you are already
running from. I have already addressed your post. It looks like you
are responding to my response, but you obviously snipped it out and
replaced it with what you had previously posted. How sad is that? It
might be a novel concept, but you might want to address the response
instead of posting the bogus lies again when you know that they are
bogus lies because you can't deal with reality.

It is too bad that you have snipped and lied about the same material 3
times in the same thread. If you respond to what has already been
written you will have to deal with that dastardly deed. For some reason
it is against the Nyikosian rules to do something bogus and dishonest 3
times. Twice should mean that you know how bogus and dishonest it is,
but you had to repeat it, but 3 times seems to be too much even for a
lying asshole like you. You have snipped out the quoted material that
you have been running from for half a decade. It was in the post that
you claimed that you would address tomorrow, and had been given to you
for years before that. You have never snipped it out and run from it 3
times in the same thread, so what are you going to do now? This means
that you are the type of lying asshole that your rules are supposed to
keep you from being. You could do the scottish verdict routine, but all
that accomplishes is that you have to lie about reality forever after.
Just think of how long you have had to lie about the scottish verdict
quote, just because you snipped and ran from it 3 times. How are you
going to lie about the material that you have snipped and run from 3
times. You even removed it and lied about it being second hand material
to start this thread. How sad is that?

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/21/19 11:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/20/19 9:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/19 12:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>>>>> keeps on going.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary. The campaign is to get you to *start* a proper boycott
>>>> of Oxyaena.
>>>
>>> Stop trying to force YOUR idea of a boycott on me. Jillery already went
>>> that route, and failed, partly because, LIKE YOU, she didn't try to
>>> spell out what HER idea of proper boycott was.
>>>
>>> Mine is exactly like a killfile, with one small difference: on each thread,
>>> I announce the existence of a boycott against Oxyaena in direct follow
>>> up to a post of hers, BUT I not only do not leave in any words by Oxyaena,
>>> I even delete the attribbution line at the beginning which identifies
>>> the person to whom I am following up.
>>>
>>> You already know this, don't you? You are just ACTING as though
>>> you didn't know it, aren't you?
>>>
>>>> All the members of the Illuminati and the Trilateral
>>>> Commission have signed on.
>>>
>>> Come on, be original. You are talking like a clone of Hemidactylus.
>>
>> You missed the point that the whole idea that people are trying to stop
>> your boycott,

>> much less that there is a "relentless campaign" to do so,
>> is laughable.
>

> A "point" that you are making up after the fact, [...]

After I stopped laughing. Which was just before I made the joke post in
response to your "relentless campaign" absurdity.

Some might say that your accusing me of making it up after the fact is a
lie. It is certainly a plausible explanation, and (arguably) more
charitable than a more likely explanation I can think of.

> What laughter there is, springs from the dirty minds . . .

Keep telling yourself that. It is apparent that your delusions serve
your purposes somehow.

> jillery ... Oxyaena ... Hemidactylus ... Casanova ...

<shakes head in wonderment>

[jillery]

Of course, you have no need to wonder, as jillery already responded to
your alleged bluff calling.

>This bluff was a back-up to her initial effort to discredit
>my boycotts, which was to lie that I had already violated
>my description, in a reply by me to Erik Simpson.

Liar.

>Jillery tried to make hay of the word "lie" but I explained
>that her failure to acknowledge my correction was a *prima facie*
>case for having lied. She spurned my offer to retract the claim
>of lying if she would retract her claim that I had violated
>my own description of the terms of the boycott.

Liar.

>And that's just the beginning of that particular encounter.
>Unlike you, but almost as much as her benefactee Ron O,
>jillery is obsessed with getting in the last word. This
>obsession often results in jillery indulging in copious displays
>of snip-n-deceive, as she did during the encounter I've described here.

Liar.

>If these go on long enough, jillery will eventually
>signal to knowledgeable people like yourself, that she
>is going into troll-imitating mode. The signal is to
>lead her posts off with a hundreds-of-times-used modification
>of the attribution line to me with added words that include
> "spew," "ejaculated" and "puckered sphincter."

Since you don't like that I note your compulsive ejaculations of your
repetitive irrelevant spew, then stop posting it. Not sure how even
you *still* can't figure that out.

>> much less that there is a "relentless campaign" to do so,
>> is laughable.
>
>What laughter there is, springs from the dirty minds
>of the most relentless campaigners, jillery and Oxyaena,
>over the way they sneer about fantasized anatomical deficiencies
>of mine, and lie that the boycott is a substitute for those
>alleged deficiencies.

Liar.

>And, lest there be any question of WHICH these alleged
>deficiencies were, the criticsm of this kind of dirty-minded
>talk by Hemidactylus should lay them to rest.
>
>That's the cue for Casanova to post flamebait about how
>I am obsessed with jillery, Oxyaena, Hemidactylus, and yourself,
>and for you to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
>no evil" about any of the four of them.
>
>If Casanova does that, will you cheerfully join in the fun
>of playing "blame the victim"?
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Oops it looks like Nyikos did get back to addressing what he is running
from after posting his previous junk, but so much of my post is missing
that I didn't recognize it.

>
>>
>>
>>>>> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
>>>> have been living a lie for the last decade:
>>>
>>> I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule.
>>
>> Liar. There is no such rule, and I explained in my first, long
>> reply to your 1086 line monstrosity just what your sick fantasy
>> of there being such a rule is based on:

You are such a liar. It could be insanity and you really aren't aware of
what you do. Just think of all the times that you have done something
stupid and dishonest twice in a thread, but run and can't bring yourself
to do it 3 times. Think about what you did when confronted by the
Phillip Johnson quote (hint you snipped it out and ran twice before
running without addressing it). Think about what you did with the
scottish verdict quote. You snipped it out 3 times, and what did you
do? You went back, restored the quote and started lying about it in any
way that you could. Putting the quote back in did not mean that you
didn't snip and run from the quote three times. You knew what that
quote meant, but you just had to lie about it.

What are you going to do now that you are exceeding that limit? In the
past you just start openly lying about the material and ignoring
reality. What are you going to do this time? You may have already
started because you are stating to call the material "obsolete". This
is evidence that you have been lying about for nearly a decade. The
evidence is getting older, but it still exists, and you have been
running from it for years.

What is Nyikos trying to claim with this material that he had to post
without my responses to it?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/h3KqDeXnzhc/LFT6jGxpAwAJ

Nyikos knows that I have already responded to this material, but the
toddler mentality set in and he pretends that no one can see him if he
pulls the baby blanket over his head. The above link is my response
this this junk.

QUOTE past response to first excerpt:

>> The only thing that
>> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.
>
> Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
> lies that justify "earlier" lies...

Why lie about something this stupid. You know why you had to run from
the posts that you claimed that you would deal with the next day, and
why those posts have never been dealt with.

>
> I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011, in several threads,
> before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the
last word
> on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
> departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
> that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.

You were first wrong about the Discovery Institute's involvement in
Ohio. Once you found out that you were wrong you ran and started lying
about the bait and switch. It is just what you do. The lies had to
multiply because you kept being wrong about more and more junk. That is
why the repost works. You have a limit for lying for some insane reason
known only to you, you can only lie about something a certain number of
times in a thread before you have to quit. Doesn't this mean that you
understand that you are lying? Just because you only do the same bogus
and dishonet thing twice doesn't mean that it isn't bogus and dishonest.
END QUOTE past response to first excerpt:

QUOTE past response second excerpt:

>>>> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
>>>
>>> Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts

>>> fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?

>>
>> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
>> keep doing it?
>
> You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
> has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
> last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
> earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
> of deceit and hypocrisy.

You are the one that keeps coming back to me to lie about the past. I
have repeatedly told you that I do not want to discuss anything with
you. The holy water repost makes your stupid bouts of assoholic
behavior as short as they probably can be. Look how you are doing
anything that you can to avoid addressing the holy water repost.

>
> And you have consistently run away from ALL demonstrations of
> NEW deceit by you, but your sick mind tells you that you have
> not run away, because you have left it in without even commenting
> on it and PROBABLY NOT EVEN READ more than a few lines of it!

New deceit? You just find more junk to lie about because that is what
an assoholic like you does. Why would I want to discuss anything with a
lying asshole like you?

>
> And so my documentation of dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
> by you just keeps piling up, never countered by you.

Projection is really stupid. Who runs from the holy water repost? Who
had to run from the posts that they claimed that they would address
tomorrow? It may be some type of defense mechanism, but you have to
understand what a lying asshole you are in order to project your own
bogus behavior onto someone else.
END QUOTE past response second excerpt:

Why would Nyikos want to relive his lies?

This starts back on the post Nyikos was pretending to respond to.

>>
>>
>>> I inadvertantly posted the quote that you have been running from since
>>> you lied about addressing it tomorrow half a decade ago.
>>
>> It wasn't a lie: it was a promise TO GLENN from which Glenn had
>> implicitly released me from BEFORE the promise was made, by
>> telling me I was just wasting my time on you. I had forgotten
>> about it when I made the promise.
>>
>> Documentation of Glenn's release will be provided once you
>> post the documentation of the exact words of my promise.

It is quoted in the holy water repost that you have snipped out and run
from twice in this thread. Are you thinking about what you write? Why
don't you acknowledge that you snipped it out twice by going up the
thread and putting it back in.

There didn't have to be a release. You lied to Glenn about tomorrow and
you didn't pester him with reminders like you pestered Hemi (as far as I
know) because Glenn is the kind of guy that would tell you to stick it
where the sun don't shine. Why is this the first time that you are
claiming to have been released from something that you have been running
from and lying about for half a decade? Do you ever wonder how
delusional you have to be in order to believe what you write?

>>
>>
>>> I didn't do it
>>> on purpose.  I thought that it was part of another ID perp scam
>>> document, but it turned out to be the same old teach ID scam booklet,
>>> just on the Gonzaga web site.
>>
>> You have yet to provide credible evidence of there being any kind
>> of scam. How many times have I had to tell you that without there
>> being evidence of a bait, there can be no legitimate use of the
>> words "switch" and "scam"?

You snipped it out along with the link. It was the guide book that the
ID perps published in order to run the teach ID scam. Has any IDiot
rube ever gotten the ID science to teach? What happened when the Dover
rubes tried to use Of Pandas and People to teach the ID scam junk like
the ID perps recommended in that booklet? Really, DeWolf had reposted
the guide book on the Gonzaga site. I didn't realize at first that it
was the guide book because they had the citation for the Utah law review
under the title. Just go back to the quote and link that you snipped
out and see for yourself. It is the same quote that you could not
address tomorrow, and that you have snipped and run from for years
because you can't deal with what you know that it tells you about the
teach ID scam run by the ID perps at the Discovery Institute.

It is obvious that you have run from reality for nearly a decade.
Snipping out the material doesn't mean that it never existed, and that
you are not lying about it.

>>
>>
>> <snip of misdirection ploy, in defiance of your hypocritical
>> Subject: line in 2011 that claimed, "Misdirection ploys are dishonest>

QUOTE what Nyikos has mangled and snipped out:
I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule. I

inadvertantly posted the quote that you have been running from since you

lied about addressing it tomorrow half a decade ago. I didn't do it on

purpose. I thought that it was part of another ID perp scam document,
but it turned out to be the same old teach ID scam booklet, just on the
Gonzaga web site.

This means that when you snipped and ran from the material, that was
between where you left off and where you started this post, you snipped

and ran from the same material more than your limit for doing something
bogus and dishonest in the same thread. Now, you are going to have to
put the quote back in and lie about it in any way that you can so that
you can convince yourself that you really aren't the type of lying
asshole that you have been for nearly a decade.

Really read what you snipped out and are running from without marking
your snips.

END QUOTE of what Nyikos has mangled and snipped out.

The Gonzaga quote is part of the material that I am telling Nyikos that
he snipped out, so it is obvious that he could have addressed his own
stupidity if he hadn't done that. Projection about running misdirection
ploys is really stupid when Nyikos is the king of running such ploys.
He has even linked back to a thread where he was demostrated to run
misdirection ploys earlier in this thread.

Why lie? This is how you started out with these lies in this thread.

QUOTE:
This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives
no credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.
END QUOTE:

You know that you snipped out this material twice already in this
thread, and it wasn't second hand. Wells was there and participated in
the bait and switch on Ohio. He wrote the report and the part quoted
that you keep snipping out.

>>
>>
>>>    What am I supposed to be running from?
>>
>>
>> The question which I am repeating here from above:

I am obviously not running from what you claim. You are the one that
keeps snipping out the evidence and running. Projection is a stupid
defense. You have to understand how bogus and dishonest you are in
order to do it.

Just put the material that you have snipped and run from and deal with it.

>>
>>>>>>>>    Are you claiming that Wells actually
>>>>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
>>
>> Answer Yes or No.

And I answered it, but you snipped it out and ran. I specifically
stated that Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the
Ohio rubes the ID science to teach. Isn't that a yes? How can you snip
out my answer and make your bogus claim above? You have now snipped and
lied about the guide book quote 4 times in this thread. This just means
that from now on you will be lying about it in any way that you can
forever, and you will never acknowledge what it means. You know that it
was bogus to snip it out and run all these years, and now you have to
live with being that type of assoholic liar.

QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from in order to keep lying:

END QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from in order to keep lying:

There should be no doubt that Nyikos is just lying about me not
answering his question. He has now snipped and run from the same
material 4 times. What is he going to do? He obviously is the type of
lying asshole that would snip and run from something more than twice.
He broke the Nyikosian rule that allowed him to lie a limited number of
times. I don't know how the rule works, but Nyikos has assiduously
adhered to it since he came back to TO. What has happened when he has
messed up and broken the rule in the past? The example I have always
put up is the Scottish verdict quote. Sad but true.

>>
>>
>> Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.

How much more can you snip and run from?

Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
to himself:

> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
> >> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
> >> Monday)
> >> to post my first reply to the following post:

<long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
at the end left in:>

> > How sad is that?
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Oops it looks like Nyikos did get back to addressing what he is running
> from after posting his previous junk, but so much of my post is missing
> that I didn't recognize it.

And all of it deserves to be missing. You post one evasion after
another to avoid dealing with a potentially libelous claim by
you about Wells. AND to avoid answering my question to which a straightforward
answer which would either remove the "potentially" [if the answer
is Yes] or the "potentially libelous" [if the answer is No]

> >>>>> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
> >>>> have been living a lie for the last decade:
> >>>
> >>> I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule.
> >>
> >> Liar. There is no such rule, and I explained in my first, long
> >> reply to your 1086 line monstrosity just what your sick fantasy
> >> of there being such a rule is based on:
>
> You are such a liar. It could be insanity and you really aren't aware of
> what you do. Just think of all the times that you have done something
> stupid and dishonest

I can't think of times that exist only in your hate-ravaged mind.
You mistake allegations by you accusing me of "stupid and dishonest"
behavior with actual examples.

> twice in a thread, but run

Correction: snip.

It's taken me eight and a half years to realize that "snipping and running"
is REDUNDANT the way you use it: snipping *ipso facto* includes running the way
you use the term. And now you've left off "snip and" without changing the
meaning at all.

I'm sure even YOU know you would look foolish if you
wrote "snipping is dishonest" so your twisted mind adds the
superfluous "and running" to make your oft-repeated comment
"snipping and running is dishonest" SEEM logical.

But it isn't logical, it's an example of what I call polemical opportunism.
This consists of making comments which may look plausible to a
naive rube, but have no actual reasoning behind them.

> and can't bring yourself
> to do it 3 times.

You poor deluded simpleton. Read my excerpt below, which
directly addresses what you are saying here.


<snipping but NOT running from misdirection ploy by yourself>

The only reason I "had to" post it is because it is true. I am under no
obligation to repost slapped-on crud by you that doesn't come close
to refuting what I wrote.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/h3KqDeXnzhc/LFT6jGxpAwAJ
>
> Nyikos knows that I have already responded to this material,

...with pure bilge.

> above link is my response
> this this junk.
>
> QUOTE past response to first excerpt:
> >> The only thing that
> >> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.
> >
> > Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
> > lies that justify "earlier" lies...
>
> Why lie about something this stupid.

I'm not.

> You know why you had to run from
> the posts that you claimed that you would deal with the next day,

"had to" is a lie. As I said, Glenn had released me from my
promise even before I had made it.

> and
> why those posts have never been dealt with.

They were misdirection ploys, and I defy you to show otherwise.

> >
> > I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011,

NOTE: this was over three years before your misdirection ploys of 2014
that your are talking about here.

> > in several threads,
> > before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the
> last word
> > on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
> > departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
> > that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.


> You were first wrong about the Discovery Institute's involvement in
> Ohio.

I was asking you to prove what you had written about it. I suppose you
are deluded enough to claim that asking such questions is "being wrong".

> Once you found out that you were wrong you ran and started lying
> about the bait and switch.

"lying" seems to be your private term for repeating, over and over
again, that you have no credible evidence of bait being tendered
by Wells (and for that matter, the DI) in 2002 or even anywhere
in the 21st century.

And you still haven't provided credible evidence.


<snipping but NOT running from a torrent of repetitions of allegations,
with no evidence provided>

>
> QUOTE past response second excerpt:
> >>>> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
> >>> fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?
> >>
> >> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
> >> keep doing it?
> >
> > You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
> > has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
> > last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
> > earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
> > of deceit and hypocrisy.
>
> You are the one that keeps coming back to me

Yes, and I thank you again for those long intervals of freedom from
your maniacal hate-ravaged rants.

> to lie about the past.

No, to demonstrate how YOU lie about the past, mostly about the
existence of "bait". And you are so deluded that you think
your "holy water" post somehow exonerates you of lying about that.

> I have repeatedly told you that I do not want to discuss anything with
> you.

Of course you aren't. That's why you keep running away from new
revelations about your dishonesty. You delude yourself
into thinking that running is synonymous with snipping,
so you leave my evidence in place but act as though it weren't there.

> The holy water repost makes your stupid bouts of assoholic
> behavior as short as they probably can be. Look how you are doing
> anything that you can to avoid addressing the holy water repost.

You are deluded. I have dealt with lies in it many times, and will
do so again. But first I need to keep your feet to the fire about
something you are terribly afraid to confront: the diabolically
misleading equivocation you posted about Wells.


<snip to get to that equivocation>

Why ask dishonest questions? Unless you are insane, you know

the following does NOT refute what I wrote:


> This is how you started out with these lies in this thread.

It is becoming increasingly clear that "lies" and "lying" are often
put in by you in automatic pilot mode, without any thought as
to whether they are even false.

>
> QUOTE:
> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam",

Yes, claims by other people but NOT by Wells.

> but gives
> no credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
> sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.
> END QUOTE:
>
> You know that you snipped out this material twice already in this
> thread, and it wasn't second hand. Wells was there and participated in
> the bait and switch on Ohio.

You have never given credible evidence that Wells either participated
in tendering bait or describing it. That is why I keep your foot
to the fire about your diabolically misleading equivocation.

> He wrote the report and the part quoted
> that you keep snipping out.

Restore it, and either tell me that Wells is describing "bait" or
admit that you are desperately trying to avoid answering my question
by posting irrelevant stuff.

> >>
> >>
> >>>    What am I supposed to be running from?
> >>
> >>
> >> The question which I am repeating here from above:
>
> I am obviously not running from what you claim.

I am not claiming anything, liar. I am asking a question.

You are so desperate, you can't even talk sense any more.


<snip increasingly desperate misdirection ploy>

> >>>>>>>>    Are you claiming that Wells actually
> >>>>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> >>
> >> Answer Yes or No.
>
> And I answered it,

with a transparent evasion. You call that an answer?

> but you snipped it out and ran.

"and ran" is redundant, as usual. There was nothing of value
to run from, as will be shown below.

> I specifically
> stated that Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the
> Ohio rubes the ID science to teach.

That is not bait, liar. That is what you dishonestly call a "switch scam"
without ever having quoted anything from the Wells report that qualifies
as bait.

> Isn't that a yes?

Of course it is not. It is the second half of a perennial bait and switch
scam by YOU. You scam people by promising a bait and switch,
but then you scam them by only displaying what you dishonestly
call a "switch scam."

And you know it, otherwise you would have answered "Yes".

> QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from in order to keep

... your feet to the fire.

> > You aren't denying that you implied that Wells actually
> > revealed in the linked report that a bait and switch took place.

Not only do you go into a broken record routine in what you say next, but you
are lying: Wells never *stated* that they were dealing with "Ohio rubes":

> Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the Ohio rubes the
> ID science to teach.

> It is quoted in the part of the repost that you
> have snipped and run from twice already in this thread.

Like I said, there is nothing there that is of value as far
as supporting your PERENNIAL LIE about the "bait and" part:

>
> QUOTE:
> Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
> time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
> state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
> include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
> END QUOTE:
>
> You know how the ID perps were selling the teach ID scam before they
> came to Ohio.

You are taking refuge in the vague generality "ID perps", not daring
even to write "Wells" this time. Also in the word "before".


> QUOTE:
> 9. Conclusion

Dated 1999; three years before Ohio, you cowardly obfuscator.


<snip 20-year old excerpt, while Rip van Okimoto goes on sleeping
into the 21st century>

> You know that Meyer (one of the ID perps that decided to run the bait
> and switch on the Ohio rubes) was one of the authors of this guide book
> on teaching ID in the public schools. Where do you think that the Ohio
> rubes got the idea that they could teach the bogus ID scam in the public
> schools?

Back in 2010, you claimed that denouncing "rubes" is "vile."
That was naked polemical opportunism, wasn't it? Here you are
denouncing them by claiming that they had the idea of teaching a
"bogus ID scam in the public schools".

Oh, wait, you think vile behavior is laudable when YOU do it, don't you?

> Who did they bring in to tell them about teaching the ID scam
> in the public schools?

Where's your evidence that they were expecting Wells to provide something
like that?

> Wells is clearly stating that instead of giving the rubes the ID science
> that they were only going to give them the switch scam.

He is STATING nothing of the sort, liar. Your undying hatred
of the Argument from Design is evident from the diabolically
twisted way you are misrepresenting his actual words.

Yet even THAT falls short of your diabolically misleading words that you
dare not talk about in a straightforward way:

> >>>>>>>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps
> >>>>>>>>> decided
> >>>>>>>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in
> >>>>>>>>> 2002.

And here comes the question that you keep leaving in, and deluding
yourself about having answered it in a clear, satisfactory way:

> >>>>>>>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that
> >>>>>>>> Wells actually
> >>>>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> >>>>>>>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will
> >>>>>>>> try to
> >>>>>>>> track him down and inform him of that.

Note the words "bait and switch" in both cases, in contrast to:

> The switch scam
> that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.

> To make it clearer this is how the More lawyer saw their "strategy" from
> what you have already snipped out twice in this thread.
>
> QUOTE:
> RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
> in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
> that, um:

<snip quote from 1999 "book" quoted from above by Rip van Okimoto>

> Read the last paragraph as many times as you need to,

... from a person as biased as yourself against Intelligent Design,
but lacking your penchant for insane-sounding screeds.

> in order to
> understand how assoholic you have been for nearly a decade.
>
> The More lawyer calls what the ID perps do a strategy, but you know that
> it is the bait and switch scam.

You are libeling me by saying that I know something I have
repeatedly held your feet to the fire to prove.

> Sell the rubes one thing, but only give
> them crap that they never wanted.
> END QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from

I've left your libel in. And I warn you: if any of the people
who have supported you dishonestly against me dares to sue
me, expect to be named in a counter-suit as an accessory to libel
and perhaps perjury before the fact.

> >> Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.
>
> How much more can you snip

How much longer will you indulge in desperate, contorted
evasions to keep from explicitly answering my question?


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
> to himself:
>
>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
>>>> Monday)
>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
>
> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
> at the end left in:>

I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
TO. The asshole is obviously delusional and getting worse. He keeps
denying snipping and running from what he can't deal with, and in just
this thread he keeps doing it over and over. The lies just cannot stop.
Nyikos should not be allowed to harass a poster for nearly a decade
just because he was wrong about something stupid, and that snowballed as
he kept digging a deeper hole for himself doing more stupid and
dishonest junk to try to cover his stupidity. Some people might object
to me calling Nyikos and asshole, but who else do I call an asshole?
Kleinmann. Sometimes you just have to tell the truth in a straight
forward manner.

I am serious Nyikos isn't as bad as Jabs, but Jabs was never allowed to
harass someone for nearly a decade. In this post Nyikos projects his
stupid harassment onto me, claiming that he enjoys the months that he is
running between bouts of harassment. Nyikos knows that he is the one
that has to keep coming back to lie about the same junk, and he has to
lie about even that.

He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true. This
thread demonstrates that.

It is likely time to get the asshole to stop. That will likely require
banning him from TO.

What Nyikos snipped out and can't deal with.
REPOST:

> ...the second reply of perhaps four to Ron O's 1089 line monstrosity.

Just reposting the material that you have snipped and run from for half
a decade. You should actually address it some time instead of run and
lie about it repeatedly, until you reach your limit for lying.

>
>
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> ... that 1089 line monstrosity. I had said I would continue my replies to
> it today, but am postponing that until Monday.

What is weird is that you are reposting something that you are already
running from. I have already addressed your post. It looks like you
are responding to my response, but you obviously snipped it out and
replaced it with what you had previously posted. How sad is that? It
might be a novel concept, but you might want to address the response
instead of posting the bogus lies again when you know that they are
bogus lies because you can't deal with reality.

It is too bad that you have snipped and lied about the same material 3
times in the same thread. If you respond to what has already been
written you will have to deal with that dastardly deed. For some reason
it is against the Nyikosian rules to do something bogus and dishonest 3
times. Twice should mean that you know how bogus and dishonest it is,
but you had to repeat it, but 3 times seems to be too much even for a
lying asshole like you. You have snipped out the quoted material that

you have been running from for half a decade. It was in the post that

you claimed that you would address tomorrow, and had been given to you

for years before that. You have never snipped it out and run from it 3

times in the same thread, so what are you going to do now? This means
that you are the type of lying asshole that your rules are supposed to
keep you from being. You could do the scottish verdict routine, but all
that accomplishes is that you have to lie about reality forever after.
Just think of how long you have had to lie about the scottish verdict
quote, just because you snipped and ran from it 3 times. How are you
going to lie about the material that you have snipped and run from 3
times. You even removed it and lied about it being second hand material
to start this thread. How sad is that?

END REPOST:

Nyikos knows that I had already responded to what he is lying about, but
he had remove my response to his junk in order to lie about it again.
Just see what he did below.

>
>>> How sad is that?
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Oops it looks like Nyikos did get back to addressing what he is running
>> from after posting his previous junk, but so much of my post is missing
>> that I didn't recognize it.
>
> And all of it deserves to be missing. You post one evasion after
> another to avoid dealing with a potentially libelous claim by
> you about Wells. AND to avoid answering my question to which a straightforward
> answer which would either remove the "potentially" [if the answer
> is Yes] or the "potentially libelous" [if the answer is No]

The evader is obviously Nyikos who has snipped and run from the holy
water repost twice alreaady in this thread. I would repost it again,
but Nyikos has decided that he can snip and run as many times as he
wants to and still not be the lying asshole that he knows that he is or
he would not have had his snipping limit all these years.

>
>>>>>>> On 6/18/2019 12:11 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> Finally, we get to the point where I start to show how you
>>>>>> have been living a lie for the last decade:
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to tell you this, but you broke your snipping and running rule.
>>>>
>>>> Liar. There is no such rule, and I explained in my first, long
>>>> reply to your 1086 line monstrosity just what your sick fantasy
>>>> of there being such a rule is based on:
>>
>> You are such a liar. It could be insanity and you really aren't aware of
>> what you do. Just think of all the times that you have done something
>> stupid and dishonest
>
>
> I can't think of times that exist only in your hate-ravaged mind.
> You mistake allegations by you accusing me of "stupid and dishonest"
> behavior with actual examples.
>
>> twice in a thread, but run

Why does Nyikos have to lie about what he has consistently done for
nearly a decade? Why did the holy water repost work for half a decade?

>
> Correction: snip.
>
> It's taken me eight and a half years to realize that "snipping and running"
> is REDUNDANT the way you use it: snipping *ipso facto* includes running the way
> you use the term. And now you've left off "snip and" without changing the
> meaning at all.
>
> I'm sure even YOU know you would look foolish if you
> wrote "snipping is dishonest" so your twisted mind adds the
> superfluous "and running" to make your oft-repeated comment
> "snipping and running is dishonest" SEEM logical.
>
> But it isn't logical, it's an example of what I call polemical opportunism.
> This consists of making comments which may look plausible to a
> naive rube, but have no actual reasoning behind them.
>
>
>
>> and can't bring yourself
>> to do it 3 times.
>
> You poor deluded simpleton. Read my excerpt below, which
> directly addresses what you are saying here.
>
>
> <snipping but NOT running from misdirection ploy by yourself>

What Nyikos mangled and snipped out and ran from because he can't deal
with the truth.

REPOST:

You are such a liar. It could be insanity and you really aren't aware of
what you do. Just think of all the times that you have done something

stupid and dishonest twice in a thread, but run and can't bring yourself
to do it 3 times. Think about what you did when confronted by the
Phillip Johnson quote (hint you snipped it out and ran twice before
running without addressing it). Think about what you did with the
scottish verdict quote. You snipped it out 3 times, and what did you
do? You went back, restored the quote and started lying about it in any
way that you could. Putting the quote back in did not mean that you
didn't snip and run from the quote three times. You knew what that
quote meant, but you just had to lie about it.

What are you going to do now that you are exceeding that limit? In the
past you just start openly lying about the material and ignoring
reality. What are you going to do this time? You may have already

started because you are starting to call the material "obsolete". This

is evidence that you have been lying about for nearly a decade. The
evidence is getting older, but it still exists, and you have been
running from it for years.

END REPOST:

What is Nyikos going to do? See below. Hint: he snips out this
material again. That is probably 6 times this material has been snipped
out in this thread. It has to be a record for doing the same bogus and
dishonest deed in a thread.

The reason you posted it here is because you had to run from the truth
again and keep lying about the past.

>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/h3KqDeXnzhc/LFT6jGxpAwAJ
>>
>> Nyikos knows that I have already responded to this material,
>
> ...with pure bilge.
>
>
>> above link is my response
>> this this junk.
>>
>> QUOTE past response to first excerpt:
>> >> The only thing that
>> >> makes you run is when you reach your limit for lying.
>> >
>> > Correction: for correcting lies by you that "justify" earlier
>> > lies that justify "earlier" lies...
>>
>> Why lie about something this stupid.
>
> I'm not.

Why does Nyikos keep lying?

>
>
>> You know why you had to run from
>> the posts that you claimed that you would deal with the next day,
>
> "had to" is a lie. As I said, Glenn had released me from my
> promise even before I had made it.

Why would this stupid lie come up when you have run from your tomorrow
claim for half a decade, and Glenn has magically released you now? How
many years did it take for the release to be given? What is sad is that
you have snipped and run from the same quote, that was in one of those
posts that you claimed that you would address, 5 times in this thread,
and you do it again below. Why lie about running from what you can't
deal with. You know that you ran because you are still running.

>
>
>> and
>> why those posts have never been dealt with.
>
> They were misdirection ploys, and I defy you to show otherwise.

They were such misdirection ploys that you bragged to Glenn that you
would "relentlessly pursue" the next day. I knew what you were going to
do. It was just a prelude to running. It is one of your excuses for
running from what you can't deal with while still lying to yourself that
you will deal with it. You were just claiming that you would address
the material, you never intended to do what you claimed, and you still
haven't done what you claimed you would do to this day.

>
>
>
>> >
>> > I went on like this for dozens of posts in 2011,
>
> NOTE: this was over three years before your misdirection ploys of 2014
> that your are talking about here.

Misdirection? Projection is about the stupidest thing that you do.
Insanity isn't a defense it is an excuse. Why do you have to keep
coming back to lie about it for half a decade if it wasn't about what
you have been lying about for nearly a decade? I created it so that
junk like this thread would be fewer and further between, and it has
worked for half a decade.

>
>
>
>>> in several threads,
>> > before I realized that you are totally obsessed with getting in the
>> last word
>> > on every such running battle. Now I know that when you have
>> > departed too far from your original lies, it is enough to know
>> > that you no longer bother to defend your original lies.
>
>
>> You were first wrong about the Discovery Institute's involvement in
>> Ohio.
>
> I was asking you to prove what you had written about it. I suppose you
> are deluded enough to claim that asking such questions is "being wrong".

You ran and never addressed that post. You were directed back to it
many times as you kept lying about the situation and getting yourself
into trouble lying about the bait and switch scam. That post is still
unanswered.

Delusions like you must be having are not real. You really are a lying
asshole, and always have been. You can go back to that post and
demonstrate it for yourself, but you can't get yourself to do it.

>
>
>> Once you found out that you were wrong you ran and started lying
>> about the bait and switch.
>
> "lying" seems to be your private term for repeating, over and over
> again, that you have no credible evidence of bait being tendered
> by Wells (and for that matter, the DI) in 2002 or even anywhere
> in the 21st century.

What do you call claiming never to have gotten a description of what the
bait and switch was? You snipped out and lied about not getting a
description more than twice and you have had to lie about it forever
after in your delusional state. You still have not acknowledged ever
getting a description. That is how delusional you have been for nearly
a decade. You are the type of delusional lying asshole that would snip
out and lie about something more than twice in one thread. Lying about
those events is the only way that you can live in your delusional state
because once you do something bogus and dishonest 3 times it could not
have been bogus and dishonest in your deluded mind. Why else have you
kept lying about never getting a description of the bait and switch?
Why else do you keep lying about the scottish verdict quote when you
know that you are lying?

>
> And you still haven't provided credible evidence.
>
>
> <snipping but NOT running from a torrent of repetitions of allegations,
> with no evidence provided>

REPOST the complete unmangled paragraph:

You were first wrong about the Discovery Institute's involvement in

Ohio. Once you found out that you were wrong you ran and started lying
about the bait and switch. It is just what you do. The lies had to
multiply because you kept being wrong about more and more junk. That is
why the repost works. You have a limit for lying for some insane reason
known only to you, you can only lie about something a certain number of
times in a thread before you have to quit. Doesn't this mean that you
understand that you are lying? Just because you only do the same bogus
and dishonet thing twice doesn't mean that it isn't bogus and dishonest.

END QUOTE past response to first excerpt:
END REPOST:

It is obvious why Nyikos had to repost his junk with out my responses.
He had to do it because he can't deal with my responses in an honest and
straight forward manner, and he obviously still cannot face the responses.

>
>
>>
>> QUOTE past response second excerpt:
>> >>>> I guess that I have to post the entire repost again. Sort of stupid.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, your WAG (wild-assed guess) IS rather stupid. What accounts
>> >>> fro this strange compulsion of yours, Ron O?
>> >>
>> >> No one can deny that it has worked for half a decade, so why shouldn't I
>> >> keep doing it?
>> >
>> > You poor simpleton! My realization of your total obsession is what
>> > has worked to keep YOU out of MY hair! Once I let you have the
>> > last word in your campaign of deceit piled upon deceit to "justify"
>> > earlier deceit, you leave me alone until I hit you for new examples
>> > of deceit and hypocrisy.
>>
>> You are the one that keeps coming back to me
>
> Yes, and I thank you again for those long intervals of freedom from
> your maniacal hate-ravaged rants.

Can anyone believe how delusional someone has to be to make this claim?
It is time to discuss banning Nyikos from TO. Enough is enough.

I do not follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper. It is long past
being something that was worth doing. The delusional projection that is
required by Nyikos is something that should be dealt with.

My guess is that he cannot help himself, so he will have to be banned.

>
>> to lie about the past.
>
> No, to demonstrate how YOU lie about the past, mostly about the
> existence of "bait". And you are so deluded that you think
> your "holy water" post somehow exonerates you of lying about that.
>
>
>> I have repeatedly told you that I do not want to discuss anything with
>> you.
>
> Of course you aren't. That's why you keep running away from new
> revelations about your dishonesty. You delude yourself
> into thinking that running is synonymous with snipping,
> so you leave my evidence in place but act as though it weren't there.

The delusional harassment has continued even though Nyikos understands
that I do not want to discuss anything with him. In this delusional
state he expects me to be running from things when he understands that I
have no interest in anything he has to write.

This is just crazy and just another reason Nyikos will likely have to be
banned in order to stop his delusional behavior.

>
>
>> The holy water repost makes your stupid bouts of assoholic
>> behavior as short as they probably can be. Look how you are doing
>> anything that you can to avoid addressing the holy water repost.
>
> You are deluded. I have dealt with lies in it many times, and will
> do so again. But first I need to keep your feet to the fire about
> something you are terribly afraid to confront: the diabolically
> misleading equivocation you posted about Wells.

That must be why you have snipped and run from the holy water repost
twice already in this thread. Do your lies make sense to you? Or do
they sound as stupid as they are if you pretend someone else was saying
that?

>
>
> <snip to get to that equivocation>

I have to have two windows open in order to determine what Nyikos is
running from.

REPOST:

>
> And you have consistently run away from ALL demonstrations of
> NEW deceit by you, but your sick mind tells you that you have
> not run away, because you have left it in without even commenting
> on it and PROBABLY NOT EVEN READ more than a few lines of it!

New deceit? You just find more junk to lie about because that is what
an assoholic like you does. Why would I want to discuss anything with a
lying asshole like you?

>

> And so my documentation of dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
> by you just keeps piling up, never countered by you.

END REPOST:

Nyikos just can't deal with how bogus and dishonest he is shown to be.
He knows what he snipped out means, but he can't deal with it. He snips
out the material that I am talking about again below. He obviously
can't deal rationally with what he is doing, but he does it anyway.

Why did you lie above? Shouldn't you know why?

>
>
>> This is how you started out with these lies in this thread.
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear that "lies" and "lying" are often
> put in by you in automatic pilot mode, without any thought as
> to whether they are even false.
>
>
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
>> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam",
>
> Yes, claims by other people but NOT by Wells.

You lied. Where do you exclude Wells or the other first hand writings
like Santorum's. You just flat out lied. The best you can do is claim
that you meant to exclude the first hand accounts, but you screwed up
and lied. What did you write? They were you own words and, at best,
you are now claiming that you meant to exclude somethings, but you
obviously did not. You are lying about lying.

>
>
>> but gives
>> no credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
>> sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> You know that you snipped out this material twice already in this
>> thread, and it wasn't second hand. Wells was there and participated in
>> the bait and switch on Ohio.
>
> You have never given credible evidence that Wells either participated
> in tendering bait or describing it. That is why I keep your foot
> to the fire about your diabolically misleading equivocation.

He was there, and he obviously agreed to run the bait and switch and not
give the IDiot rubes the teach ID scam. He wrote in his report that he
and other ID perps had gotten together and decided not to give the rubes
any ID science to teach. What did the Ohio rubes get instead? Lying
about this is stupid and delusional. Why even pretend to be telling the
truth?

>
>
>> He wrote the report and the part quoted
>> that you keep snipping out.
>
> Restore it, and either tell me that Wells is describing "bait" or
> admit that you are desperately trying to avoid answering my question
> by posting irrelevant stuff.

What is sad is that I have the quote below, and look how you dealt with it.

That is why you have snipped it out and run from it in the past. He
snips it out again.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    What am I supposed to be running from?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question which I am repeating here from above:
>>
>> I am obviously not running from what you claim.
>
> I am not claiming anything, liar. I am asking a question.
>
> You are so desperate, you can't even talk sense any more.

I obviously didn't run from your question, but look how you dealt with
the answer.

>
>
> <snip increasingly desperate misdirection ploy>

REPOST:

I am obviously not running from what you claim. You are the one that
keeps snipping out the evidence and running. Projection is a stupid
defense. You have to understand how bogus and dishonest you are in
order to do it.

Just put the material that you have snipped and run from and deal with it.
END REPOST:

We know why Nyikos will not put the material back in because of how he
deals with it below.

>
>
>>>>>>>>>>    Are you claiming that Wells actually
>>>>>>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
>>>>
>>>> Answer Yes or No.
>>
>> And I answered it,
>
> with a transparent evasion. You call that an answer?
>
>
>> but you snipped it out and ran.
>
> "and ran" is redundant, as usual. There was nothing of value
> to run from, as will be shown below.
>
>
>> I specifically
>> stated that Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the
>> Ohio rubes the ID science to teach.
>
> That is not bait, liar. That is what you dishonestly call a "switch scam"
> without ever having quoted anything from the Wells report that qualifies
> as bait.

The ID perp claim that they had the science to teach in the public
schools and that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach it. That
claim was always the bait. That is how the bait and switch works. You
sell the teach ID scam, but then only give the rubes an obfuscation
switch scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed. Wells claims
that they decided to do that before they performed their bogus ID perp
routine for the Ohio IDiot rubes.

Why lie like this?

>
>
>> Isn't that a yes?
>
> Of course it is not. It is the second half of a perennial bait and switch
> scam by YOU. You scam people by promising a bait and switch,
> but then you scam them by only displaying what you dishonestly
> call a "switch scam."

Why lie? I was obviously saying yes in a way that only someone as
delusional as you are could not understand. You had to snip it out and
lie about it.

>
> And you know it, otherwise you would have answered "Yes".
>
>
>
>> QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from in order to keep
>
> ... your feet to the fire.
>
>
>> > You aren't denying that you implied that Wells actually
>> > revealed in the linked report that a bait and switch took place.
>
>
> Not only do you go into a broken record routine in what you say next, but you
> are lying: Wells never *stated* that they were dealing with "Ohio rubes":
>
>> Wells definitely states that they decided not to give the Ohio rubes the
>> ID science to teach.
>
>> It is quoted in the part of the repost that you
>> have snipped and run from twice already in this thread.
>
> Like I said, there is nothing there that is of value as far
> as supporting your PERENNIAL LIE about the "bait and" part:

That comes later, and Nyikos knows it. Can anyone believe the state of
delusion that Nyikos had to be in, in order to write what he did above?

>
>
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
>> time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
>> state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
>> include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> You know how the ID perps were selling the teach ID scam before they
>> came to Ohio.
>
> You are taking refuge in the vague generality "ID perps", not daring
> even to write "Wells" this time. Also in the word "before".
>

In what kind of delusional mind would it matter that I do not mention
Wells by name when Nyikos knows that I am quoting him.

This is where I give Nyikos evidence of the bait and it is what Nyikos
has now snipped out and run from half a dozen times in this thread. He
has to snip it out in order to keep lying about it because of his stupid
rule about "self contained lies" if the material he is lying about is
not in the post he is not lying even if it was there and he has removed it.

>> QUOTE:
>> 9. Conclusion
>
> Dated 1999; three years before Ohio, you cowardly obfuscator.
>
>
> <snip 20-year old excerpt, while Rip van Okimoto goes on sleeping
> into the 21st century>

You see that Nyikos has to snip out the material in order to lie about
it. Nyikos knows in even his delusional state that you have to offer
the bait before you can run the bait and switch scam. The ID perps were
obviously selling the teach ID scam for years before Ohio in 2002. In
1999 the Kansas creationists were still using Hovind as their Science
expert when they voted to drop evolution, the age of the earth,
radiometric dating, etc. from their science standards. IDiocy was not
on their radar, but the ID perps were already selling the teach ID scam.

What Nyikos snipped out
REPOST:

END REPOST:

There is absolutely no doubt that the ID perps were selling the teach ID
scam. DeWolf was the head of legal for the Discovery Institute, Meyer
was director of the ID scam unit and still is the director of the ID
scam unit, Deforrest claims to have been a Discovery Institute fellow of
the ID scam unit on his web page. This is the guide book that the ID
perps used to give out with their video mention in the wedge document.

1999 means that the ID perps were selling the teach ID scam before they
started running the bait and switch. Nyikos understand this, but he has
to lie about it in any way that he can because he has snipped it out and
run from this quote half a dozen times in this thread. From now on this
quote will never have meant that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam
before they started running the bait and switch. He will always lie
about it.

It likely is time to ban Nyikos from TO. Things likely are not going to
get any better.

>
>
>> You know that Meyer (one of the ID perps that decided to run the bait
>> and switch on the Ohio rubes) was one of the authors of this guide book
>> on teaching ID in the public schools. Where do you think that the Ohio
>> rubes got the idea that they could teach the bogus ID scam in the public
>> schools?
>
> Back in 2010, you claimed that denouncing "rubes" is "vile."
> That was naked polemical opportunism, wasn't it? Here you are
> denouncing them by claiming that they had the idea of teaching a
> "bogus ID scam in the public schools".

I call them rubes and you were claiming that they were the bad guys. Go
back to what you did and demonstrate that it was not vile. I called you
out on what you did. I do not recall if it was you or someone else that
was blaming the rubes. I think that you and Pags were twins around
then, but you could provide a link. I did not call the rubes vile.

Who sold the IDiot rubes the teach ID scam? Why do I call them the ID
perps?

>
> Oh, wait, you think vile behavior is laudable when YOU do it, don't you?

The argument about the rubes was vile, but it wasn't my argument.

It probably is time to discuss banning Nyikos. He has obviously gone
back to some really old posts, and can't deal with them rationally, and
is mixing up claims about me. I recall that vile comment was early on
probably in 2011. Nyikos can provide a link.

>
>
>> Who did they bring in to tell them about teaching the ID scam
>> in the public schools?
>
> Where's your evidence that they were expecting Wells to provide something
> like that?

Did you read Santorum's editorial. You snipped it out twice in this
thread. What do you think the other IDiots expected? Why did they
bring in the ID perps to tell it to them? Delusional stupidity like
this is what I have had to put up with for nearly a decade, and it
doesn't look like there is any end to it.

>
>
>> Wells is clearly stating that instead of giving the rubes the ID science
>> that they were only going to give them the switch scam.
>
> He is STATING nothing of the sort, liar. Your undying hatred
> of the Argument from Design is evident from the diabolically
> twisted way you are misrepresenting his actual words.
>
> Yet even THAT falls short of your diabolically misleading words that you
> dare not talk about in a straightforward way:

Why lie about something this stupid? You know how the ID perps were
selling the ID scam before Ohio, you know what Wells wrote, and you know
what happened to the Ohio rubes, so why keep lying?

>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps
>>>>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in
>>>>>>>>>>> 2002.
>
> And here comes the question that you keep leaving in, and deluding
> yourself about having answered it in a clear, satisfactory way:

Nyikos brought this in from somewhere and inserted it without
attribution. I don't know why he did it because it is obvious from what
he has done with the material that he has to snip and run from that he
is just lying.

>
>>>>>>>>>> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that
>>>>>>>>>> Wells actually
>>>>>>>>>> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
>>>>>>>>>> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will
>>>>>>>>>> try to
>>>>>>>>>> track him down and inform him of that.

I don't know how diabolical it is. Wells just states that they decided
to run the bait and switch. The ID perps had been running the teach ID
scam for years, but they decided not to give the IDiot rubes any ID
science to teach. That would be clear to anyone that understood what
the ID perps had been doing for years, and that instead of put up or
shut up the ID perps started running the bait and switch. They never
stopped running the teach ID scam. They never claimed to quit. They
didn't even claim to quit after Dover and they had the claim that the
scientific theory of ID could be taught in the public schools in their
education policy on their web page until 2013. Nyikos knows that he has
been snipping and running from this reality for years. The change in
the education policy is one of the threads linked to in the holy water
repost.

>
>
> Note the words "bait and switch" in both cases, in contrast to:
>
>> The switch scam
>> that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
>
>
>> To make it clearer this is how the More lawyer saw their "strategy" from
>> what you have already snipped out twice in this thread.
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
>> in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
>> that, um:
>
> <snip quote from 1999 "book" quoted from above by Rip van Okimoto>
>
>
>> Read the last paragraph as many times as you need to,
>
> ... from a person as biased as yourself against Intelligent Design,
> but lacking your penchant for insane-sounding screeds.

Nyikos will likely have to be banned from TO. The delusional stupidity
is likely not going to stop. He likely doesn't even care why he has to
snip out the material and run from it anymore. He just has to snip it
out in order to keep lying.

Nyikos should have read the last paragraph as many times as it takes to
destroy his delusions, but he obviously can't even leave the material in
the post and has to run.

REPOST the material:

QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

Read the last paragraph as many times as you need to, in order to

understand how assoholic you have been for nearly a decade.

The More lawyer calls what the ID perps do a strategy, but you know that

it is the bait and switch scam. Sell the rubes one thing, but only give

them crap that they never wanted.

END QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from in order to keep lying:
END REPOST:

>
>
>> in order to
>> understand how assoholic you have been for nearly a decade.
>>
>> The More lawyer calls what the ID perps do a strategy, but you know that
>> it is the bait and switch scam.
>
> You are libeling me by saying that I know something I have
> repeatedly held your feet to the fire to prove.

You would know it if you hadn't snipped it out and run from reality.

Read the last paragraph as many times as it takes to destroy your
delusion. That should keep you busy for eternity. A sane person would
learn something, but you just have to keep lying so you can't learn
anything. Removing the material does not mean that it does not exist.

>
>
>> Sell the rubes one thing, but only give
>> them crap that they never wanted.
>> END QUOTE what Nyikos snipped and ran from
>
> I've left your libel in. And I warn you: if any of the people
> who have supported you dishonestly against me dares to sue
> me, expect to be named in a counter-suit as an accessory to libel
> and perhaps perjury before the fact.

By now there likely aren't many that don't understand what a lying
asshole you are.

Banning Nyikos from TO is likely the only way to stop his delusional
behavior. A decade of senseless harassment should be enough reason.

>
>
>
>>>> Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.
>>
>> How much more can you snip
>
> How much longer will you indulge in desperate, contorted
> evasions to keep from explicitly answering my question?

Can anyone believe what Nyikos has to snip and run from?

QUOTE:
How much more can you snip and run from?
END QUOTE:

No one could make this junk up. Why would Nyikos have to snip that out
in order to tell his last lies about "desperate, contorted evasions"
that he had to snip and run from.

The delusions are getting worse, and there is no longer a limit on
snipping and lying about what Nyikos can't face. It likely will be down
hill from here and it is already pretty far down. Nyikos will likely
have to be banned in order to get him to stop his delusional harassing
behavior.

I am serious. No one should have to deal with Nyikos.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 6/14/2019 7:11 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
> >>
> >> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
> >>
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ


<snip dishonest misdirection ploy by you>

> >> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand

> >> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no

> >> credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
> >> sources like a 1999 essay

You rambled on about this long obsolete essay in a cowardly way WITHOUT
having the integrity to let people know it was the same essay that
I am talking about here.

> >> and the notorious "Wedge" document.

> > Why would Nyikos lie so stupidly about the material being second hand
> > claims?

Why don't you go the whole hog and ask,

"Why doesn't Nyikos stop beating his wife?"

That has as much truth in it as the question you actually posed -- none.


> > Wells wrote his report and he participated in the Ohio bait and
> > switch.  Any one can use the link

There you go: the stuff that supposedly incriminates Wells
was NOT quoted by you, and the quotes you DID give
that tried to create the impression of a "bait and switch"
were secondhand "information" about what supposedly "went down" in Ohio in 2002.


> > to go to the post and they will find
> > that the first quoted material comes directly from the Discovery
> > Institute ID perps themselves. 

But they certainly did NOT post any

claims about [the existence of] what YOU allege

to be a "bait and switch scam"

<snip cowardly jabber by you about that 1999 document>


> > I can't make this junk up. 

Correction: only you are twisted enough to make up this junk:

> > For whatever reason Nyikos has to lie about
> > being wrong about the bait and switch. 

For whatever reason, you are using "wrong about" in a fallacious way
known as "begging the question" AND compounding the fallacy with
the libel "lie" and with the diabolically misleading "had to."

Only someone with as perversely twisted mind as yourself can
pack so much deceit into one sentence.


> > What is really sad is

The honest thing to say, instead of this, is:

It gives me great pleasure to lie about what you would
find if you were to take me up on the following advice:


> > that if
> > you go back to the first post Nyikos has been running from for the last
> > decade you will see that his erroneous claim was that the Discovery
> > Institute did not participate in the Ohio fiasco. 

Trouble is, the description "the first post..." is so ambiguous that
people discovering the post about which you are lying will naturally
assume that they hadn't found the right post, and continue searching...

You LOVE to send rubes off on wild goose chases, don't you?


<snip dishonest misdirection ploy by you>

> > The sad thing is that

...you are referring to those same two obsolete sources.

> > when Nyikos was still posting to TO the Teach ID
> > scam was the major emphasis at the Discovery Institute. 

It was not a scam; it was a foolish pair of documents. The rubes who wrote
it still had unrealistic hopes awakened by Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_,
which represented the REAL beginning of what people nowadays
inaccurately think of as the Intelligent Design movement.

The opponents of ID only see the part that opposes blind unguided
abiogenesis and evolution without going outside conditions on earth.

But you know better, or should if you actually read the "best that
they have to offer" that you keep shoving into Glenn's face.



> > Holy Water Repost:
> > It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> > �tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
> > he would relentlessly pursue.  The pattern has been the same for years,
> > and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years.  Nyikos has some weird
> > insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> > never lost an exchange on the internet.

The last time we tangled.I challenged you on your bare-faced lie,

"Nyikos has some weird notion...that he has never lost an exchange on the internet"

Your "documentation" in support of this lie
made it absolutely clear that you were so deluded about this,
your sanity was put in grave doubt.

No wonder Oxyaena shot her credibility to pieces by claiming you were sane.
She had shot it to pieces so many times before, one more time didn't matter.


<snip to get to another part of your re-re-...-re-repost about whose
effectiveness you are seriously deluded>


On an earlier occasion, I pointed out that the quote below was
pure hearsay, because it comes from a perhaps unreliable secondary
source. In reply to my pointing out that "hearsay evidence is not
admissible" in courts, all you could do was whine about the word
"hearsay" but you couldn't rebut what I wrote.

> > > I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed

Here, you had the minimal integrity, which you have abandoned,
to use the words "said to have claimed".


> > > that there was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> > > taught in the public schools.

Even so, you are here deceitfully failing to mention the qualifying part after
the dash in the quote below. With little steps like these, you evolve
claims into outright lies.


> >
> > http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php
> >
> >
> >
> > QUOTE:
> > With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
> > Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
> > theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
> > evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
> > classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
> > as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
> > END QUOTE:

... by a journalist for the New York Times who only quoted words
by Wells which did NOT support even the slightest hint of there
being any "bait":

"I'm not trying to tell you who's right and who's wrong here," Wells, a
biologist and religious studies scholar, said in denying critics' accusation
that the intelligent-design movement was a new approach,

Now comes a naked piece of editorializing in a "news report":

veiled in scientific trappings, to force theism into the public schools.

Then comes the next quote from Wells:

"Is the design that we all see real or merely an appearance?" Wells asked.

No further quotes by Wells were given.


<snip irrelevant stuff about the policy you dishonestly label "switch scam";
nothing about bait in it>


> >> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
> >> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.

You've already wasted thousands of lines blowing dense clouds of
smoke around this undeniable fact.

> >> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> >> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
> >>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
> >>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
> >>
> >> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells
> >> actually
> >> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> >> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> >> track him down and inform him of that.

You've spent three posts of lies to avoid answering this question unambiguously.
Let's see whether YOU have the "three post limit" of lies that you
falsely claim I have.

I ask you again: are you claiming that Wells actually

revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?

<snip to get to the link:>

https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html


Are you going to lie a fourth time to evade answering it?



TO BE CONTINUED


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
> > to himself:
> >
> >> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
> >>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
> >>>> Monday)
> >>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
> >
> > <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
> > at the end left in:>
>
> I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
> TO.

You are really going off the deep end here, Ron O.

> The asshole is obviously delusional and getting worse. He keeps
> denying snipping and running

I explained that I was using YOUR idea of snipping being equivalent
to "snipping and running" in your self-serving definitions of those
terms, and then I told you I was snipping but NOT running.

Your diabolical mind has morphed this into a hate-crazed "justification"
of your sadistic desire to have me banned.

But I doubt that even Oxyaena, the ONLY person on this thread
besides myself and yourself who has replied to any of your posts,
will support you in this quest for a ban.

All the others have vainly tried to divert me from showing just
how you've been living a lie for over a decade about a "bait and switch scam."

For a couple of days they even succeeded, but I know what I set
out to do on this thread and cannot be deterred from it very long.



I've snipped some hate-crazed things you hit me with, but will
deal with them if any of the other people on this thread supports
the madness that you posted.

> He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true.

Either you believe this and are therefore insane, or you are
deliberately libeling me.

Either way, I pity anyone who takes seriously the claim that
I should be banned from t.o. on the basis of what you've been
writing on this thread:


> This thread demonstrates that.

What I said in the last two paragraphs applies here too, except
that it isn't explicit libel. It is either a lie or a *prima facie*
case for you being insane.

>
> It is likely time to get the asshole to stop. That will likely require
> banning him from TO.

All this time you have been bragging about how the "holy water" post
has been effective, and now you seem to be panicking because it
has NOT been as effective as you keep claiming it is.

>
> What Nyikos snipped out and can't deal with.
> REPOST:
> > ...the second reply of perhaps four to Ron O's 1089 line monstrosity.
>
> Just reposting the material that you have snipped and run from for half
> a decade. You should actually address it some time instead of run and
> lie about it repeatedly, until you reach your limit for lying.
>
> >
> >
> >>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >
> > ... that 1089 line monstrosity. I had said I would continue my replies to
> > it today, but am postponing that until Monday.
>
> What is weird is that you are reposting something that you are already
> running from.

You are babbling, not even trying to make sense.

But I'll humor you: since you seem to be in a state of panic over
how the "holy water" hasn't worked, I am leaving the rest of what you
wrote in this time, and signing off here.


Peter Nyikos

PS It was New Google Groups software that clipped off part of your
post at the end, not I. Just thought I say this lest you accuse
me again of "snipping and running."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>

> >The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
> >keeps on going.
>

> I'm not sure how you see a "relentless campaign" from
> jillery's post,


Your condescension below is belied by your stupefyingly illogical
suggestion that I am concluding the existence of a campaign
from ONE post.

Had you written, "how jillery's post is the continuation
of a relentless campaign, I'd deal with the rest of your
post, but I'm only doing the bare minimum of replies on
this thread to anyone but Ron O from now on.

By the way, do you like the idea of having me banned from t.o. on
the basis of how I am treating Ron O?

If not, do you have the guts to tell Ron O that you are
not in favor of me being banned from t.o.?


Peter Nyikos





still visible in its entirety below, but I'm
> sure you *do* see it.
>
> >Is anyone surprised?
>
> By any irrational accusation/assertion from you? Not at all.
>
> Oh, and I'm sure Oxyaensa is *devastated* by your
> "boycott"...not.

>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> >> This moment of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
> >> brought to you by:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
> >> >for reasons explained here:
> >>
> >> <snip remaining self-serving spew>

> >>
> >> --
> >> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> >>
> >> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> >> Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 6/25/2019 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip dick waving]

>
> No wonder Oxyaena shot her credibility to pieces by claiming you were sane.
> She had shot it to pieces so many times before, one more time didn't matter.

What do I have to do with any of this shit?

[snip dick-waving]

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:22:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
>> to himself:
>>
>>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
>>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
>>>>> Monday)
>>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
>>
>> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
>> at the end left in:>
>
>I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
>TO. The asshole is obviously delusional and getting worse. He keeps
>denying snipping and running from what he can't deal with, and in just
>this thread he keeps doing it over and over. The lies just cannot stop.
> Nyikos should not be allowed to harass a poster for nearly a decade
>just because he was wrong about something stupid, and that snowballed as
>he kept digging a deeper hole for himself doing more stupid and
>dishonest junk to try to cover his stupidity. Some people might object
>to me calling Nyikos and asshole, but who else do I call an asshole?
>Kleinmann. Sometimes you just have to tell the truth in a straight
>forward manner.

I disagree. While Peter is a good example of a bad example,
anyone here can read his posts and come to their own
conclusions (or simply ignore or killfile him).

>I am serious Nyikos isn't as bad as Jabs, but Jabs was never allowed to
>harass someone for nearly a decade. In this post Nyikos projects his
>stupid harassment onto me, claiming that he enjoys the months that he is
>running between bouts of harassment. Nyikos knows that he is the one
>that has to keep coming back to lie about the same junk, and he has to
>lie about even that.

Sure, and all that is blindingly obvious to anyone capable
of reading for comprehension. Unlike The Jabber, his only
real victim is himself and the only significant casualty is
his credibility.

>He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true. This
>thread demonstrates that.

....and anyone capable of reading for comprehension can see
that.

<snip the rest of a post that's gotten *way* too long>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:

>> >The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>> >keeps on going.
>>
>> I'm not sure how you see a "relentless campaign" from
>> jillery's post,

>Your condescension below...

Projecting again?

>...I'm only doing the bare minimum of replies on

>this thread to anyone but Ron O from now on.

Thanks; that way I can (mostly) ignore your rants.

>By the way, do you like the idea of having me banned from t.o. on
>the basis of how I am treating Ron O?
>
>If not, do you have the guts to tell Ron O that you are
>not in favor of me being banned from t.o.?

Already done so. Do you have the "guts" to admit your
implied assumption was incorrect?

(And BTW, I posted my response to Ron *before* I read this
latest idiotic rant of yours.)

>> still visible in its entirety below, but I'm
>> sure you *do* see it.
>>
>> >Is anyone surprised?
>>
>> By any irrational accusation/assertion from you? Not at all.
>>
>> Oh, and I'm sure Oxyaensa is *devastated* by your
>> "boycott"...not.
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> This moment of repetitive irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter
>> >> brought to you by:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >A reminder: I am boycotting all posts by Oxyaena for the rest of 2019,
>> >> >for reasons explained here:
>> >>
>> >> <snip remaining self-serving spew>
--

[erik simpson]

I’ll second Bob’s remarks. Peter has become 99% boring, and ignoring it works fine.
Nobody else cares about his years-old squabbles. Nobody’s reputation is a stake
since his reputation is pretty well settled in any case.

[Oxyaena]

I third Bob's remarks, it's the end of an era, Peter has stopped being
entertaining and more being a bore, notice how most of our responses no
longer focus as heavily on him, while he is still fighting the good
fight in his own imagination. Snarking occasionally works fine for me,
but there's greener pastures out there than Peter Nyikos, even Usenet
for that matter.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/25/19 12:09 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 6/25/2019 2:27 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> I’ll second Bob’s remarks.  Peter has become 99% boring, and ignoring
>> it works fine.
>> Nobody else cares about his years-old squabbles.  Nobody’s reputation
>> is a stake
>> since his reputation is pretty well settled in any case.
>
> I third Bob's remarks, it's the end of an era, Peter has stopped being
> entertaining and more being a bore, notice how most of our responses no
> longer focus as heavily on him, while he is still fighting the good
> fight in his own imagination. Snarking occasionally works fine for me,
> but there's greener pastures out there than Peter Nyikos, even Usenet
> for that matter.

Ditto.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>> >keeps on going.
>>
>> I'm not sure how you see a "relentless campaign" from
>> jillery's post,
>
>
>Your condescension below is belied by your stupefyingly illogical
>suggestion that I am concluding the existence of a campaign
>from ONE post.
>
>Had you written, "how jillery's post is the continuation
>of a relentless campaign, I'd deal with the rest of your
>post, but I'm only doing the bare minimum of replies on
>this thread to anyone but Ron O from now on.

How convenient.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:00:43 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>
wrote:

>On 6/25/2019 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>[snip dick waving]
>>
>> No wonder Oxyaena shot her credibility to pieces by claiming you were sane.
>> She had shot it to pieces so many times before, one more time didn't matter.
>
>What do I have to do with any of this shit?
>
>[snip dick-waving]

More to the point, what does anybody have anything to do with the
rhetorical mountains he builds from his imaginary molehills?

[RonO]

On 6/25/2019 2:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/25/19 12:09 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 6/25/2019 2:27 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> I’ll second Bob’s remarks.  Peter has become 99% boring, and ignoring
>>> it works fine.
>>> Nobody else cares about his years-old squabbles.  Nobody’s reputation
>>> is a stake
>>> since his reputation is pretty well settled in any case.
>>
>> I third Bob's remarks, it's the end of an era, Peter has stopped being
>> entertaining and more being a bore, notice how most of our responses
>> no longer focus as heavily on him, while he is still fighting the good
>> fight in his own imagination. Snarking occasionally works fine for me,
>> but there's greener pastures out there than Peter Nyikos, even Usenet
>> for that matter.
>
> Ditto.
>

Well that was easy.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

With what? The last two sentences?

The positioning of your words here is insufficient to answer this
question.

Only something you write below makes it clear that your
answer to my question is No.

> While Peter is a good example of a bad example,
> anyone here can read his posts and come to their own
> conclusions (or simply ignore or killfile him).
>
> >I am serious Nyikos isn't as bad as Jabs, but Jabs was never allowed to
> >harass someone for nearly a decade. In this post Nyikos projects his
> >stupid harassment onto me, claiming that he enjoys the months that he is
> >running between bouts of harassment. Nyikos knows that he is the one
> >that has to keep coming back to lie about the same junk,

I know nothing of the sort, because the the "to lie..." ending
is a libel, pure and simple.

> > and he has to
> >lie about even that.
>
> Sure, and all that is blindingly obvious to anyone capable
> of reading for comprehension.

You sure know how to egg Ron O on to more insane/dishonest
attacks on me, as long as necessary to get in the last word.

He had plenty of stomach for that kind of thing back in 2011,
month after month. You are encouraging him to buck up his
courage, get over his momentary "can dish it out, but can't take
it" mood which put him in mind of having me banned.

> Unlike The Jabber, his only
> real victim is himself and the only significant casualty is
> his credibility.

Like Hemidactylus in his early stages of denouncing me for not
having denounced Glenn, you are in the process of shooting your credibility to pieces on behalf of Ron O.

Hemi shoved an insult in my face that I had never seen before,
when I told him that I had seen more evidence that Ron O
is insane than I had seen that Glenn is insane.
[Hemi and Ron O had agreed that Glenn is insane
in the same palsy-walsy way that you are agreeing with Ron O up there.]

Hemi finished shooting his credibility to pieces by doing something he
had scrupulously avoided through four years of relentless,
carefully worded belittlement of me: he indulged in clear,
unambiguous libel by lying that I had endorsed Glenn's
insult which he'd been trying to bully me into denouncing.

Up till then, he could always claim, if squeezed into a corner,
"I was only giving my opinion!"

I suggest you always try to keep this last resort in mind,
if you decide to keep aiding, abetting and comforting Ron O.

> >He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true. This
> >thread demonstrates that.
>
> ....and anyone capable of reading for comprehension can see
> that.

You have shackled yourself to the very statement to which
I responded as follows:

__________________________ excerpt _________________________

> He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true.

Either you believe this and are therefore insane, or you are
deliberately libeling me.

Either way, I pity anyone who takes seriously the claim that
I should be banned from t.o. on the basis of what you've been
writing on this thread:


> This thread demonstrates that.

What I said in the last two paragraphs applies here too, except
that it isn't explicit libel. It is either a lie or a *prima facie*
case for you being insane.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt

> <snip the rest of a post that's gotten *way* too long>

You are pampering Ron O by using the passive mood for a post
that is over 1164 lines long. Care to guess how much of it
was provided by Ron O?


The two of you deserve each other.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 6/25/2019 10:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
>>> to himself:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
>>>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
>>>>>> Monday)
>>>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
>>>
>>> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
>>> at the end left in:>
>>
>> I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
>> TO.
>
>
> You are really going off the deep end here, Ron O.

Even though you are an asshole no one considers you bad enough to ban
from TO. My take is that anyone like you and Kleinmann should be
banned. There really isn't any excuse for what you keep two keep doing.
You know it or the holy water repost would not have worked for half a
decade. Sad, but obviously true.

>
>
>> The asshole is obviously delusional and getting worse. He keeps
>> denying snipping and running
>
> I explained that I was using YOUR idea of snipping being equivalent
> to "snipping and running" in your self-serving definitions of those
> terms, and then I told you I was snipping but NOT running.

Why keep lying about what you do. What have you snipped out and run
from multiple times just in this thread? Some of it was even the
evidence that you claimed that I wasn't posting. Once you saw that you
were wrong what did you do with the evidence. Hint, snipping and
running is what you did. Lying about something like this is really
tragically stupid. You just have to look at your posts in this thread
to understand that you are a lying asshole, and can't tell the truth
just because you have to be a lying asshole. Nothing has changed about
that for nearly a decade.

>
> Your diabolical mind has morphed this into a hate-crazed "justification"
> of your sadistic desire to have me banned.

Your projection is one of the reasons you should be banned. You know
that you are the one with the sadistic tendencies. Why do you keep
coming back to lie about the same junk over and over just to harass your
victim? Who was the one that started a side thread to make fun of
another poster and hurt that poster, and when it turned out that nothing
funny could have happened because Google doesn't work that way who
started projecting his own behavior onto his intended victim and as
above you claimed that I was the saddist. Your projection was
tragically lame. You were the one trying to hurt someone else. You
even drew it out for multiple posts savoring every moment claiming that
you were going to reveal something really embarassing. I just kept
wondering what was so funny while dealing with your other assorted lies
that you sprinkled around your sadistic stupidity. Finally you gave the
punch line and kicked yourself in the ass so hard that you need a
snorkle to breath for the rest of your life. Suddenly I was the
sadistic one when I had been was your intended victim.

The saddest thing is that over a year later you claimed that stupid
episode as one of your belatedly delayed knockdowns. The insane thing
is that this incident occurred long after you claimed that you would
deliver two more knockdowns in a couple weeks. It turned out that you
had always been lying about the knockdowns because they did not exist to
produce when you made the stupid and bogus claim. You had probably gone
back through your stupidity from the beginning until then and realized
that you were the lying asshole that you have always been, and ran from
making good on your claim that I had ever done anything stupid enough to
be considered to be some type of victory for you. You had obviously
lost every such exchange and had always come out on the short end of the
stick. That is why you have to start threads like this to keep lying
about the past.

This type of behavior should have ended when you realized that you
didn't have anything to knock me down with after months of your
assoholic behavior. There was nothing that you could count as a win in
any sense of winning. Instead you dragged out the knockdown claims for
around 3 years of more assoholic behavior. Shouldn't that have told you
something? Nothing went your way in years of lying about it, and
nothing has gone your way in nearly a decade of lying about it.

Who started this thread to harass someone else?

You should be banned, but you apparently aren't a big enough asshole to
bother with.

>
> But I doubt that even Oxyaena, the ONLY person on this thread
> besides myself and yourself who has replied to any of your posts,
> will support you in this quest for a ban.
>
> All the others have vainly tried to divert me from showing just
> how you've been living a lie for over a decade about a "bait and switch scam."
>
> For a couple of days they even succeeded, but I know what I set
> out to do on this thread and cannot be deterred from it very long.
>
>
>
> I've snipped some hate-crazed things you hit me with, but will
> deal with them if any of the other people on this thread supports
> the madness that you posted.


>
>
>
>> He knows that when I call him a lying asshole that it is true.
>
> Either you believe this and are therefore insane, or you are
> deliberately libeling me.

Why do you even pretend. Why are you snipping and running in this
thread? What kind of lying asshole would keep pretending in the face of
what you do?

If the truth is libel what does that mean? You are the one that claimed
that you believed that the truth could be slander, but, someone pointed
out, from legal definitions you meant libel. The truth is just the
truth. Learn to live with it.

It looks like banning isn't going to save you from the truth.

>
> Either way, I pity anyone who takes seriously the claim that
> I should be banned from t.o. on the basis of what you've been
> writing on this thread:

Jabs got banned, and so did Nando for misbehavior. They were more
psychotic than you, but no less dishonest and sadistic. Nando may have
been less sadistic. He just seemed to go over the deep end.

>
>
>> This thread demonstrates that.
>
> What I said in the last two paragraphs applies here too, except
> that it isn't explicit libel. It is either a lie or a *prima facie*
> case for you being insane.

Projection is stupid and insane. Why do you resort to it so often? Who
really libels someone else in the case of this thread? You have
obviously been lying to harass me for nearly a decade. Your own
inability to produce your knockdowns demonstrated that to you. In most
states the truth is not slander according to some posters knowledgeable
in legal matters, but in a couple states the truth can be slander in
certain cases. Since you come to me to lie about the past and harass
me, my guess is that the truth would not be slander in this case even in
those states. On the other hand your lies and harassment could be
considered to be libel in most states. You might have the insanity
defense, but that isn't a defense it is an excuse. You should live with
that fact. Projection of your own stupid assoholic behavior is just a
way of life for you. The posts in this thread demonstrate that multiple
times.

>
>>
>> It is likely time to get the asshole to stop. That will likely require
>> banning him from TO.
>
> All this time you have been bragging about how the "holy water" post
> has been effective, and now you seem to be panicking because it
> has NOT been as effective as you keep claiming it is.

You have snipped it out and ran twice already in this thread, so it
still works.

I will repost the holy water repost for you.

I can repost the posts with quotes in another post if that is required,
but you have already snipped and run from that twice already in this
thread too. Snipping and running so that you can continue lying about
the past is what you do.

>
>>
>> What Nyikos snipped out and can't deal with.
>> REPOST:
>> > ...the second reply of perhaps four to Ron O's 1089 line monstrosity.
>>
>> Just reposting the material that you have snipped and run from for half
>> a decade. You should actually address it some time instead of run and
>> lie about it repeatedly, until you reach your limit for lying.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:55:04 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> >
>> > ... that 1089 line monstrosity. I had said I would continue my replies to
>> > it today, but am postponing that until Monday.
>>
>> What is weird is that you are reposting something that you are already
>> running from.
>
> You are babbling, not even trying to make sense.
>
> But I'll humor you: since you seem to be in a state of panic over
> how the "holy water" hasn't worked, I am leaving the rest of what you
> wrote in this time, and signing off here.

Just the truth that you can't deal with. Why run? I put back what you
snipped out and ran from. You can just snip it out again and run again.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS It was New Google Groups software that clipped off part of your
> post at the end, not I. Just thought I say this lest you accuse
> me again of "snipping and running."

Yeah Google does that, but eternal september has the whole post. I
checked and Google does have the post as far as when I put back the
quote that you have snipped out and run from half a dozen times in this
thread. The Discovery Institute ID scam guide book is that last part of
the post available on Google. Are you going to snip it out and run again?

I could cut the post in half and repost it for you.

SNIP what you can read in the post that Nyikos is pretending to respond
to, but didn't.

REPOST the holy water repost that Nyikos has already snipped and run
from twice in this thread:

It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has

never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453


Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.

Ron Okimoto
END REPOST that Nyikos has already snipped and run from twice:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:28:32 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/25/2019 10:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
>>>> to himself:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
>>>>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
>>>>>>> Monday)
>>>>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
>>>>
>>>> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
>>>> at the end left in:>
>>>
>>> I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
>>> TO.
>>
>>
>> You are really going off the deep end here, Ron O.
>
>Even though you are an asshole no one considers you bad enough to ban
>from TO. My take is that anyone like you and Kleinmann should be
>banned. There really isn't any excuse for what you keep two keep doing.
> You know it or the holy water repost would not have worked for half a
>decade. Sad, but obviously true.

The sad part is the posters who excuse Nyikos the peter his excesses
are some of the same posters who call for bans of other posters for
doing much less. That's a cognitive disconnect.

[PhantomView]

Reeks of "ideological purity" and the Gen-X/Y/Z paranoia
of confronting anybody with differing/conflicting opinions.

[RonO]

On 6/25/2019 10:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/14/2019 7:11 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <qc4rvf$4o8$1...@dont-email.me>, Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>
>
> <snip dishonest misdirection ploy by you>

Why lie. The post that you have snipped and run from in order to post
your bogus stupidity is part of the holy water repost. That is why you
have been lying about it for half a decade. I only post the version
with quotes because you started lying about the links when some of the
links went broken after a couple years. You keep snipping it out and
running, so why lie about it being a misdirection ploy. You run the
misdirection ploys I just posted what you have done. You can't deny
that you did it, you just snip it out and run from what you did.

>
>
>>>> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
>>>> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no
>>>> credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
>>>> sources like a 1999 essay
>
> You rambled on about this long obsolete essay in a cowardly way WITHOUT
> having the integrity to let people know it was the same essay that
> I am talking about here.

As sad as it may seem Nyikos knows that he is lying about previous lies
that he told. Just check out the other posts in this thread. I can't
make this up. Nyikos knows that a lot of the quotes that he is running
from are not second hand or "obsolete". He just snips them out when
confronted by them and continues to lie about them like this.

Material like the Santorum quote and the Wells material are first hand
accounts by the IDiots themselves. So is the guide book that Nyikos
keeps running from and is lying about being obsolete because it was
written in 1999. The insane thing about this "obsolete" lie is that if
the material had been written after the bait and switch started to go
down it wouldn't do me any good. The ID perps were selling the teach ID
scam before they started running the bait and switch scam in 2002 where
ID was the bait and all any IDiot rubes ever get is an obfuscation scam
that doesn't mention that ID ever existed. Nyikos understands that if
the ID perps were not selling the teach ID scam before Ohio that I could
not use the material to claim that they had been doing it. This is how
low Nyikos has sunk into his delusions.

His repeated lies in this thread are just stupid and delusional. It is
what makes him an assoholic.

>
>>>> and the notorious "Wedge" document.
>
>
>>> Why would Nyikos lie so stupidly about the material being second hand
>>> claims?
>
> Why don't you go the whole hog and ask,
>
> "Why doesn't Nyikos stop beating his wife?"
>
> That has as much truth in it as the question you actually posed -- none.

Why did you lie about material like the Wells quote being second hand?

>
>
>>> Wells wrote his report and he participated in the Ohio bait and
>>> switch.  Any one can use the link
>
> There you go: the stuff that supposedly incriminates Wells
> was NOT quoted by you, and the quotes you DID give
> that tried to create the impression of a "bait and switch"
> were secondhand "information" about what supposedly "went down" in Ohio in 2002.

Why have you snipped out the Wells quote multiple times? Why are you
trying to lie about it like this. Wells participated in the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes. You know that the ID perps had told the Ohio
IDiots that they could teach the science of ID. The Ohio IDiots brought
the ID perps to Ohio in order for them to tell them about the ID science
that the rubes wanted to teach in the public schools. Wells knew how
the ID perps had been selling IDiocy for years, and what did he say that
they decided to do? One day reality may get through your delusions, but
my guess is that, that will never happen.

>
>
>>> to go to the post and they will find
>>> that the first quoted material comes directly from the Discovery
>>> Institute ID perps themselves.
>
> But they certainly did NOT post any
>
> claims about [the existence of] what YOU allege
> to be a "bait and switch scam"

What kind of stupidity is this? The guide book has been available from
the ID perps since they published it. You can still download it from
ARN (the ID perps created ARN in order to sell their junk) and can buy
it from the Discovery Institute for $7. It would be free to download,
but the Discovery Institute link is broken. Do you understand what you
are claiming?

>
>
> <snip cowardly jabber by you about that 1999 document>

Snipping and running is all you can do in order to keep lying about the
material. Look through this thread, and you have always snipped and run
from the material that you claimed that you would address tomorrow. It
has been half a decade of snipping and running from the same thing. Why
lie about what you are doing?

This is stupid. If you aren't going to address this material I really
don't have to continue.

If you want to discuss anything go back to other threads and deal with
the material that you keep removing.

You have now snipped out and ran from the holy water repost at least
three times in this thread. You Know that you are now the type of lying
asshole that would do something stupid and dishonest that many times.
Doing it twice means that you are that kind of lying asshole, 3 times is
just your delusions getting the best of you. You always were that type
of lying asshole when you did the stupid and dishonest deed twice. You
can go back through your stupidity over the years and try to find where
you have removed it more than twice in the last half decade. Your
delusions are just getting worse if you have to start lying to yourself
about your own delusions.

Just try to deal with what you have done in this thread without snipping
and running. The toddler mentality of pulling your baby blanket over
your head and pretending that no one can see you is stupid. The
material still exists in the post that you are responding to. Just
because you remove it does not make your lies any less lies. "Self
contained" is only a delusion of yours. You know it because you have to
keep removing what you are lying about in order to lie about it.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/25/2019 10:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
> >>> to himself:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
> >>>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
> >>>>>> Monday)
> >>>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
> >>>
> >>> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
> >>> at the end left in:>
> >>
> >> I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
> >> TO.
> >
> >
> > You are really going off the deep end here, Ron O.
>
> Even though you are an asshole no one considers you bad enough to ban
> from TO. My take is that anyone like you and Kleinmann should be
> banned. There really isn't any excuse for what you keep two keep doing.

We should expect that from a mathematically incompetent moRON like you. Stupid moRONs like you are the reason why drug resistance occurs and cancer treatments fail. Why don't you take a course in introductory probability theory and learn something about stochastic processes (like evolution) and stop being such a stupid moRON?
<snip the incessant babbling of a stupid moRON>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:28:32 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/25/2019 10:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>> On 6/24/2019 4:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-4, Ron O replied
> >>>> to himself:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 6/21/2019 5:40 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/21/2019 4:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> Short on time due to family and other commitments, I use
> >>>>>>> the little time I have left for posting today (and therefore until
> >>>>>>> Monday)
> >>>>>>> to post my first reply to the following post:
> >>>>
> >>>> <long ranting and raving by you snipped, with only the comical words
> >>>> at the end left in:>
> >>>
> >>> I think that it is time to start discussion about banning Nyikos from
> >>> TO.
> >>
> >>
> >> You are really going off the deep end here, Ron O.
> >
> >Even though you are an asshole no one considers you bad enough to ban
> >from TO. My take is that anyone like you and Kleinmann should be
> >banned.

If Ron O misspelled Alan Kleinman's surname on purpose, so as not
to alert him to this totalitarian-mentality insult,
it didn't work. Instead, it may inspired Alan to use an expletive
that I hadn't seen before: moRON.

> > There really isn't any excuse for what you keep two keep doing.
> > You know it or the holy water repost would not have worked for half a
> > decade.

Ron O persists in a delusion similar to that of Br'er Fox when he
flung Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch.


> Sad, but obviously true.

Ron O would be happy if it weren't so obviously false.

>
> The sad part is the posters who excuse Nyikos the peter his excesses

...which you conveniently fail to name a single one of...

> are some of the same posters who call for bans of other posters for
> doing much less.

I don't recall anyone calling for bans of anyone except Oxyaena
trumpeting in a Subject: line with DIG in it that I should be banned.
You played the "good cop" on that occasion by pointing out that
I had not done anything that qualified as grounds for banning me.


Strangely enough, you haven't said anything remotely like that to Ron O here.


It would be VERY interesting if you could dig up ANYONE who both
excused actual excesses of mine AND called for anyone to be banned.

I'm not holding my breath.

> That's a cognitive disconnect.

As matters now stand, this claim of yours is pure GIGO -- a connect
between two statements, the first of which begs the question, the
second of which does not take away the fallacy of begging the question,
but reinforces it in a fallacious way.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:22:18 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Care to specify some names/nyms?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:02:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com>:

Learn to read.

>
>The positioning of your words here is insufficient to answer this
>question.
>
>Only something you write below makes it clear that your
>answer to my question is No.

Oh, gee, you had to read my *entire* post (all of a dozen
lines?) to understand my point? Poor baby...your brain must
be *so* exhausted...

<(un?)balance of Peter's whining rant left intact below, so
everyone can, as I suggested, come to their own conclusions>

No, nor do I especially care. I will say, however, that it's
been my experience that the person *usually* "guilty" of
adding dozens or hundreds of irrelevant whining lines to
posts, frequently comprised largely of carefully-preserved
grudges from threads up to several years old, isn't Ron.

>The two of you deserve each other.

For once, I have to agree.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:16:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
><nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:15:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyik...@gmail.com>:
>
>>> >The relentless campaign to get me to stop boycotting Oxyaena just
>>> >keeps on going.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how you see a "relentless campaign" from
>>> jillery's post,
>
>>Your condescension below...
>
>Projecting again?
>
>>...I'm only doing the bare minimum of replies on
>>this thread to anyone but Ron O from now on.
>
>Thanks; that way I can (mostly) ignore your rants.
>
>>By the way, do you like the idea of having me banned from t.o. on
>>the basis of how I am treating Ron O?
>>
>>If not, do you have the guts to tell Ron O that you are
>>not in favor of me being banned from t.o.?
>
>Already done so. Do you have the "guts" to admit your
>implied assumption was incorrect?

I guess not; he not only failed to acknowledge my
disagreement with Ron, he even whined that he had to read
more than one line to find out my position. His "response"
consisted almost entirely of further attacks on Ron (and
accusations that I was "egging on" and "pampering" Ron),
plus dragging Hemi into his tirade. Plus, of course, voicing
his usual support for Glenn's one-liners.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:30:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:00:43 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/25/2019 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>[snip dick waving]
>>>
>>> No wonder Oxyaena shot her credibility to pieces by claiming you were sane.
>>> She had shot it to pieces so many times before, one more time didn't matter.
>>
>>What do I have to do with any of this shit?
>>
>>[snip dick-waving]
>
>
>More to the point, what does anybody have anything to do with the
>rhetorical mountains he builds from his imaginary molehills?

Usually nothing; he carefully records and preserves anything
he perceives as an insult (which usually isn't) so he can
bring it up months or years later in an unrelated
discussion.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 12:30:02 AM UTC-4, PhantomView wrote:

I have lots to say here, PhantomView, but the most important part
is in the two paragraphs at the end, right after your words.

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:28:01 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/25/2019 2:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/25/19 12:09 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>> On 6/25/2019 2:27 PM, erik simpson wrote:

> >>>> I'll second Bob's remarks.  Peter has become 99% boring,

Erik's actions speak louder than words. Oxyaena and he did 9 and 4 posts
respectively to just *one* thread (out of several where one or
both of them relentlessly attacked me) last month.

The sole purpose of those posts was to denigrate me and to
tempt me to break my boycott against the two of them,
e.g. by posting illogical comments that were no-brainers to refute.

But the only replies they got on that thread that preserved any text
from either of them were from each other, and in a solitary reply from
zencycle whose only added text was:

+1

> >>>> and ignoring
> >>>> it works fine.
> >>>> Nobody else cares about his years-old squabbles. 

Erik is dishonestly ignoring the Elephant in The Room:
Ron Okimoto himself, whose "holy water post" which he (Ron O)
kept bragging about for a week through yesterday, dates to 2014.

Moreover, it deals with squabbles going all the way back
to December 2010, in a thoroughly dishonest way.

> >>>> Nobody's reputation
> >>>> is a stake
> >>>> since his reputation is pretty well settled in any case.

It was settled from the get-go, with several old-timers latching
on to me in December 2010 when I re-joined talk.origins after about
a decade of absence. John Harshman, who is too cunning to support
Ron O in the obsequious way these other long-time adversaries of mine
are supporting him, has seen to that ever since, leading the others by example.

> >>> I third Bob's remarks, it's the end of an era, Peter has stopped being
> >>> entertaining and more being a bore, notice how most of our responses
> >>> no longer focus as heavily on him,

I wonder whether ANYONE reading this can make sense of this. Responses
to whom, and where?

Also, when did "no longer" begin? June 20, perhaps, when I drastically
curtailed my responses to Oxyaena's allies Mark Isaak, jillery, and Casanova
on this thread, and focused almost exclusively on Ron O until he
went off the deep end with his ranting about how I should be banned?

[The only reason erik simpson, and Oxyaena herself, are not listed
with the other three is that I am boycotting their actual posts
for the rest of 2019.]

> >>> while he is still fighting the good
> >>> fight in his own imagination. Snarking occasionally works fine for me,
> >>> but there's greener pastures out there than Peter Nyikos, even Usenet
> >>> for that matter.

Oxyaena has frequently made such comments, especially under
her former moniker Thrinaxodon, when she made sudden changes
in her behavior and expected people to treat her favorably
based on a promise that her misbehavior was over. But each time,
her misbehavior resumed. In one case, it resumed within MINUTES
of this kind of proclamation, and Richard Norman nailed her on it.

Finally, Thrinaxodon reinvented herself as Oxyaena, and managed
to reform for a while. But she eventually became so obsessed and virulent
in her attacks on me, that I launched the most drastic boycott
of my nearly two decades of posting to Usenet against her,
and against her loyal supporter (as of less than two years ago), erik simpson.
Previously, Erik had been one of the severest critics of Thrinaxodon.


> >>
> >> Ditto.

I doubt that Mark Isaak is aware of half the things I have talked
about above. He is one of the old-timers whom I mentioned above,
but is less copious in his attacks on me than Casanova, jillery,
Oxyaena, and Simpson. He also interacts with me far less than
John Harshman does.

> >
> >Well that was easy.

Yes, Ron O's call for a ban and/or my forceful reply to it
was a real game-changer: from diverting my attention to Ron O,
they switched to letting Ron O know they had his back. See my
reply to Casanova yesterday evening for more ideas on how
drastic a game-changer it was.

>
> Reeks of "ideological purity" and the Gen-X/Y/Z paranoia
> of confronting anybody with differing/conflicting opinions.

Yes, and the irony is, I know more ways of refuting creationism
than any of the bozos you see commenting above. I know, better
than any of them, how strong the fossil evidence for common
descent of at least vertebrates is. But I also know how weak
the THEORY is of *how* evolution produced the incredible variety
and just plain magnificence of the biota that we see today.

More importantly from their POV, I keep countering the massive disinformation
campaign against Michael Behe. Ironically enough, I believe Behe's
biochemical case for Intelligent Design is quite weak. The trouble is,
the movers and shakers of the scientific community have deep
insecurities which cause them and their followers (including these bozos)
to feel that they have to supplement valid arguments against Behe
with massive distortions of what Behe has written.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/