Clueless

[Glenn]

Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
Hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s

[Öö Tiib]

Dave Farina is clown ... I think he has studied a bit maybe masters degree in
organic chemistry ... but too lazy to work, so became self-acclaimed "professor"
in youtube, has researched nothing. World view is atheist.

Dr. James Tour is awarded scientist and actual professor of computer
science, materials science, nano-engineering and chemistry. World view
is Messianic Jew.

Seems that Dr. Tour decided to debate with a buffoon. Does truth arise from
such debate? Appears that Glenn thinks so.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-05-22 07:05:33 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:

> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 08:41:30 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
>> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
>> Hilarious!
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
>
> Dave Farina is clown ... I think he has studied a bit maybe masters degree in
> organic chemistry ... but too lazy to work, so became self-acclaimed
> "professor"
> in youtube, has researched nothing. World view is atheist.
>
> Dr. James Tour is awarded scientist and actual professor of computer
> science, materials science, nano-engineering and chemistry.

Yes, but no qualifications in biology, especially evolution, or in the
origin of life.

> World view
> is Messianic Jew.
>
> Seems that Dr. Tour decided to debate with a buffoon. Does truth arise from
> such debate? Appears that Glenn thinks so.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 10:35:29 UTC+3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2023-05-22 07:05:33 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>
> > On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 08:41:30 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> >> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
> >> Hilarious!
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
> >
> > Dave Farina is clown ... I think he has studied a bit maybe masters degree in
> > organic chemistry ... but too lazy to work, so became self-acclaimed
> > "professor"
> > in youtube, has researched nothing. World view is atheist.
> >
> > Dr. James Tour is awarded scientist and actual professor of computer
> > science, materials science, nano-engineering and chemistry.
>
> Yes, but no qualifications in biology, especially evolution, or in the
> origin of life.
>

Was it biological evolution that originated life? Were there
whatever biological processes already involved? Can you tell some
scientists with qualifications (note, *not* publications) in origin of
life? IMHO he is as well qualified as only can be.

> > World view
> > is Messianic Jew.
> >
> > Seems that Dr. Tour decided to debate with a buffoon. Does truth arise from
> > such debate? Appears that Glenn thinks so.
>

One can still bet without looking the video that gagman Farina was
miserable in the debate. That is where science loses ... scientists
have left it up to fools and dental doctors to debate well qualified
sceptics in public.

[RonO]

Tour has claimed to understand that the IDiotic science does not exist,
and has claimed that he doesn't know how to do any ID science. All he
can do is wallow in the gap denial. He seems to be stuck on #3 of the
Top Six (the origin of life on earth) for quite a number of years, but
he has never accomplished anything with the denial. It is still the
same denial that he was spouting when the IDiots failed in Dover. Tour
claims to understand that there is no science that he can do in order to
demonstrate that some designer is responsible for the origin of life, so
all he has is the gap denial. No one knows how it happened. That is as
far as he expects to get, and he hasn't gotten any further than that.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

It shows that Tour is good scientist if he admits that ID science does
not exist nor has any idea how to do it. It is unjust to say that wallowing
in denial is all he can do. First he can and does and teaches non-ID
science and awards show that it is far from wallowing.

Second it is not denial that we do not know how life started. IMHO he
is quite correct. I think I've read some about 7 ... "primordial soup
ponds", "lighting", "clay", "sea vents", "ice and ultraviolet light",
"bubbles", "panspermia". May be few more esoteric I've forgot. None
of those is really in such stage of development that we can teach to
kids as story how life on our planet started.

And for third is the brilliant step to wash floor in public with nobody
like that "Professor Dave". Mr. Farina probably posts pathetic rants
after the event, stirs up more smoke and that is how ID gains credibility
in public. In our society it is not truth, but public opinion that matters.

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
>Hilarious!
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s

Dave Farina aka Professor Dave does a fair job of handling arcane
details of biochemistry, but his focus is on holding James Tour's feet
to the fire for Tour's transgressions, of calling Origin researchers
liars, and misrepresenting their research. The debate itself doesn't
address Tour's PRATT, that the origin of life informs how life evolves
once it begins.

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

[Kalkidas]

LOL. Live-action talk.origins.

[Glenn]

That's as good as any other characterization. Farina demonstrated his cluelessness
with one silly swipe on the blackboard. Even some first graders know where to begin and end writing on a line.

[Glenn]

Appears you think you know what truth is.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

There is also a great deal of talk.origins style debate in the comments section for that video.
Some of it, notably by Javier Campos Gómez and Anthony Polonkay, is superior
to what you see above. You can read what they wrote in some of the 65 comments following the displayed one by Javier
at the beginning of the comments section (at least, that's where it appears in my display).

I've contributed 7 of those comments myself, all of them near the end of the 65 as of this writing.

My most penetrating comment so far is in the following exchange:

________________________________________

Jinnantonix, replying to Andrew Polonkay, had written:

"Unfortunately you have not made the case for why a proto life chemical process would require "an inwards facing membrane" or "gates". These are only requirements that we see in living cells, and these early lipid membranes predate that by at least 500 million years. The argument that these structures have to appear in their existing complex arrangements right from the very beginning is the same as the creationist/anti-evolution argument that it is impossible for the human eye, with all its complexity, to spontaneously come into existence. ie Nonsense. Since we know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes, over aeons, toward these more complex structures that become ubiquitous only through their superiority in natural selection."

My response went:
Natural selection only begins with organisms with the sophistication of the simplest free-living prokaryotes. We do NOT know about the processes that intervene between the simple production of amino acids and nucleotides -- all that origin-of-life experiments have been able to produce to date -- and such organisms. You are knocking down a strawman creationism mixed with rank speculation about "life as we don't know it."

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


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

[John Harshman]

But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
present: reproduction, inheritance with variation, and differences in
fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
any current organism could not have those characteristics?

[Glenn]

Your "think" to Peter's "know" seems to sink the last nail in your coffin. Answer your own question with science, monkey boy.

[Lawyer Daggett]

He already did. He listed the requirements for natural selection.
It's a given that systems with those required features can evolve.
See many computational algorithms. Peter's point was DOA.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Where has reproduction WITH THE NECESSARY FIDELITY been demonstrated in OOL experiments
simulating prebiotic conditions? One that has been publicized ligase "reproduction" that
cheats with its starting nucleotide strings, and is irrelevant to
a pathway to life as we know it. Can you name any that are?

You and your self-appointed echo chamber, Shyster Lawyer Daggett, are in the same boat as
Jinnatonix, with undocumented talk about "life as we don't know it."

> inheritance with variation, and differences in
> fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> any current organism could not have those characteristics?

OK, I have speculated about the possibility of life based on ribozymes
instead of protein enzymes for a genetic code for simple structural and helper proteins that does have fidelity
and is amenable to inheritance with variation, etc. Conceivably, that could be on
a direct pathway to the first prokaryotes, but the road to it is almost completely
unknown, and it still faces the biggest single hurdle of all: the protein enzyme takeover,
with its Catch-22 nature.

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

PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/rhmFtecfAQAJ
Re: Ape has warmed the oceans up

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:


> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:

Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.

Meanwhile, Forty Years of In Vitro Evolution (now 50)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.200701369

And don't but the added restriction attempted.
> > My (Nyikos) response went:

> > Natural selection only begins with organisms with the sophistication
> >of the simplest free-living prokaryotes. We do NOT know about the
> >processes that intervene between the simple production of
> > amino acids and nucleotides -- all that origin-of-life experiments
> >have been able to produce to date -- and such organisms. You
> >are knocking down a strawman creationism mixed with rank
> >speculation about "life as we don't know it."

JH> But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
> present: reproduction,

( Nyikos again chopped midsentence, maybe to confuse things)

> inheritance with variation, and differences in
> fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> any current organism could not have those characteristics?

Peter of course retroactively tried to raise the bar, yet he
calls me dishonest. A very sad performance.

[Öö Tiib]

Of course I know. Truth means the real facts about a situation, event, or person.
We do not know much facts about origins of life and chances of any arising
from such debate is zero.

[Glenn]

Not sure who and what you are reading, but it is not a given that life can evolve with "those required features", unless you identify them as definitional to "life". That then becomes not a "given" but a copout to ask the question Harsman asked above.
No life that we are aware of can exist, let alone evolve, without a functional membrane.
And no one has provided any evidence to the contrary, and clearly not in Harshman's question, or any one else's claims here.
What is more, we do NOT "know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes".
Such processes found are perhaps the most complex in the Universe. You may want to pay some attention to an expert, such as Tour. And for the benefit of others, Tour likely knows more about biology, evolution and the origin of life, the latter no one has any better "qualifications" than Tour.

The dishonest here runs deep, Harshman is nothing more than a troll, and you are no better.

[Glenn]

Holy crap, you DO think you know the truth.

[Glenn]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
>

Some would wear their pants on their head too. Similar to you calling Peter an antisemitic just now. Oh, what, did you not? Gee wee. Well, I don't see any terms used that are often considered antisemitic. Unless you mean "Lawyer Daggett"... best ammo, eh? Hope you feel more flattered now.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Once again for the reading comprehension impaired.
Systems with those required features can evolve.
Evolve means that the population that is reproducing will
change in a way that improves its fitness.
It does not mean that it will become "alive", certainly not in
the biological sense.

Your quixotic translation to "not a given that life can evolve"
completely misses the point. Read what John wrote again,
this time while trying to comprehend.

> > > > But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
> > > > present: reproduction, inheritance with variation, and differences in
> > > > fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> > > > any current organism could not have those characteristics?

For the slow, the point is that systems less complex and complete
than a primordial cell can evolve if they can reproduce with inheritance
and variation.

This has long been a point invoked as a likely element of potential
pathways that might have led to the origin of life. It's a critical point.
The point is that it isn't necessary to have something like a primordial
cell to have the potential of having a self-optimizing system. And
it is hugely significant.

> No life that we are aware of can exist, let alone evolve, without a functional membrane.
> And no one has provided any evidence to the contrary, and clearly not in Harshman's question, or any one else's claims here.

All irrelevant to the point of prebiotic chemical evolution.

> What is more, we do NOT "know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes".

Also, irrelevant to the fact that chemical evolution is possible and
has even been observed. And don't go confusing that with a claim
about life. It's about chemical evolution, which would likely have
been an aspect of a naturalistic origin of life, if that occurred.

> Such processes found are perhaps the most complex in the Universe. You may want to pay some attention to an expert, such as Tour. And for the benefit of others, Tour likely knows more about biology, evolution and the origin of life, the latter no one has any better "qualifications" than Tour.

Not from what I saw. And the posting above doesn't suggest
you are well qualified to judge.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different
than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
character trait.

But Lawyer Daggett appears wrong in the word usage itself:

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/900005387204/

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

“Various false etymologies have suggested an antisemitic origin, possibly
associated with the character of Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of
Venice, but there is no clear evidence for this.[4] One source asserts that
the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney
named "Schuster."[5]”

So Shyster is a slur against attorneys not against Jews. It seems
superficially similar to “Shylock” which has antisemitic connotations.

[Öö Tiib]

Divine shit, you DO think you can read minds.
"The truth" said alone is ambiguous hogwash. Posting that is your purpose.

[RonO]

Yes Tour admits the facts, but look what he continues to do?

>
> Second it is not denial that we do not know how life started. IMHO he
> is quite correct. I think I've read some about 7 ... "primordial soup
> ponds", "lighting", "clay", "sea vents", "ice and ultraviolet light",
> "bubbles", "panspermia". May be few more esoteric I've forgot. None
> of those is really in such stage of development that we can teach to
> kids as story how life on our planet started.

Wallowing in denial is just what he does. He isn't building anything.
It is all just to claim that we do not know how it happened. When he
actually gets somewhere with the notion and has some idea of what his
god did, then he will be past the denial. Right now he is no better
than Glenn. Glenn only wants to wallow in the denial that Tour puts out.

The Supreme court ruling told the IDiotic type creationists that gap
denial wasn't any type of argument that could be considered to be
science. They were also told that just because science doesn't have all
the answers doesn't mean that their alternative is any more viable then
the nonscientific religious notions that they are. The Top Six
demonstrated that for most IDiots. They don't want to believe in the
god that fills those gaps. Tour doesn't know if the god that might fill
the origin of life gap that he puts up is the god that he wants to
worship. If he claims differently he is just lying to himself.

What happened when MarkE was asked to put his designer into the origin
of life gap that he had created? MarkE had spent a lot of time, as has
Tour, in figureing out what was around the gap in order to claim that it
was impossible to create life by natural mechanism, but it turned out
that MarkE didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he
had created. Tour has to face that same thing, but all he spouts off
about is how impossible it is. He doesn't want to determine if such a
god is the biblical god.

>
> And for third is the brilliant step to wash floor in public with nobody
> like that "Professor Dave". Mr. Farina probably posts pathetic rants
> after the event, stirs up more smoke and that is how ID gains credibility
> in public. In our society it is not truth, but public opinion that matters.
>

No one has to debunk the Gap denial. Farina was stupid to try.
Abiogenesis is among the weakest of sciences, and even if the do come up
with the most probable explanation for the origin of life, it didn't
have to happen in the most probable way. Whatever happened, happened no
matter how improbable.

It is a puzzle that even if it is completed may not be the actual answer.

He should have just asked Tour to put the Biblical god into the gap and
tell us what he thinks that he did in order to make the origin of life
biblical enough for Tour. He likely isn't YEC (since as you claim he is
a decent technologist and understands how things are). What he comes up
with will not make the majority of IDiot creationist rubes happy, and
will likely involve the subsequent evolution of life over billions of
years. The majority of IDiotic creationists are still YEC and they have
no desire to find out that some god did something 3.8 billion years ago
because that god is not their Biblical god.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 22:31:52 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

You're employing logic and facts again; you really should
avoid that here. ;-)
>
--

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

[John Harshman]

Nowhere that I know of, but how is that relevant to my point? I take
issue with your claim that selection must begin with "the sophistication
of the simplest free-living prokaryotes". There is no reason to suppose
that the limit is where you say it is. What would cause you to think so?

> You and your self-appointed echo chamber, Shyster Lawyer Daggett, are in the same boat as
> Jinnatonix, with undocumented talk about "life as we don't know it."

Must you imagine every encounter as a conspiracy against you? I object
to a claim you make. Glenn unleashes meaningless vitriol, and Lawyer
Daggett responds to him, not, let me remind you, to you.

>> inheritance with variation, and differences in
>> fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
>> any current organism could not have those characteristics?
>
> OK, I have speculated about the possibility of life based on ribozymes
> instead of protein enzymes for a genetic code for simple structural and helper proteins that does have fidelity
> and is amenable to inheritance with variation, etc. Conceivably, that could be on
> a direct pathway to the first prokaryotes, but the road to it is almost completely
> unknown, and it still faces the biggest single hurdle of all: the protein enzyme takeover,
> with its Catch-22 nature.

Still not relevant to my objection. If your imagined ribozyme life is
capable of natural selection (and of course it would be), then your
initial claim is dubious.

> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/rhmFtecfAQAJ
> Re: Ape has warmed the oceans up

I really don't care about the basis for your insults of third parties.
Why do you feel a need to do it at all? That's the more interesting
question.

[Öö Tiib]

He continues to show that at least one narcissistic atheism "teacher"
is stupid.

> >
> > Second it is not denial that we do not know how life started. IMHO he
> > is quite correct. I think I've read some about 7 ... "primordial soup
> > ponds", "lighting", "clay", "sea vents", "ice and ultraviolet light",
> > "bubbles", "panspermia". May be few more esoteric I've forgot. None
> > of those is really in such stage of development that we can teach to
> > kids as story how life on our planet started.
>
> Wallowing in denial is just what he does. He isn't building anything.
> It is all just to claim that we do not know how it happened. When he
> actually gets somewhere with the notion and has some idea of what his
> god did, then he will be past the denial. Right now he is no better
> than Glenn. Glenn only wants to wallow in the denial that Tour puts out.
>
> The Supreme court ruling told the IDiotic type creationists that gap
> denial wasn't any type of argument that could be considered to be
> science. They were also told that just because science doesn't have all
> the answers doesn't mean that their alternative is any more viable then
> the nonscientific religious notions that they are. The Top Six
> demonstrated that for most IDiots. They don't want to believe in the
> god that fills those gaps. Tour doesn't know if the god that might fill
> the origin of life gap that he puts up is the god that he wants to
> worship. If he claims differently he is just lying to himself.
>

Perhaps they want to believe that God has specially planted life on this
planet because that has value and part in His whatever bigger plan.

> What happened when MarkE was asked to put his designer into the origin
> of life gap that he had created? MarkE had spent a lot of time, as has
> Tour, in figureing out what was around the gap in order to claim that it
> was impossible to create life by natural mechanism, but it turned out
> that MarkE didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he
> had created. Tour has to face that same thing, but all he spouts off
> about is how impossible it is. He doesn't want to determine if such a
> god is the biblical god.
>

MarkE said to have issues with health. I think he wished good to
people. He hoped that if after long (for example decades) of research
we find bad problems in every abiogenesis hypothesis then we start
to believe that God did it and that it is good for us. But that is trying
to produce knowledge from ignorance.

> >
> > And for third is the brilliant step to wash floor in public with nobody
> > like that "Professor Dave". Mr. Farina probably posts pathetic rants
> > after the event, stirs up more smoke and that is how ID gains credibility
> > in public. In our society it is not truth, but public opinion that matters.
> >
> No one has to debunk the Gap denial. Farina was stupid to try.
>

I agree with both these sentences.

> Abiogenesis is among the weakest of sciences, and even if the do come up
> with the most probable explanation for the origin of life, it didn't
> have to happen in the most probable way. Whatever happened, happened no
> matter how improbable.
>
> It is a puzzle that even if it is completed may not be the actual answer.
>
> He should have just asked Tour to put the Biblical god into the gap and
> tell us what he thinks that he did in order to make the origin of life
> biblical enough for Tour. He likely isn't YEC (since as you claim he is
> a decent technologist and understands how things are). What he comes up
> with will not make the majority of IDiot creationist rubes happy, and
> will likely involve the subsequent evolution of life over billions of
> years. The majority of IDiotic creationists are still YEC and they have
> no desire to find out that some god did something 3.8 billion years ago
> because that god is not their Biblical god.
>

I do not know how and what people think. Perhaps explanation that God
did something is better explanation for them than that we are randomly
spawned wild weeds. But I can be wrong. I am far more worried that
we behave like such weeds and cause unpleasant or even fatal problems
to ourselves regardless if God did something half-unimaginably long
times ago or not.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Your reaction to this is your usual mindless bilge, beginning with:

> Wallowing in denial is just what he does.

You've used this term so mindlessly over the years, that
it is one of your equivalents of crying "Wolf!"

What you write below is even worse. You have concocted
an elaborate idea of what kind of god [lower case, no less]
Glenn and Tour and MarkE believe in.

> He isn't building anything.
> It is all just to claim that we do not know how it happened. When he
> actually gets somewhere with the notion and has some idea of what his
> god did, then he will be past the denial. Right now he is no better
> than Glenn. Glenn only wants to wallow in the denial that Tour puts out.
>
> The Supreme court ruling told the IDiotic type creationists that gap
> denial wasn't any type of argument that could be considered to be
> science. They were also told that just because science doesn't have all
> the answers doesn't mean that their alternative is any more viable then
> the nonscientific religious notions that they are. The Top Six
> demonstrated that for most IDiots. They don't want to believe in the
> god that fills those gaps. Tour doesn't know if the god that might fill
> the origin of life gap that he puts up is the god that he wants to
> worship. If he claims differently he is just lying to himself.

This is pure hypocrisy when compared to the way you NEVER
give any concrete information about the "creator"
you ALLEGEDLY believe in. You were already notorious for this evasiveness
back in December 2010, when I returned to talk.origins after a near-decade
of absence. You immediately concocted a wildly false picture of me
based on nothing but stereotypes that rule your thinking.

>
> What happened when MarkE was asked to put his designer into the origin
> of life gap that he had created? MarkE had spent a lot of time, as has
> Tour, in figureing out what was around the gap in order to claim that it
> was impossible to create life by natural mechanism, but it turned out
> that MarkE didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he
> had created.

I'll believe this oft-repeated allegation when I see documentation.
I think you are projecting your own not wanting to believe in a "creator"
that has anything to do with designing anything about the universe,
including the Big Bang itself. Why else would you loathe what
you mistakenly think of as "the top six" when the posts you link
give only the barest outline of the arguments for them?

> Tour has to face that same thing, but all he spouts off
> about is how impossible it is. He doesn't want to determine if such a
> god is the biblical god.

Still the lower case "god". I've long suspected that you are a closet
atheist, and this certainly does nothing to allay that suspicion.

> > And for third is the brilliant step to wash floor in public with nobody
> > like that "Professor Dave". Mr. Farina probably posts pathetic rants
> > after the event, stirs up more smoke and that is how ID gains credibility
> > in public. In our society it is not truth, but public opinion that matters.
> >
> No one has to debunk the Gap denial. Farina was stupid to try.
> Abiogenesis is among the weakest of sciences, and even if the do come up
> with the most probable explanation for the origin of life, it didn't
> have to happen in the most probable way. Whatever happened, happened no
> matter how improbable.

But of course, you hate the idea of "goddidit" so much that you are obsessed
with flaming anyone who dares to suggest it.

> It is a puzzle that even if it is completed may not be the actual answer.
>
> He should have just asked Tour to put the Biblical god into the gap and
> tell us what he thinks that he did in order to make the origin of life
> biblical enough for Tour. He likely isn't YEC (since as you claim he is
> a decent technologist and understands how things are). What he comes up
> with will not make the majority of IDiot creationist rubes happy, and
> will likely involve the subsequent evolution of life over billions of
> years. The majority of IDiotic creationists are still YEC

Where's the evidence for this bold claim? Behe isn't even an OEC --
he isn't any sort of creationist. He even argues in his second
and third books in favor of common descent.

Where's your evidence that Tour will not eventually follow Behe's lead?

> and they have
> no desire to find out that some god did something 3.8 billion years ago
> because that god is not their Biblical god.

The YEC are your favorite straw men, it seems.
Do you fondly imagine that any of the people you named are YECs?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:

[repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
[end of repost, snip unmarked by you]

> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.

Often considered by yourself and who else?

That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?

I looked up the word online, and I didn't see any hint of antisemitism
entering into the etymology. Here's what I found instead:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127

The first "hit" described you perfectly:

"Shyster is a slang term for a dishonest person, especially a lawyer or politician, who uses unethical or unscrupulous methods1234. It may be derived from a German word for "son of a bitch" or "bastard"3. To shyster is to act or exploit in this way5.
Summarized from 5 sources and the web
Learn more:
1. britannica.com
2. merriam-webster.com
3. thefreedictionary.com
4. collinsdictionary.com
5. wiktionary.org

> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.

You are only demonstrating your shyster ways. I gave plenty of ammunition in the link
that you were too cowardly to leave in.

> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.

Your wishful thinking is downright pathological.

>
> Meanwhile, Forty Years of In Vitro Evolution (now 50)
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.200701369

*Yawn* a ligation experiment of the sort I told Harshman about.

Sure, you can also evolve strings of RNA nucleotides once you've made a goodly
number of them. But what is evolved from what? Random strings from other
random strings?

Meanwhile, where life as we know it is concerned, it wasn't until
over a decade AFTER this article was published that all four RNA nucleotides
were produced under primitive earth conditions.

> And don't but the added restriction attempted.

Unintelligible. What did you mean to say here?

> > > My (Nyikos) response went:

> > > Natural selection only begins with organisms with the sophistication
> > >of the simplest free-living prokaryotes. We do NOT know about the
> > >processes that intervene between the simple production of
> > > amino acids and nucleotides -- all that origin-of-life experiments
> > >have been able to produce to date -- and such organisms. You
> > >are knocking down a strawman creationism mixed with rank
> > >speculation about "life as we don't know it."
> JH> But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
> > present: reproduction,
>
> ( Nyikos again chopped midsentence, maybe to confuse things)

No, "reproduction" was the weak link in the chain. Once that was snapped,
the rest was useless. Of course, you deleted the snapping.

You also need to learn a bit of basic logic: don't confuse necessary
conditions with sufficient conditions.

> > inheritance with variation, and differences in
> > fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> > any current organism could not have those characteristics?

Next, you show that, for all your bragged-about knowledge of biochemistry,
you still have little genuine understanding of how it relates to OOL:

> Peter of course retroactively tried to raise the bar,

What part of "sophistication of" didn't you understand?
The RNA-based life I envisioned was more or less of the same
degree of sophistication as the most primitive prokaryotes.
It just wasn't "life as we know it". On the other hand, it had
an awful lot in common with life as we know it: I forgot
to mention that it also included DNA, ribozyme DNA and RNA polymerases,
ribozyme transcriptase, and ribozyme reverse transcriptase.

> yet he calls me dishonest.

And rightly so: your sentence fragment where I temporarily
cut you off, was quite dishonest, especially the "of course."


> A very sad performance.

Pure projection, but you are excused from having to realize it at the time.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 5:00:29 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:42:35 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:30:29 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:31 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > On 5/22/23 10:25 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:10:34 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> > > > >> On 5/21/2023 10:40 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
> > > > >>> Hilarious!
> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> LOL. Live-action talk.origins.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is also a great deal of talk.origins style debate in the comments section for that video.
> > > > > Some of it, notably by Javier Campos Gómez and Anthony Polonkay, is superior
> > > > > to what you see above. You can read what they wrote in some of the 65 comments following the displayed one by Javier
> > > > > at the beginning of the comments section (at least, that's where it appears in my display).

Minor update: it is second as of this writing, and I've seen it in fourth place in the meantime.
Not sure what influences the placement.

> > > > > I've contributed 7 of those comments myself, all of them near the end of the 65 as of this writing.

It's now up to 144 comments. So the comments I made yesterday are closer to the middle,
and I'll be making some more today.

> > > > >
> > > > > My most penetrating comment so far is in the following exchange:
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Jinnantonix, replying to Andrew Polonkay, had written:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Unfortunately you have not made the case for why a proto life chemical process would require "an inwards facing membrane" or "gates". These are only requirements that we see in living cells, and these early lipid membranes predate that by at least 500 million years. The argument that these structures have to appear in their existing complex arrangements right from the very beginning is the same as the creationist/anti-evolution argument that it is impossible for the human eye, with all its complexity, to spontaneously come into existence. ie Nonsense. Since we know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes, over aeons, toward these more complex structures that become ubiquitous only through their superiority in natural selection."
> > > > >
> > > > > My response went:
> > > > > Natural selection only begins with organisms with the sophistication of the simplest free-living prokaryotes. We do NOT know about the processes that intervene between the simple production of amino acids and nucleotides -- all that origin-of-life experiments have been able to produce to date -- and such organisms. You are knocking down a strawman creationism mixed with rank speculation about "life as we don't know it."
> > > > But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
> > > > present: reproduction, inheritance with variation, and differences in
> > > > fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> > > > any current organism could not have those characteristics?
> >
> > > Your "think" to Peter's "know" seems to sink the last nail in your
> > > coffin. Answer your own question with science, monkey boy.

Mr. Tiib does not seem to have caught on to what the two words in quotes are all about.
It's one of the drawbacks of GG hiding earlier text until you click on the three dots.

> > He already did. He listed the requirements for natural selection.
> > It's a given that systems with those required features can evolve.
> > See many computational algorithms. Peter's point was DOA.

> Not sure who and what you are reading, but it is not a given that life can evolve with "those required features", unless you identify them as definitional to "life".

Lawyer Daggett obviously means "life as we don't know it." He seems to think that the
evolving computations ARE a life form. I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken in by the nonsense
about how "we may all be part of a computer simulation" that are taken seriously
by a few respected-by-intellectuals theoretical physicists.

> That then becomes not a "given" but a copout to ask the question Harsman asked above.
> No life that we are aware of can exist, let alone evolve, without a functional membrane.
> And no one has provided any evidence to the contrary, and clearly not in Harshman's question, or any one else's claims here.

Absolutely. By the way, Glenn, it's great to see you enter so well into the debate
instead of just giving a few sound bites. I hope to see a lot more such debate/discussion by you.

> What is more, we do NOT "know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes".

> Such processes found are perhaps the most complex in the Universe. You may want to pay some attention to an expert, such as Tour. And for the benefit of others, Tour likely knows more about biology, evolution and the origin of life, the latter no one has any better "qualifications" than Tour.

Qualifications don't necessarily mean expertise in all aspects. Does Tour really
come across that way in the LONG video? Do you see him making the same
points here that I do? Pay special attention to what I wrote before the words "Catch-22".

>
> The dishonest here runs deep, Harshman is nothing more than a troll, and you are no better.

Shyster Lawyer Daggett is almost as close to full-time troll as JTEM, and jillery is not
far behind SLD in that respect. OTOH I wouldn't say what you did about Harshman.
The term "obnoxious sophomoric jerk" is a lot closer to the mark.

All four may well be sociopaths (a.k.a. psychopaths) in the very strict clinical sense of the word.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Why do you say that? Did you actually watch the 2-hour debate? I certainly
have not. It is far more productive to go into the comments section.
The signal-to-noise ratio there is about as bad as what we are used to here
in talk.origins, but some of the signals are very instructive. Here is another
one of the responses I did yesterday:

________________________________________________________

bokonon bokomaru had written in response to Mike Sansoterra:

"your response is specifically composed of the fallacies you just denied & you added the watchmaker fallacy to boot. Focus on the topic that Tour has spent his last decade (pre Dave Farina) misrepresenting. Put it in perspective : OOL scientists are attempting to replicate components of a chain of events that took over a billion years and required the vast, varying combinations of chemistry, energy sources, seismic fluctuations in matrices the size of our planet. This is a daunting task to accomplish in labs that are miniscule by comparison. The thousands (increasing daily) of peer-reviewed papers Dave references are the irrefutable indication that we do have a clue and have made great progress in recent decades. Tour's continued dishonesty deserves to be called out. This "debate" is not the best method to do so, but c'est la vie."

my retort: The "recent decades" have been seven (7) since the Miller-Urey experiment, and the total progress since that experiment has consisted of producing the five nucleotides that are essential to RNA and DNA, and the amino acids that Miller did not find. This is in the way of simulating pre-biotic conditions. With that kind of "great progress", it is doubtful whether humans will find a plausible pathway to the simplest bacteria in the next thousand years.

At the rate we are going, "thousands of peer-reviewed papers" will have to be supplemented by millions.

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

Despite what I wrote there, it may be possible to pinpoint the problems on the way,
and find descriptions of widely separated intermediate steps ("plateaus") that look like they
are on the path. I gave one such in reply to Harshman, augmented by what
I wrote to Lawyer Daggett.

I believe the plateaus to that one came in the following order:

ribozyme RNA polymerase, DNA, ribozyme reverse transcriptase, ribozyme DNA polymerase,
ribozyme transcriptase, ribozyme directed genetic code

Do you know enough biochemistry to comment? Lawyer Daggett probably does,
but I don't think he'll lift a finger to have an on-topic discussion with me. Sad.


Peter Nyikos

Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 3:11:43 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> [repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
> [end of repost, snip unmarked by you]
> > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> Often considered by yourself and who else?
>
> That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?

A recent choice quote from the New York Observer (24th April): “shyster” is a “deplorable and demeaning word,” “offensive, redolent with prejudice and hatred.” The "bigoted association" is according to them: “talking about Jewish lawyers who in their minds are no different from the scheming, devious Shylock.”

This is not a recent interpretation/reading caused by increased sensitivities, already in 1977 we can find:
"In their recently published survey of contemporary antisemitism, Forster and Epstein state: "From 'Shylock
to 'shyster,' words and images have been used and invented to depict Jews as canny, crafty, usurious, power-mad, conspiratorial, unassimilable, pushy, canny, aggressive, stubborn, weak" ( E. L. Dachslager, Teaching Literary Antisemitism College English, Vol. 39, No. 3, Teaching Literature (Nov., 1977)

Etymologically, the association of Shyster with Shylock is wrong, the word originally is scatological and means s/t close to Shithead (via German, Scheisser) But that a number of people and groups understood/used it as implying antisemitic sentiment seems to go back to the 1930s the least (possibly furthered by Disney's big-nosed "Sylvester Shyster" character, Disney himself being a bit ambivalent in that respect)

But the anti-semitic connotation was never universal, and when a recent video advert that used the term caused a number of complaints, our ACA ruled, after consultation with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that "whilst some viewers may have found the phrase distasteful, in the context of the ad, the word was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence." (which is why I now know more about the issue)

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> [repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
> [end of repost, snip unmarked by you]
> > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> Often considered by yourself and who else?
>
> That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?
>
> I looked up the word online, and I didn't see any hint of antisemitism
> entering into the etymology. Here's what I found instead:
>
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127

Your search engine is bing? Zero credibility.
I do wonder if you just don't know how to change defaults.

https://www.thoughtco.com/terms-many-dont-know-are-racist-2834522

> > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.

Let me help you. I did not invent the perception that shyster can
be considered antisemitic. I am merely aware of it. Wither it should
or shouldn't be considered antisemitic could be debated. Nevertheless,
some would consider it prudent to avoid it.

But maybe you feel "gypped" about losing a word.

Yes, that was gratuitous. Nevertheless, a quibbler like you ought

to parse what I wrote:
> > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic

I guess you could quibble about the meaning of "often".
It just seems that a person of adequate vocabulary should be
able to find words without such baggage in an era where intentional
antisemitism is on the rise. Feel free to tell me you don't have
the wherewithal or the inclination.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 3:11:43 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > > > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> > [repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
> > https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
> > [end of repost, snip unmarked by you]
> > > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> > Often considered by yourself and who else?
> >
> > That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?

Burk, what you write below would have carried more weight if you hadn't
interposed such a long spiel in between the above line and the ones
that immediately followed it:

[REPOST from far below]

> > I looked up the word online, and I didn't see any hint of antisemitism
> > entering into the etymology. Here's what I found instead:

[...]

> > "Shyster is a slang term for a dishonest person, especially a lawyer or politician, who uses unethical or unscrupulous methods1234. It may be derived from a German word for "son of a bitch" or "bastard"3. To shyster is to act or exploit in this way5.

[END OF REPOST]

> A recent choice quote from the New York Observer (24th April): “shyster” is a “deplorable and demeaning word,” “offensive, redolent with prejudice and hatred.” The "bigoted association" is according to them: “talking about Jewish lawyers who in their minds are no different from the scheming, devious Shylock.”

Appeal to Authority Fallacy here. There is no hint of why they thought that.
The association is far more tenuous than the widespread misconception
that "niggardly" is racist. Not only is the similarity in writing and pronunciation less, but IIRC Shylock
was just a moneylender with no training as a lawyer. His role in the trial was incompetent.

>
> This is not a recent interpretation/reading caused by increased sensitivities, already in 1977 we can find:
> "In their recently published survey of contemporary antisemitism, Forster and Epstein state: "From 'Shylock
> to 'shyster,' words and images have been used and invented to depict Jews as canny, crafty, usurious, power-mad, conspiratorial, unassimilable, pushy, canny, aggressive, stubborn, weak" ( E. L. Dachslager, Teaching Literary Antisemitism College English, Vol. 39, No. 3, Teaching Literature (Nov., 1977)
>

Still the lack of a firm association of the word with Shylock's name.

> Etymologically, the association of Shyster with Shylock is wrong, the word originally is scatological and means s/t close to Shithead (via German, Scheisser) But that a number of people and groups understood/used it as implying antisemitic sentiment seems to go back to the 1930s the least (possibly furthered by Disney's big-nosed "Sylvester Shyster" character, Disney himself being a bit ambivalent in that respect)

Is this guilt by association supposed to imply that Disney was ambivalent about lawyers? Jews? or both?

I remember only one such comic, from the early 1950's, a Mickey Mouse comic in which
Sylvester teams up with Black Pete [1] to rob some banks with a new machine that cuts
through bank walls with lightning bolts. They try to kill Mickey, and Minnie, their captive,
threatens to stop cooking for them if they keep at it. They put their heads together and relent,
one saying to the other, "With our cooking, we'll starve." As usual, Mickey wins out at the end
by turning their machine on them.

I can't remember any hint that Sylvester is Jewish; but then, I haven't seen that comic
since I turned ten.

[1] He went through an interesting metamorphosis. First, he had a pegleg and was
called "Pegleg Pete". The name was replaced, probably out of sympathy for the handicapped,
by "Black Pete," and all sign of a peg-leg disappeared. That name persisted for several decades
until it was replaced by "Sneaky Pete," for other obvious reasons.


Peter Nyikos
[called "Pete" by classmates in elementary and secondary schools,
and college and university and when serving in the Army. If you can't
guess why, ask jillery.]

PS I've left everything in below. Thanks for leaving in all of what follows your last paragraph:

[Öö Tiib]

Me? I was not posting in that sub-thread, it was you, Glenn and John Harshman.
What we have is stack of partially to fully incompatible hypotheses and then even
bigger stack of potential possible stages of proto-life. It is hard to estimate
what of such dim stages can survive nothing to talk to evolve and to what extent.
And not lot of people care. Average person: "wtf, something happened 3.8 bya?"

There sure are some for whom it is very interesting and so some experiments will
be done. But expectations of anyone to have resources for modeling it nothing to
talk of actual experimenting with vast populations of actual potential proto-lifes in
various real conditions for sufficiently long time should be trimmed down.

Problems:
* hard to show positive technological impact, hard to find funding;
* simulations of simple procaryotes are far more cheap than real experiments;
* hypothetical proto-life is hard to model or to construct;
* various potential conditions 3.8 bya are also hard to model or achieve;
* Complexity of our technological ambitions is often far above whatever
simplest procaryote can provide;
* Evolvable technologies are tediously slow in contest with trainable technologies;
* whatever models will be likely rejected anyway as "fake garbage with goals
of social engineering" (or such).

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 6:10:30 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 3:11:43 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > > > > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> > > [repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
> > > https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
> > > [end of repost, snip unmarked by you]
> > > > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> > > Often considered by yourself and who else?
> > >
> > > That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?
> Burk, what you write below would have carried more weight if you hadn't
> interposed such a long spiel in between the above line and the ones
> that immediately followed it:

Petey-boy, as your memory seems to be failing again, your question was "who else thinks this" and it is an answer to this question, where it belongs, not below discussions of etymology that I dealt with separately.

>
> [REPOST from far below]
> > > I looked up the word online, and I didn't see any hint of antisemitism
> > > entering into the etymology. Here's what I found instead:
> [...]
> > > "Shyster is a slang term for a dishonest person, especially a lawyer or politician, who uses unethical or unscrupulous methods1234. It may be derived from a German word for "son of a bitch" or "bastard"3. To shyster is to act or exploit in this way5.
> [END OF REPOST]
> > A recent choice quote from the New York Observer (24th April): “shyster” is a “deplorable and demeaning word,” “offensive, redolent with prejudice and hatred.” The "bigoted association" is according to them: “talking about Jewish lawyers who in their minds are no different from the scheming, devious Shylock.”
> Appeal to Authority Fallacy here.

Not at all. Your question was, and I quote as you seem to need a reminder: " Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic,".Given you the name of an organisation is a direct answer to that question, not an appeal to authority.

>There is no hint of why they thought that.
> The association is far more tenuous than the widespread misconception
> that "niggardly" is racist. Not only is the similarity in writing and pronunciation less, but IIRC Shylock
> was just a moneylender with no training as a lawyer. His role in the trial was incompetent.
> >
> > This is not a recent interpretation/reading caused by increased sensitivities, already in 1977 we can find:
> > "In their recently published survey of contemporary antisemitism, Forster and Epstein state: "From 'Shylock
> > to 'shyster,' words and images have been used and invented to depict Jews as canny, crafty, usurious, power-mad, conspiratorial, unassimilable, pushy, canny, aggressive, stubborn, weak" ( E. L. Dachslager, Teaching Literary Antisemitism College English, Vol. 39, No. 3, Teaching Literature (Nov., 1977)
> >
> Still the lack of a firm association of the word with Shylock's name.

And nonetheless an answer to your question "and why" they have this position, whether you personally find their reasons convincing is neither here nor there.

> > Etymologically, the association of Shyster with Shylock is wrong, the word originally is scatological and means s/t close to Shithead (via German, Scheisser) But that a number of people and groups understood/used it as implying antisemitic sentiment seems to go back to the 1930s the least (possibly furthered by Disney's big-nosed "Sylvester Shyster" character, Disney himself being a bit ambivalent in that respect)
> Is this guilt by association supposed to imply that Disney was ambivalent about lawyers? Jews? or both?

Jews, manly because of his support of the deeply antisemitic Motion Picture Alliance, and his association with Riefenstahl just weeks after the Reichskristallnacht - and the depiction of a jewish peddler in Three Little Pigs. Gabler, in his biography, discusses this in a very balanced way, and points out that in his personal life there was no indication of anti-semitism, but in his professional life he was at least accommodating to anti-semitic sentiment. Nothing conclusive, but for my point it is sufficient that many perceived him this way to also identify the "Sylvester Shyster" character whose big nose, and general demeanour, was close to archetypical semitic depictions.

[Glenn]

You don't understand that is an appeal to authority? You may also be guilty of quote mining the Observer. You apparently didn't do diligent research. And you didn't provide a reference. Wow. If I wrote an article in a newspaper and said that "greedy" was an antisemitic word since it has been used to insult Jewish lawyers (greedy Jewish lawyer), that would be evidence of the word being antisemitic in your book? Perhaps you are ignorant of the difference between the words can and is. Or you personally think shyster is an antisemitic word, and don't care if you're sloppy with the evidence you suppoly.

"None of this means that the Observer is absolutely wrong. After all, bigoted people can, and frequently do, use code words to veil their prejudice. The Jewish people have long experience with such code words."

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/900005387204/

[Glenn]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> >>> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> >> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> >> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
> >> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
> >>
> > Some would wear their pants on their head too. Similar to you calling
> > Peter an antisemitic just now. Oh, what, did you not? Gee wee. Well, I
> > don't see any terms used that are often considered antisemitic. Unless
> > you mean "Lawyer Daggett"... best ammo, eh? Hope you feel more flattered now.
> >
> >
> Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different
> than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
> character trait.

Character trait was intended. Literalism doesn't quite fit your head size, Hemi.

>
> But Lawyer Daggett appears wrong in the word usage itself:

"Lawyer Daggett" is a fictional name in the John Wayne movie "True Grit".
And it seems you ignored Peter's reasons for identifying him as a shyster.
I doubt that Daggett did, though. But you might think, Daggett isn't aware that
not all words are antisemitic, and by his own admission, some do not consider shyster to be. Of course for effect, he added "often considered". You swallowed it hook line and sinker. Wink wink.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
>>>>> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
>>>> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
>>>> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
>>>> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
>>>>
>>> Some would wear their pants on their head too. Similar to you calling
>>> Peter an antisemitic just now. Oh, what, did you not? Gee wee. Well, I
>>> don't see any terms used that are often considered antisemitic. Unless
>>> you mean "Lawyer Daggett"... best ammo, eh? Hope you feel more flattered now.
>>>
>>>
>> Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different
>> than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
>> character trait.
>
> Character trait was intended. Literalism doesn't quite fit your head size, Hemi.
>

Subtlety isn’t your strong suit. I heard a podcast episode of Decoding the
Gurus that attributed the behavior/character distinction to Ibram X Kendi.
I find it useful in that it’s less apt to be taken negatively or an attack.
“Stop doing X” is better than “You are an X”.

You will likely focus on Kendi in the above and launch some performative
triggered conservative diatribe as programmed by fringe media sites. So
don’t act as a convenient wind up toy would.

[Glenn]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:11:43 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 4:06:50 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > > several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> [repost of link to a mountain of evidence, snipped by you:]
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
> [end of repost, snip unmarked by you]
> > Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> Often considered by yourself and who else?
>
> That is NOT a rhetorical question. Who besides you thinks of it as antisemitic, and why?
>
> I looked up the word online, and I didn't see any hint of antisemitism
> entering into the etymology. Here's what I found instead:
>
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=shyster%20meaning&pc=0NNZ&ptag=C24N1039A0532D2BCAB&form=CONBNT&conlogo=CT3210127
>
> The first "hit" described you perfectly:
>
> "Shyster is a slang term for a dishonest person, especially a lawyer or politician, who uses unethical or unscrupulous methods1234. It may be derived from a German word for "son of a bitch" or "bastard"3. To shyster is to act or exploit in this way5.
> Summarized from 5 sources and the web
> Learn more:
> 1. britannica.com
> 2. merriam-webster.com
> 3. thefreedictionary.com
> 4. collinsdictionary.com
> 5. wiktionary.org

Another:

"Various false etymologies have suggested an antisemitic origin, possibly associated with the character of Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, but there is no clear evidence for this"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster


I failed to find any references to the term being used often, or at all, as an antisemitic term.
So "Lawyer Daggett" advises you to treat what he appears to know is a false etymology as if it were true, claiming that it is used as such "often". Hilarious! Such a tactic is typical of the left...

> > But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
> You are only demonstrating your shyster ways. I gave plenty of ammunition in the link
> that you were too cowardly to leave in.

His shyster ways, not his Jewish ways. You provide no hint whatsoever that you consider him Jewish or acting Jewish. And by all accounts he isn't even a real Lawyer, just a Shyster. As far as his own behavior in the realm of name calling though, he does fit the mold of many Lawyers.

> > I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
> Your wishful thinking is downright pathological.

He reduces himself that way, so you may be correct on that account.

[erik simpson]

Glenn isn't worth the effort to type a response. In fact, he isn't worth the the effort
to consider a response.

[Glenn]

Sorry, the woke, of which you clearly are, can not be awoken. I doubt you even understand yourself. Shyster is not antisemitic terminology, nor does the false etymology appear to be used "often", nor did or does "Lawyer Daggett" have any reason to suspect that Peter is antisemitic. He had no cause to provide such "advice" except to attack Peter for insulting him. And he ends up looking like an idiot, not a Lawyer. Well, maybe not in general.
In my opinion, his "advice" was a veiled accusation against Peter, nothing more.

[Glenn]

Yet you did and do...oh right, you aren't responding to me, right? You're an idiot.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> >>>>> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:

> >>>> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> >>>> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
> >>>> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
> >>>>
> >>> Some would wear their pants on their head too. Similar to you calling
> >>> Peter an antisemitic just now. Oh, what, did you not? Gee wee. Well, I
> >>> don't see any terms used that are often considered antisemitic. Unless
> >>> you mean "Lawyer Daggett"... best ammo, eh? Hope you feel more flattered now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different
> >> than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
> >> character trait.

My parting shot, beginning with the word "Compare," seems to apply here too. YMMV.

> > Character trait was intended. Literalism doesn't quite fit your head size, Hemi.
> >
> Subtlety isn’t your strong suit.

Yes, and neither is it yours. You show that amply below,
after a digression into intellectuality in sense 2b
of "intellectual" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL
[...]
2 b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
-- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intellectual

> I heard a podcast episode of Decoding the
> Gurus that attributed the behavior/character distinction to Ibram X Kendi.
> I find it useful in that it’s less apt to be taken negatively or an attack.
> “Stop doing X” is better than “You are an X”.

Now comes a highly unsubtle, mean-spirited display of intellectualism *sensu* 2b
but definitely not 1b [see above]:

> You will likely focus on Kendi in the above and launch some performative
> triggered conservative diatribe as programmed by fringe media sites.

Your buddy Ron O is the one who writes as though he were programmed.
Stop trying to fob off his behavior onto Glenn.

> So don’t act as a convenient wind up toy would.

Compare: "So don't go beating your wife." Not as creative as your comment
after which it is patterned, but perfectly analogous otherwise.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

So, you want to be banned from TO? Why do you have to harass me with
your assoholic behavior? What was Glenn wallowing in? Why did you have
to start lying about the Top Six? What kind of harassing asshole would
come back to harass me with the lies about my religious beliefs that are
part of an existing holy water repost that you have had to run from?
What were you demonstrated to be lying about? What did you have to run
from and start lying about something else? It turned into the holy
water repost about the Dirty debating thread that you have had to run from.

Since you can't seem to stop your senseless assoholic harassement you
should ask Greig to ban you so that you won't have to be that kind of
lying assohole any longer.

Holy water repost that includes Nyikos lying about my religious beliefs.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/8VgLI1iOAAAJ

Why do you do this junk to yourself. All you ever produce is more to
lie about. When has harassing me ever amounted to anything positive for
you. Just put up any examples. Just think how lame your three
knockdowns turned out to be. You won't even tell me what the third one
was supposed to be about. That is how lame your harassment has been for
over a decade and it should end. There is no need to produce more for
you to keep lying about. Just look what you have written above. How
much of it matters, and is even true? Why should I ever mention what my
creator ever did when it has never been a subject of discussion? My
beliefs have never mattered to what I have posted. You just have lied
about my beliefs for your own assoholic reasons. It is one of the
sadder things that you do. Just because you have to lie about your own
religious beliefs doesn't mean that others are doing it. I don't even
discuss my religious beliefs so it has only been an issue when you lie
about them. When have I ever needed to discuss my religious beliefs. I
told you once what they were, and you can check out the holy water
repost to see how you snipped out all but one sentence and lied about
the rest. That was all you. I never had to lie about my religious
beliefs, nor have they ever been relevant to the bogus stupidity of the
ID scam and your incessant lies about the ID scam. Who has been lying
about the ID perps participating on the first bait and switch on the
Ohio rubes back in 2002 from probably their first post to TO after your
long absence? It was likely your first return post to TO and you had to
start lying about the subject from that day forward. 90% of your posts
to me have been likely due to your first stupid error. For some stupid
reason you had to start lying about the subject in anyway that you could
instead of just admit that you were wrong and move on. Over a decade of
lying about the same junk until the last holy water repost posted above,
and you managed to quit, but you just started to look for more things to
lie about.

Really, how did the last Top Six thread end for you. Outright lies
about things that could easily be checked like whether Sewell had
included the Big Bang in his video. Why did you have to keep lying
about something that stupid?

I told you that if the harassment continued that I would ask Greig to
ban you from TO. You should asked to be banned if you can't control
your assoholic behavior. Why should I do you that favor? If you
haven't requested to be banned in a week I will ask Greig to do it.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

Hey idiot I replied thus to you before you used the very same links:
“Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different

than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
character trait.

But Lawyer Daggett appears wrong in the word usage itself:

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/900005387204/

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

“Various false etymologies have suggested an antisemitic origin, possibly
associated with the character of Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of
Venice, but there is no clear evidence for this.[4] One source asserts that
the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney
named "Schuster."[5]”

So Shyster is a slur against attorneys not against Jews. It seems

superficially similar to “Shylock” which has antisemitic connotations.”

You’re not very bright.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Speaking of the devil...a mere 4 (four) minutes after I make a remark to Hemidactylus
about Ron O, not Glenn, writing as though he were programmed, along comes
Ron O himself, posting as though he were picking up right where he left off threatening
to get DIG (David Iain Greig, the moderator of t.o.) to ban me:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/Yrgwct2tAQAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II
Mar 26, 2023, 6:50:39 PM

His trajectory from that post continues, carrying him to new heights, best not mentioned
at this point -- anyone wanting to see them can scroll to the end.

He writes like a man who was programmed to ignore all the mollifying
comments made to him from people who are respected by him.
The first came only a bit over a half hour after he made the post:

Bill Rogers at Mar 26, 2023, 7:25:39 PM:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/0j-_VMavAQAJ
then, a few minutes later, came
Bob Casanova at Mar 26, 2023, 7:30:39 PM:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/JtPhHQywAQAJ
and then came erik simpson at Mar 26, 2023, 10:30:40 PM
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/I_v18t65AQAJ

Not only that, but Bill and Bob kept dealing with Ron O's objections to their mollifying comments,
Bill and Bob later on the 26th and Bill again on the 27th, twice. The same day, Lawyer Daggett
reinforced Bill Rogers with a long piece of gentle advice for such and similar occasions.
Bill agreed with that in a reply on the same day, adding a few comments in the same general
direction. Then jillery agreed with Bill, and so did Daggett; they were joined on the same day
by Mark Isaak and DB Cates, with Mark giving concrete advice that Ron O could apply easily.
Then Mark gave his own direct reply Ron O, tactfully disagreeing with two extreme
things Ron O had written. When that made Ron O irate, Bill made some tough but fair
to Ron O that should have sobered Ron O up.

It didn't do that: a lot more of the same kind of traffic went on the same day, less than
24 hours after Ron O's threat-filled tirade, and for several more days to come.
However, I do believe that IF Ron O complains to DIG, and DIG is made aware of
this past history, he will take it into account and make a wise decision.

However, Ron O's fire-breathing tirade at the end notwithstanding, I don't think
DIG will have to make any such decision because I don't think the IF clause
will come into play.


Peter Nyikos
PS I've deleted nothing below; at the end comes the fire-breathing, with nary
a sign that Ron O had read anything from the post to which he is responding.

[*Hemidactylus*]

There’s something to be said about tussling with pigs and getting muddy
while they enjoy it way too much. Except pigs in general are far more
intelligent than Glenn.

[RonO]

On 5/23/2023 9:25 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Speaking of the devil...a mere 4 (four) minutes after I make a remark to Hemidactylus
> about Ron O, not Glenn, writing as though he were programmed, along comes
> Ron O himself, posting as though he were picking up right where he left off threatening
> to get DIG (David Iain Greig, the moderator of t.o.) to ban me:

As far as I am concerned you have already requested to be banned from
TO. All you had to do was to stop your senseless assoholic harassment,
but you could not do it. You have one week to request self banning, and
then I will make the request for you.

My take is that is the way that Greig will see it in light of what you
have done for well over a decade, and it should never have started. You
should start looking for anything positive that came out of your
harassment besides demonstrating what a lying loser you have been all
these years. The point will be made that you couldn't come up with
anything in your favor for your first 4 years of harassement with the
utter failure of your 3 knockdowns that never happened. I do not recall
any time that your harassment has been about anything real since.

Your sadistic harassment should have ended over a decade ago, and the
holy water reposts and your reactions to them will also be put up.

You have one week to request Greig to ban you. You have already made it
clear that you have made the request to me, so I am giving you the
chance to do the right thing and end your senseless stupidity.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

I have not been in favor of banning people from TO. But I'm starting to change my mind. I'm in an on-line piano discussion group which is moderated actively not so much for content as for courtesy. People who are rude and hostile just get banned, and quickly. As a result, 99% of the posts are interesting, generally friendly, and often helpful. Since that's the culture, newcomers generally adopt the same attitude. Lately, it seems the great majority of posts here are angry, insulting, hostile, contemptuous, or some mixture of the above. Sure, you can ignore all that stuff and just read the few interesting posts, but after a while it hardly seems worth it to poke through the negative energy looking for something worth reading.

One argument has always been that TO was a place to draw cranks away from the real science groups. When the cranks were people like the poster, decades ago, who kept proving that radioactive dating could give arbitrary results, using a proof that involved dividing by zero, or Pagano arguing about Flood geology, or Ed "man is as old as coal" Conrad, that may have made sense. It was fun to debate those folks and you could learn a good bit about parts of science you were unfamiliar with by addressing their arguments. But when the cranks are just cranky and hostile, I think there's a good case to be made just to ban them, and then let the real science groups ban them, too, if they migrate there. So I'm tending to be in favor of banning posters who are consistently rude and hostile, without limiting it to just one individual that bugs you. That would add a lot to DIG's workload, but I think a few weeks of effort could change things much for the better.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Does that remark mean that you are sympathetic to the way Ron O
"tussled with" me in his post of last night? Here is how it ended:

"If you haven't requested to be banned in a week I will ask Greig to do it."

In a follow-up post, Ron O even seems to be under the insane delusion
that I want to be banned:

"As far as I am concerned you have already requested to be banned from TO."

From time to time you have expressed a wish that I would quit talk.origins.
You may get your wish, but you may regret the final outcome.

You see, Bill Rogers is talking about banning posters who fit Ron O's insane
description of me, including Ron O himself if what he told Ron O back in March
(the first time Ron O talked seriously about having me banned)
was meant seriously:

" And honestly if the argument to ban him succeeds, an equally good argument could be made for banning you - you in essence, spam the group with repetitive posts about "rubes", "perps", scams, bait-and-switch, in a tone that is thoroughly contemptuous of those you disagree with. If being hostile and rude is enough to get someone banned, you would be on the list, too. Of course you'll disagree, but then nobody thinks that they themselves are so offensive that they should be banned. So my vote is to ban neither of you and to eliminate or minimize engagement with people I find irritating."
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/J1lwKMAnAgAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II . . . .Mar 27, 2023, 7:50:40 PM

Now Bill has ominously changed his tune; you can see it in the post that he did in
reply to Ron O's second post, which was the last post to this thread as of the time
I am writing this:

"So I'm tending to be in favor of banning posters who are consistently rude and hostile, without limiting it to just one individual that bugs you. That would add a lot to DIG's workload, but I think a few weeks of effort could change things much for the better."

,

And beware: "consistently" is being used by Bill in a sense that you could
also be on line for your consistent rudeness and hostility towards Glenn.
Your tiffs with jillery could also be used against you.


Worse yet, the final outcome could be that talk.origins will die of boredom,
like the moderated group sci.bio.evolution died something like a decade ago.

The irony here is that talk.origins was set up to be a vehicle
for rough-and-tumble between creationists and non-creationists,
which was overwhelming sci.bio.evolution before it was moderated.

With Dr. Dr. Kleinman banned at the instigation of Ron O,
talk.origins has lost its last voluminously outspoken creationist.
What do YOU think talk.origins will be like if Bill does go through with
the campaign he envisions?


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think Bill’s approach would be overkill. You could be right about dooming
boredom.

I waver between ignoring annoying people and engaging them sometimes in a
tit-for-tat manner.

Instead of wishing you would quit I wish you would quit doing certain
things like interjecting names of posters you have had running conflicts
with while in the midst of an unrelated post or thread they aren’t even
engaged in.

I tried being courteous to Glenn earlier in this thread but that didn’t
work out so well. I need to work on my forbearance.

[Lawyer Daggett]

That's right you sorry malodourous and slimy SOB. Overhaul
your forbearance circuity, it's a mangled cross of OS/2 and
Windoze95. You're programmed in Visual Basic 0.1beta
and need a patch with a GOTO Blazes statement. Your disk
is floppy and unformatted. Your boot sector should be
reprogrammed to kick you in the seat of the pants. Talk.origins
is simply no place for random incoherent vitriol.

[ I had the decency not to critique your taste in beer. ]

[*Hemidactylus*]

So I suppose this is you lending a helping hand with my forbearance
development.

>
> [ I had the decency not to critique your taste in beer. ]
>

Maduro Brown Ale. It’s a Tampan.

[erik simpson]

I propose an ostracization vote to be taken at regular interval , like the POTM. The
"winner" is silenced for the duration of the interval. It might lead to an improved
atmosphere.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think we should be happy DIG still does what he does maintaining Beagle
with BSD patches and whatnot. If this was an active Discord server with
multiple engaged mods things would be different.

I’m for ousting the blatant abusive types like Jabbers or that Prawnster
monstrosity. Nobody here now rises quite to that level. There are some
esoteric weirdos I ignore completely but they seem harmless.

Is DrDr on forever ban?

[Glenn]

I wonder what posters and DIG would say were a fundamentalist to post essentially the same screed over and over for years...shades of Ron?

Personally I couldn't care less if DIG banned me. If anything it would add to
his transgression of banning Kleinman. Ron is among other things a troll, yet it appears no one here cares. He doesn't get my goat, he gets my vote to be banned.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:21:46 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:10:31?AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:25:31?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:12:44?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:31:57?PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:37:44?PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

>>>>> Re: Frozen Planet II . . . .Mar 27, 2023, 7:50:40?PM

Concur regarding DIG.

>
>I’m for ousting the blatant abusive types like Jabbers or that Prawnster
>monstrosity. Nobody here now rises quite to that level. There are some
>esoteric weirdos I ignore completely but they seem harmless.
>

Ignoring via "see poster; don't open post" works. So does
"add poster to Timeout file", with no effort required beyond
the addition, although somehow there seems to be some
disagreement whether these two are essentially identical in
operation.

>
>Is DrDr on forever ban?
>

I believe so, but only DIG can say for sure.
>
--

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

At his worst Ray Martinez could be very obnoxious. Yet he was pretty much
always on topic and why this group has existed. At this point I seriously
wonder if he has passed on.

Jonathan OTOH was something of a jackass and actually thumbed his nose at
DIG. He came back in other iterations, but seems to have moved on.

Nando comes and goes.

In some respects given the number of years most of us have all been posting
we are kinda an extremely dysfunctional online family.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:52:22 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:25:31 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

[ . . . ]

> >> work out so well. I need to work on my forbearance.

> > That's right you sorry malodourous and slimy SOB. Overhaul
> > your forbearance circuity, it's a mangled cross of OS/2 and
> > Windoze95. You're programmed in Visual Basic 0.1beta
> > and need a patch with a GOTO Blazes statement. Your disk
> > is floppy and unformatted. Your boot sector should be
> > reprogrammed to kick you in the seat of the pants. Talk.origins
> > is simply no place for random incoherent vitriol.

> So I suppose this is you lending a helping hand with my forbearance
> development.
> >
> > [ I had the decency not to critique your taste in beer. ]
> >
> Maduro Brown Ale. It’s a Tampan.

See, you ignored what should be ignored and responded to the
only point worth responding to.

But I abused you with my poor attempt at humor. I can't buy
you a beer but I can offer a present. I hope you like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2T5_seDNZE

[erik simpson]

It's a pretty half-assed idea, I admit. Don't look and move away works
quite well.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thanks yeah! Being an atheist I think this one works as a go-fast boat is
heading toward the sun (Zora Hurston worked the sun metaphor in her
autobiography) and the show’s closing credits start to roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kee8MS-QK5E

[Mark Isaak]

Ditto.

>> I’m for ousting the blatant abusive types like Jabbers or that Prawnster
>> monstrosity. Nobody here now rises quite to that level. There are some
>> esoteric weirdos I ignore completely but they seem harmless.
>>
> Ignoring via "see poster; don't open post" works. So does
> "add poster to Timeout file", with no effort required beyond
> the addition, although somehow there seems to be some
> disagreement whether these two are essentially identical in
> operation.

I'm in favor of some moderation for courtesy--not necessarily outright
bans, but week- to month-long timeouts for the first few offenses. I
think Nyikos maybe could learn to improve his behavior if slapped a few
times when he misbehaved. Others probably can't. Problem is, that
would be a huge drain on a moderator's time.

Ignoring abusive posters is probably the best solution available, but it
is not a good solution. It is like ignoring street-corner drug dealing,
minor vandalism, and petty theft occurring in your neighborhood. By
ignoring one scalawag, you send the signal to others that scalawaggery
is acceptable behavior. And just telling the abusive poster that they
are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
telling can be seen as abusive, too.

I am curious how important other regular posters here see the issue of
courtesy to be. (Especially the most common offenders.)

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Seems too much like “broken windows” and ratcheting up to “stop and frisk”
for me. We have a broken justice system to show for it in the real world.

> And just telling the abusive poster that they
> are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
> telling can be seen as abusive, too.
>
> I am curious how important other regular posters here see the issue of
> courtesy to be. (Especially the most common offenders.)
>

I am probably not always or often courteous as I should be. Some posters
burn my muffins. It may have been Ron O who long ago recognized my penchant
for wielding my claws. But that doesn’t work. It’s a flaw.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:00:28 +0000, the following appeared

>>>>>>>>>> Subtlety isn?t your strong suit. I heard a podcast episode of Decoding the

>>>>>>>>>> Gurus that attributed the behavior/character distinction to Ibram X Kendi.

>>>>>>>>>> I find it useful in that it?s less apt to be taken negatively or an attack.
>>>>>>>>>> ?Stop doing X? is better than ?You are an X?.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You will likely focus on Kendi in the above and launch some performative
>>>>>>>>>> triggered conservative diatribe as programmed by fringe media sites. So

>>>>>>>>>> don?t act as a convenient wind up toy would.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glenn isn't worth the effort to type a response. In fact, he isn't
>>>>>>>>> worth the the effort
>>>>>>>>> to consider a response.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> There?s something to be said about tussling with pigs and getting muddy

>>>>>> I think Bill?s approach would be overkill. You could be right about dooming

>>>>>> boredom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I waver between ignoring annoying people and engaging them sometimes in a
>>>>>> tit-for-tat manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of wishing you would quit I wish you would quit doing certain
>>>>>> things like interjecting names of posters you have had running conflicts

>>>>>> with while in the midst of an unrelated post or thread they aren?t even
>>>>>> engaged in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried being courteous to Glenn earlier in this thread but that didn?t

>>>>>> work out so well. I need to work on my forbearance.
>>>>> That's right you sorry malodourous and slimy SOB. Overhaul
>>>>> your forbearance circuity, it's a mangled cross of OS/2 and
>>>>> Windoze95. You're programmed in Visual Basic 0.1beta
>>>>> and need a patch with a GOTO Blazes statement. Your disk
>>>>> is floppy and unformatted. Your boot sector should be
>>>>> reprogrammed to kick you in the seat of the pants. Talk.origins
>>>>> is simply no place for random incoherent vitriol.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ I had the decency not to critique your taste in beer. ]
>>>>
>>>> I propose an ostracization vote to be taken at regular interval , like the POTM. The
>>>> "winner" is silenced for the duration of the interval. It might lead to an improved
>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>
>>> I think we should be happy DIG still does what he does maintaining Beagle
>>> with BSD patches and whatnot. If this was an active Discord server with
>>> multiple engaged mods things would be different.
>>>
>> Concur regarding DIG.
>>>

>>> I?m for ousting the blatant abusive types like Jabbers or that Prawnster

>>> monstrosity. Nobody here now rises quite to that level. There are some
>>> esoteric weirdos I ignore completely but they seem harmless.
>>>
>> Ignoring via "see poster; don't open post" works. So does
>> "add poster to Timeout file", with no effort required beyond
>> the addition, although somehow there seems to be some
>> disagreement whether these two are essentially identical in
>> operation.
>>>
>>> Is DrDr on forever ban?
>>>
>> I believe so, but only DIG can say for sure.
>>
>At his worst Ray Martinez could be very obnoxious. Yet he was pretty much
>always on topic and why this group has existed. At this point I seriously
>wonder if he has passed on.
>

I'm pretty sure that he has, based on the obit someone
posted and the fact that he couldn't stay away but hasn't
been seen. And I never killfiled Ray, mainly for that reason
(that he posted on-topic).

>
>Jonathan OTOH was something of a jackass and actually thumbed his nose at
>DIG. He came back in other iterations, but seems to have moved on.
>

No loss. (Other iterations? Must have missed them.)
>
>Nando comes and goes.
>
Sure, in various guises. But since all of them (so far) are
in my "timeout" file I don't see them unless someone
responds and I read the responder's post.

>
>In some respects given the number of years most of us have all been posting
>we are kinda an extremely dysfunctional online family.
>

Can't argue against that summary...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:50:48 +0000, the following appeared

I beg to differ. It works (for values...) but like most
drugs there are side effects. And it's only a flaw if
utilized inappropriately. "Turn the other cheek" doesn't
work against someone who doesn't care or has zero empathy;
it's only surrender for them.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:01:48 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 16:06:46 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 5:00:29 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:42:35 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:30:29 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:31 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/22/23 10:25 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:10:34 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> > > > > > >> On 5/21/2023 10:40 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
> > > > > > >>> Hilarious!
> > > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
> > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > >> LOL. Live-action talk.origins.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is also a great deal of talk.origins style debate in the comments section for that video.
> > > > > > > Some of it, notably by Javier Campos Gómez and Anthony Polonkay, is superior
> > > > > > > to what you see above. You can read what they wrote in some of the 65 comments following the displayed one by Javier
> > > > > > > at the beginning of the comments section (at least, that's where it appears in my display).
> > Minor update: it is second as of this writing, and I've seen it in fourth place in the meantime.
> > Not sure what influences the placement.
> > > > > > > I've contributed 7 of those comments myself, all of them near the end of the 65 as of this writing.
> > It's now up to 144 comments. So the comments I made yesterday are closer to the middle,
> > and I'll be making some more today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My most penetrating comment so far is in the following exchange:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jinnantonix, replying to Andrew Polonkay, had written:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Unfortunately you have not made the case for why a proto life chemical process would require "an inwards facing membrane" or "gates". These are only requirements that we see in living cells, and these early lipid membranes predate that by at least 500 million years. The argument that these structures have to appear in their existing complex arrangements right from the very beginning is the same as the creationist/anti-evolution argument that it is impossible for the human eye, with all its complexity, to spontaneously come into existence. ie Nonsense. Since we know that life evolves from the simplest chemical processes, over aeons, toward these more complex structures that become ubiquitous only through their superiority in natural selection."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My response went:
> > > > > > > Natural selection only begins with organisms with the sophistication of the simplest free-living prokaryotes. We do NOT know about the processes that intervene between the simple production of amino acids and nucleotides -- all that origin-of-life experiments have been able to produce to date -- and such organisms. You are knocking down a strawman creationism mixed with rank speculation about "life as we don't know it."
> > > > > > But is that true? Natural selection begins when its requirements are
> > > > > > present: reproduction, inheritance with variation, and differences in
> > > > > > fitness among variants. What makes you think that something simpler than
> > > > > > any current organism could not have those characteristics?
> > > >
> > > > > Your "think" to Peter's "know" seems to sink the last nail in your
> > > > > coffin. Answer your own question with science, monkey boy.
> >
> > Mr. Tiib does not seem to have caught on to what the two words in quotes are all about.
> > It's one of the drawbacks of GG hiding earlier text until you click on the three dots.

> Me? I was not posting in that sub-thread, it was you, Glenn and John Harshman.

Thanks for setting me straight. I'll work harder at keeping track of sub-threads.

> What we have is stack of partially to fully incompatible hypotheses and then even
> bigger stack of potential possible stages of proto-life.

The stack of hypotheses I've seen here in t.o. are on a very rudimentary level:
warm dilute planetwide "soup," hot sea vents, cool sea vents, etc.


> It is hard to estimate
> what of such dim stages can survive nothing to talk to evolve and to what extent.

Did you see my direct reply to you on the 23rd? You haven't answered it yet,
and that is where I last talked about stages that had to take place
on the way to life as we know it.

I marked them by essential ingredients that had to develop somehow:
they had to be enzymes that were not of protein, but of long strings
of nucleotides, called ribozymes. The best known of the ones we still
have are ribosomes, and without them there is no reproduction, not
even of viruses. But we also need some we haven't found:

ribozyme RNA polymerase, ribozyme reverse transcriptase,
ribozyme DNA polymerase, ribozyme transcriptase.

I believe they evolved in the above order, with the first one a near certainty.
The second is essential for building DNA from RNA, the third for replicating
existing DNA, and the fourth to replenish RNA from all that is perpetually
converted into DNA via reverse transcriptase.

Once these are all in place, we have a life form that probably
existed in the early earth. It's possible that there are life forms
like that in exoplanets elsewhere in our galaxy, and it is a fascinating
question whether they can evolve to intelligent life without ever
developing protein enzymes.

Ours did develop them, and that development involves a formidable set of hurdles
on the way to life as we know it. Are you familiar with the protein translation mechanism?


> And not lot of people care. Average person: "wtf, something happened 3.8 bya?"

Average sophisticated atheist: "we know that life evolves from the simplest
chemical processes, over aeons [without intelligent intervention]." The
part outside the brackets is by Jinnatonix, see above.


> There sure are some for whom it is very interesting and so some experiments will
> be done. But expectations of anyone to have resources for modeling it nothing to
> talk of actual experimenting with vast populations of actual potential proto-lifes in
> various real conditions for sufficiently long time should be trimmed down.

Or stretched over thousands of years at the present rate of development.
I went into that possibility in my direct reply to you:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/khZM_6plMSc/m/xL7n3jtqAQAJ
Re: Clueless
May 23, 2023, 9:57:41 AM

> Problems:
> * hard to show positive technological impact, hard to find funding;

Yes, there is too much complacency, "Why fund work to prove something
that we've known all along" -- see the words of the sophisticated atheist.

> * simulations of simple procaryotes are far more cheap than real experiments;

I would have put "proto-prokaryotes" in place of "procaryotes". See possibility above.

> * hypothetical proto-life is hard to model or to construct;

It is theoretically possible to remove all DNA from cells that translates to protein enzymes
and to find the appropriate ribozymes. But unless we find viruses or cells
that contain these, it will require an enormous amount of research
to discover them.

> * various potential conditions 3.8 bya are also hard to model or achieve;

And we may be guessing wrong about what they were. Urey and Miller
guessed early earth had a reducing atmosphere, but planetary scientists
favor a neutral atmosphere which makes the prebiotic production of
amino acids much more difficult.

> * Complexity of our technological ambitions is often far above whatever
> simplest procaryote can provide;

"above"? What do you mean?

> * Evolvable technologies are tediously slow in contest with trainable technologies;

I don't understand what you mean here either.


> * whatever models will be likely rejected anyway as "fake garbage with goals
> of social engineering" (or such).

Easily dismissed, because nobody gives rational reasons for saying this AFAIK.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:45:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > >> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> > >>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:12:24 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> PS Don't be surprised by the nickname, "Shyster Lawyer Daggett." Here is one of
> > >>>>> several bases for it, where I first used it earlier today:
> > >>>> Some would avoid terms often considered antisemitic.
> > >>>> But I get it, name calling is your best ammunition.
> > >>>> I guess I should be flattered that you're reduced that way.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Some would wear their pants on their head too. Similar to you calling
> > >>> Peter an antisemitic just now. Oh, what, did you not? Gee wee. Well, I
> > >>> don't see any terms used that are often considered antisemitic. Unless
> > >>> you mean "Lawyer Daggett"... best ammo, eh? Hope you feel more flattered now.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Lawyer Daggett said to avoid antisemitic terminology which is different
> > >> than calling someone an antisemite. The word usage is an action not a
> > >> character trait.
> > >
> > > Character trait was intended. Literalism doesn't quite fit your head size, Hemi.
> > >
> > Subtlety isn’t your strong suit. I heard a podcast episode of Decoding the
> > Gurus that attributed the behavior/character distinction to Ibram X Kendi.
> > I find it useful in that it’s less apt to be taken negatively or an attack.
> > “Stop doing X” is better than “You are an X”.
> >
> > You will likely focus on Kendi in the above and launch some performative
> > triggered conservative diatribe as programmed by fringe media sites. So
> > don’t act as a convenient wind up toy would.

I've rebutted those idiotic last two sentences [see below], and I think erik simpson sensed
how weak they were, because he erupted with unsupportable insults:

> Glenn isn't worth the effort to type a response. In fact, he isn't worth the the effort
> to consider a response.

Methinks the Simpson doth protest too much.

Astronomically too much. What he writes is more revealing of him than of Glenn.

In case anyone reading this rates reasoned rebuttal higher than clever empty repartee,
here is where I rebutted what erik leaped to support:

_____________________________ repost __________________

> You will likely focus on Kendi in the above and launch some performative
> triggered conservative diatribe as programmed by fringe media sites.

Your buddy Ron O is the one who writes as though he were programmed.
Stop trying to fob off his behavior onto Glenn.

> So don’t act as a convenient wind up toy would.

Compare: "So don't go beating your wife." Not as creative as your comment
after which it is patterned, but perfectly analogous otherwise.

============================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/khZM_6plMSc/m/HHH9kFQQAQAJ
Re: Clueless
May 23, 2023, 7:21:39 PM


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 04:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Mar 26, 2023, 6:50:39?PM

>> >
>> > His trajectory from that post continues, carrying him to new heights, best not mentioned
>> > at this point -- anyone wanting to see them can scroll to the end.
>> >
>> > He writes like a man who was programmed to ignore all the mollifying
>> > comments made to him from people who are respected by him.
>> > The first came only a bit over a half hour after he made the post:
>> >

>> > Bill Rogers at Mar 26, 2023, 7:25:39?PM:

>> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/0j-_VMavAQAJ
>> > then, a few minutes later, came

>> > Bob Casanova at Mar 26, 2023, 7:30:39?PM:
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/JtPhHQywAQAJ
>> > and then came erik simpson at Mar 26, 2023, 10:30:40?PM

>> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/I_v18t65AQAJ
>> >
>> > Not only that, but Bill and Bob kept dealing with Ron O's objections to their mollifying comments,
>> > Bill and Bob later on the 26th and Bill again on the 27th, twice. The same day, Lawyer Daggett
>> > reinforced Bill Rogers with a long piece of gentle advice for such and similar occasions.
>> > Bill agreed with that in a reply on the same day, adding a few comments in the same general
>> > direction. Then jillery agreed with Bill, and so did Daggett; they were joined on the same day
>> > by Mark Isaak and DB Cates, with Mark giving concrete advice that Ron O could apply easily.
>> > Then Mark gave his own direct reply Ron O, tactfully disagreeing with two extreme
>> > things Ron O had written. When that made Ron O irate, Bill made some tough but fair
>> > to Ron O that should have sobered Ron O up.
>> >
>> > It didn't do that: a lot more of the same kind of traffic went on the same day, less than
>> > 24 hours after Ron O's threat-filled tirade, and for several more days to come.
>> > However, I do believe that IF Ron O complains to DIG, and DIG is made aware of
>> > this past history, he will take it into account and make a wise decision.
>> >
>> > However, Ron O's fire-breathing tirade at the end notwithstanding, I don't think
>> > DIG will have to make any such decision because I don't think the IF clause
>> > will come into play.
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Nyikos
>> > PS I've deleted nothing below; at the end comes the fire-breathing, with nary
>> > a sign that Ron O had read anything from the post to which he is responding.
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 7:25:30?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
>> >> On 5/22/2023 9:05 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

A challenge to any form of banning aka cancelling aka censorship aka
moderation is to establish objective standards that don't devolve into
zero-tolerance mindlessness.

Another challenge is to objectively define terms like "angry",
"hostile", "contemptuous", and "negative" based on what is said, in
contrast to who says them.

Another challenge is to eliminate the willful blindness to initial
attacks while reflexively focusing on responses to those attacks. Such
behaviors are especially contemptuous among people who act as if they
know better, yet exercise their inner child to deliberately provoke
and/or accuse others of violations without basis.

All these challenges are mooted when single individuals are
granted/take unilateral authority/power to decide these things
according to their own personal opinions, and provide no
recourse/appeal.

Without a single authority/power, implementation of these policies
necessarily rely on consensus. This raises yet another challenge, of
how to objectively and formally identify what requires consensus and
how to establish consensus.

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 18:24:39 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/22/2023 9:05 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

For your own sake, and for the sake of the froup, don't involve DIG.
You have the power and authority all by yourself to ignore any post
and poster you find personally objectionable.

But if demonstrating self-control and self-discipline don't inspire
you, consider the fact that changes to Beagle's robo-moderation often
create unintended consequences, from dropping posts for no apparent
reason, to shutting down T.O. for days at a time. My impression is
this is exactly what some trolls hope to provoke. Don't enable their
games.

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 00:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 08:41:30 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
>> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
>> Hilarious!
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
>
>Dave Farina is clown ... I think he has studied a bit maybe masters degree in
>organic chemistry ... but too lazy to work, so became self-acclaimed "professor"
>in youtube, has researched nothing. World view is atheist.
>
>Dr. James Tour is awarded scientist and actual professor of computer

>science, materials science, nano-engineering and chemistry. World view

>is Messianic Jew.
>
>Seems that Dr. Tour decided to debate with a buffoon. Does truth arise from
>such debate? Appears that Glenn thinks so.

Your comments above make clear your negative opinion of Dave Farina
aka Professor Dave, and your positive opinion of James Tour. Although
you credit Tour for academic qualifications, you post nothing that
qualifies your opinion of Professor Dave. Why is that?

[broger...@gmail.com]

.....

> All these challenges are mooted when single individuals are
> granted/take unilateral authority/power to decide these things
> according to their own personal opinions, and provide no
> recourse/appeal.

Exactly. And I'd be happy to trust DIG's judgement on the matter rather than finding reasons why nothing can be done. And if he banned me, well, I'd live.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/24/23 2:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:21:46 +0000, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
> >
> >> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:10:31?AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:25:31?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a reasonable request after the "or". I'm not sure what Hemi means here
about what makes a post "unrelated."

By DIG alone, considering all appeals to both sides?
Or by popular vote? Someone mentioned treating it like POTM,
but that is the road to ochlocracy, into which Athens devolved:
the case of Socrates is instructive.

> I think Nyikos maybe could learn to improve his behavior if slapped a few
> times when he misbehaved.

I believe I have been unfailingly civil towards you all thru 2023 so far.
We had some disagreements, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul,
but we respected each others' positions like mature adults.

And that illustrates a side of me that I seldom have a chance to display:
I am very much in favor of letting bygones be bygones. The problem is,
some people revert to their old habits all too soon after momentary truces.
I could name four people who are like that almost nonstop. Yet even with them,
I will be civil in return to civil treatment in any given post.

I don't need to be "slapped": gentle requests like the one Hemidactylus
made are fine with me if they are reasonable. And so, I will break my
habit of naming gross offenders of justice in threads where they are
not posting. I mean threads in the usual Usenet sense, not the jillery sense
of what I call "sub-threads" or "strands" or "fibers" within the same Subject line.

> Others probably can't. Problem is, that
> would be a huge drain on a moderator's time.

Yes; but if it happens, I'd rather have what I hope is a benevolent
dictatorship by DIG rather than an ochlocracy.


CONCLUDED in next reply, several hours from now. I have
to get ready for an appointment with my chiropractor.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/25/23 6:27 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> I think Nyikos maybe could learn to improve his behavior if slapped a few
>> times when he misbehaved.
>
> I believe I have been unfailingly civil towards you all thru 2023 so far.
> We had some disagreements, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul,
> but we respected each others' positions like mature adults.

My impression is that you have been better than your historical average,
but not *unfailingly* civil. Harshman, for example, has occasionally
complained about your gratuitous attacks. You should stay aware that
his complaints are valid.

> And that illustrates a side of me that I seldom have a chance to display:
> I am very much in favor of letting bygones be bygones. The problem is,
> some people revert to their old habits all too soon after momentary truces.
> I could name four people who are like that almost nonstop. Yet even with them,
> I will be civil in return to civil treatment in any given post.

You have a chance to display letting bygones be bygones virtually every
day. The problem is, you (like almost every other human) have trouble
being the *first* to engage in such behavior. When attacked, the
tendency is to attack back, usually harder. That creates a literally
vicious cycle. The only way out is for someone to take the virtuous
action of not replying with an attack. And with trolls, even that
doesn't work.

On the broader issue of moderation, I don't have a solution. If a
beneficent moderator were to volunteer, I would support him or her (once
the "beneficent" attribute were somehow established), but I don't see
that happening any time soon.

[erik simpson]

Congratulations (seriously) on your resolve toward greater civility. I'll reciprocate to
the best of my ability.

[Öö Tiib]

I can't think of anything good he did. Repeatedly "debunking" flat earthers or
other such kook garbage out of blue is IMHO just popularizing that junk.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Picking up where I left off:

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> Ignoring abusive posters is probably the best solution available, but it
> is not a good solution. It is like ignoring street-corner drug dealing,
> minor vandalism, and petty theft occurring in your neighborhood. By
> ignoring one scalawag, you send the signal to others that scalawaggery
> is acceptable behavior. And just telling the abusive poster that they
> are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
> telling can be seen as abusive, too.

Exactly. Almost everyone who considers me abusive is dealing with my
behavior as a "goddamn moralizer." [1] Most of them act as though
they think dishonesty, even outright libel, is no big deal as long as they
aren't "traitors" for turning on people with whom they have been
in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship.
Ditto for unfairness, hypocrisy, and rank cowardice.

But they are also very aware of how the big outside world
see these kinds of actions, and they have no idea of
what lurkers think, and so they treat the "whistleblower" like a pariah.


[1] A staggering exception is Ron O's behavior in March.
I was completely on-topic with the subject of wooly rhinos,
a species that became extinct at the end of the last extensive glaciation.

I did point out a few mistakes Ron O made, and criticized
him for his shoddy documentatiion, and his omission of some important factors,
but I only got personal a few times, showing great restraint except at the beginning
of my reply to the first of three reactions by Ron O to as many posts of mine:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/A_tHrXmyBAAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II
Mar 13, 2023, 11:00:28 PM

Ron O had reacted in a way that was totally unprecedented, and I noted that:

"For a dozen years, Ron O made a huge issue of people "running away" from things he had posted, as though it were an act of extreme cowardice to make a deletion (whether marked or unmarked) of some assertion or other of his.

"And now, Ron O has outdone all such "runnings away." He does not quote or even identify a single thing I wrote in reply to his OP. He acts as though he were refuting me, but he winds up undermining more things that he had written in the OP than what I had written in reply."

In fact, Ron O didn't make one reply to me during the whole thread.
Posts fitting the above description were made in reply to earlier posts
of his own. A more complete form of "running away" is hard to imagine.

The result was that no one who read his posts and not mine could get an inkling of what I was
really doing. He began abusing me with false charges of lying in these replies to his own posts.

He even admitted having made a mistake in reading a graph that
I had pointed out to him, without making a firm connection between the two events.

I think he felt threatened more than at any time in our previous debates.
He fancies himself an expert in on-topic issues, and that this is what
makes him so valuable in talk.origins, and this was a huge blow to his self-image.
The result was his labeling what he *alleged* about me as "assoholic", threatening to
get DIG to ban me (another unprecedented action for him),
saying to everyone trying to calm him down that I deserved to be banned
for my "assoholic" behavior... I'd rather not go on today about what else he did in March.

> I am curious how important other regular posters here see the issue of
> courtesy to be. (Especially the most common offenders.)

Courtesy is over-rated, even in a cesspool like talk.origins.
One can be outrageously libelous while doing it with a show of courtesy.
That is one of the worst forms of trolling.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/23 11:09 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Picking up where I left off:
>
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> Ignoring abusive posters is probably the best solution available, but it
>> is not a good solution. It is like ignoring street-corner drug dealing,
>> minor vandalism, and petty theft occurring in your neighborhood. By
>> ignoring one scalawag, you send the signal to others that scalawaggery
>> is acceptable behavior. And just telling the abusive poster that they
>> are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
>> telling can be seen as abusive, too.
>
> Exactly. Almost everyone who considers me abusive is dealing with my
> behavior as a "goddamn moralizer." [1] Most of them act as though
> they think dishonesty, even outright libel, is no big deal as long as they
> aren't "traitors" for turning on people with whom they have been
> in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship.
> Ditto for unfairness, hypocrisy, and rank cowardice.

Must jump in here: I think you're mischaracterizing both why others see
you as abusive and their opinions on dishonesty, etc., and regarding the
existence of some mutual defense relationship.

> But they are also very aware of how the big outside world
> see these kinds of actions, and they have no idea of
> what lurkers think, and so they treat the "whistleblower" like a pariah.

No, it's just that people disagree with your characterizations of events
and personalities.

Since you've agreed to try to stop bringing up unassociated third
parties (a worthy goal), it would be best to delete your footnote.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:52:33 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> Another challenge is to objectively define terms like "angry",
> "hostile", "contemptuous", and "negative" based on what is said, in
> contrast to who says them.

Also in contrast to whom it is said. Two real biggies right there.

> Another challenge is to eliminate the willful blindness to initial
> attacks while reflexively focusing on responses to those attacks.

Indeed. Once, when I tried to overcome that blindness, I was told
something like:

"Sounds to me like `Mommie! He hit me first!' You need to grow up."

In this way, the utterer implicitly exonerated the offender by never criticizing him.

> Such behaviors are especially contemptuous among people who act as if they
> know better, yet exercise their inner child to deliberately provoke
> and/or accuse others of violations without basis.
>
> All these challenges are mooted when single individuals are
> granted/take unilateral authority/power to decide these things
> according to their own personal opinions, and provide no
> recourse/appeal.

Ochlocracy, in the form of unexplained (or deceitfully explained) votes, does the same thing,
except that there is not even the recourse of protesting a decision by the one with
unilateral power. DIG at least is open to reason. Witness how he un-banned Thrinaxodon
under the new moniker of Oxyaena, even though the ban had been so
complete that any post with "Thrinaxodon" had been automatically
rejected by the robo-moderator.

All it took was one appeal by Harshman, telling DIG that Oxyaena had been behaving well
and seems to have reformed.

>
> Without a single authority/power, implementation of these policies
> necessarily rely on consensus. This raises yet another challenge, of
> how to objectively and formally identify what requires consensus and
> how to establish consensus.

Majority vote, and *a* *fortiori* pluality vote as for Chez Watt, just isn't fair.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:07:16 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/25/23 6:27 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >> I think Nyikos maybe could learn to improve his behavior if slapped a few
> >> times when he misbehaved.
> >
> > I believe I have been unfailingly civil towards you all thru 2023 so far.
> > We had some disagreements, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul,
> > but we respected each others' positions like mature adults.

> My impression is that you have been better than your historical average,
> but not *unfailingly* civil.

Hence my qualifier "towads you." Others have been first attackers,
and I am not one to cater to their tendency to take a mile
for every inch given. I do try my best to be fair, though.


<snip comment about a single person; will address it if you wish>

> > And that illustrates a side of me that I seldom have a chance to display:
> > I am very much in favor of letting bygones be bygones. The problem is,
> > some people revert to their old habits all too soon after momentary truces.
> > I could name four people who are like that almost nonstop. Yet even with them,
> > I will be civil in return to civil treatment in any given post.

> You have a chance to display letting bygones be bygones virtually every day.

I'm referring to true bygones. Long lack of interaction followed immediately
by uncivil behavior doesn't count.

>The problem is, you (like almost every other human) have trouble
> being the *first* to engage in such behavior. When attacked, the
> tendency is to attack back, usually harder.

"attack" is being used as a value-free word above. In my second reply
to your post, I talked about the highly subjective morality of my attackers,
in contrast to my behaving like a "goddamn moralizer" by identifying
violations of old-fashioned moral values like honesty, sincerity,
fairness and integrity in "attacking back," as you put it.

>That creates a literally vicious cycle. The only way out is for someone to take the
> virtuous action of not replying with an attack.

There is nothing virtuous in behaving like a doormat. It creates the impression
that the attackers are right, thereby making the t.o. cesspool worse than ever.

>And with trolls, even that doesn't work.

The problem with that is, I don't know of any full-time trolls in talk.origins.
One has to deal with trolling on a case-by-case basis until it is clear
that the trolling won't stop on a given thread.

> On the broader issue of moderation, I don't have a solution. If a
> beneficent moderator were to volunteer, I would support him or her (once
> the "beneficent" attribute were somehow established), but I don't see
> that happening any time soon.

It might have been possible once upon a time, but there has been
an exodus of most persons I deem beneficent AND being gifted with
the necessary courage.

[Arkalen comes to mind. She's been gone for the greater part of a decade.]

I do have one candidate for that role, but I'm afraid that my naming
that person would be the "kiss of death": It would be necessary
for that person to say very negative things about me to establish beneficence
in the eyes of most of the outspoken people here.

And NO, it isn't Glenn or anyone that people who think they understand me would suspect.
The one I have in mind has consistently behaved like a true neutralist,
unlike several people who once behaved like neutralists but blew their cover in one way or another.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:47:52 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:52:33 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > Another challenge is to objectively define terms like "angry",
> > "hostile", "contemptuous", and "negative" based on what is said, in
> > contrast to who says them.
> Also in contrast to whom it is said. Two real biggies right there.
> > Another challenge is to eliminate the willful blindness to initial
> > attacks while reflexively focusing on responses to those attacks.
> Indeed. Once, when I tried to overcome that blindness, I was told
> something like:
>
> "Sounds to me like `Mommie! He hit me first!' You need to grow up."
>
> In this way, the utterer implicitly exonerated the offender by never criticizing him.

I think that is a reference to something I wrote to Mark. Maybe
it isn't. It doesn't so much matter as does what I consider to
be an opportunity for a "teachable moment".

First, a disclaimer. It's hard for me to write what follows without
it sounding like I'm grasping the pulpit and moralizing with some
presumptive air of authority. Perhaps some forbearance could
attempt to read it as a way to offer one person's perspective.

Small tidbit to get out of the way, I reject the idea that unmentioned
people are _exonerated_. There's a very real, very significant
alternative that some of us don't see value in publishing our
thoughts about everybody's sins. We view it more as adding
fuel to fires that are tedious distractions.

And now, the phrase I used was not "Mommie, he hit me first."
It was a pairing.

"Mom, he keeps hitting me back." "He hit me back first."

It was very specifically crafted. I had thought the meaning
would be more obvious but I was obviously wrong. To suck
it dry of any residual humor that exasperated parental
figures should understand, I'll explain.

I bypassed the" Mom, he keeps hitting me", and "He hit me first."
I did so to get right to the heart of how Mom feels as she
carts some youngsters about while trying to do errands.
She doesn't care what started it. She doesn't want to pick
a winner and a loser. She wants her children to stop acting
like children. Who started it could run way way back to
when accidentally knocking over a block sculpture was
treated by the other as 'on purpose' or some other difference
of perspective.

But let's not get too lost in expanding the imagery.
That squabbling oft has histories is true. But nobody
really cares about the histories. To others, it's "grow up,
get over it". At least as far as an itemized list of petty
sleights.

Now the odd purpose of expanding on this is coming. My point
was about the absurdity of the endless trail of squabbles
over who was mean first and asking Mom to step in and
take sides.

But apparently, my point was misunderstood to be doing
a very different thing. My point was taken to be exonerating
one by not taking sides against them. And so now there
is this grievance against me for taking some perceived
unfair swipe that I didn't even take.

And yes, most of talk.origins readers likely think that many
of the grievances are rooted in incorrect perceptions.
(I'm not saying all). And we really don't care.

Sure we form our own opinions about each other, who is
level headed, who is a hot-head, who is helping, who is not.
But we don't want to get lost in endless squabbles about
it. Doing so amplifies the misunderstandings. It feeds the
fires to create more heat than light.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:47:52 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:52:33 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > Another challenge is to objectively define terms like "angry",
> > > "hostile", "contemptuous", and "negative" based on what is said, in
> > > contrast to who says them.
> > Also in contrast to whom it is said. Two real biggies right there.
> > > Another challenge is to eliminate the willful blindness to initial
> > > attacks while reflexively focusing on responses to those attacks.
> > Indeed. Once, when I tried to overcome that blindness, I was told
> > something like:

I believe it is an exact quote; in any case, the quote within quote
is precise except possibly for the spelling: it could have been "Mommy".
The parting shot is completely accurate in spirit.

> > "Sounds to me like `Mommie! He hit me first!' You need to grow up."
> >
> > In this way, the utterer implicitly exonerated the offender by never criticizing him.

> I think that is a reference to something I wrote to Mark.

Wrong. It is a reference to an incident at least half a decade ago,
but the utterer is still very much a regular participant here in t.o.

>Maybe it isn't. It doesn't so much matter as does what I consider to
> be an opportunity for a "teachable moment".

It was that, but there was even more to teach than you suspected.

> First, a disclaimer. It's hard for me to write what follows without
> it sounding like I'm grasping the pulpit and moralizing with some
> presumptive air of authority. Perhaps some forbearance could
> attempt to read it as a way to offer one person's perspective.
>
> Small tidbit to get out of the way, I reject the idea that unmentioned
> people are _exonerated_. There's a very real, very significant
> alternative that some of us don't see value in publishing our
> thoughts about everybody's sins.

In the case I'm referring to, it wasn't "everybody." It was someone in a
mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with the "exonerator."
AFAIK that is still the case today, with no interruption.

> We view it more as adding
> fuel to fires that are tedious distractions.

"We" refers to "some of us," and I view it as trying to do justice to
both parties in the dispute.

>
> And now, the phrase I used was not "Mommie, he hit me first."
> It was a pairing.
>
> "Mom, he keeps hitting me back." "He hit me back first."
>
> It was very specifically crafted. I had thought the meaning
> would be more obvious but I was obviously wrong.

Only because you mis-identified the incident I was describing.

> To suck it dry of any residual humor that exasperated parental
> figures should understand, I'll explain.
>
> I bypassed the" Mom, he keeps hitting me", and "He hit me first."
> I did so to get right to the heart of how Mom feels as she
> carts some youngsters about while trying to do errands.
> She doesn't care what started it. She doesn't want to pick
> a winner and a loser.

The value-free use of words here is, alas, all too typical of Moms.
However, it is understandable from the way typical Moms have
the primary responsibility for maintaining domesticity.
Ellie of the great comic strip, "For Better or for Worse," is a good example of that.

However, the author of that strip has a mature sense of humor,
and would often depict squabbles in a way that made it
possible to judge who was in the wrong. Of course, "squabbles"
is far more general than literal fights, but the principle is the same.

>She wants her children to stop acting
> like children. Who started it could run way way back to
> when accidentally knocking over a block sculpture was
> treated by the other as 'on purpose' or some other difference
> of perspective.
>
> But let's not get too lost in expanding the imagery.
> That squabbling oft has histories is true. But nobody
> really cares about the histories.

And that, alas, is typical of some people's behavior
on this thread. If I get banned at the instigation of Ron O,
very few people will care about the histories. One of the histories
even got deleted earlier today in the only reply to the post where I gave it.

So it was with the banning of Dr. Dr. There was little talk about the
possible miscarriage of justice that had occurred. I only learned about
it months later, and I took the trouble of finding out what was behind it.
The whole long back and forth that precipitated Ron O's whining to DIG
was absolutely petty -- but look at the consequences!

>To others, it's "grow up,
> get over it". At least as far as an itemized list of petty
> sleights.
>
> Now the odd purpose of expanding on this is coming. My point
> was about the absurdity of the endless trail of squabbles
> over who was mean first and asking Mom to step in and
> take sides.
>
> But apparently, my point was misunderstood to be doing
> a very different thing. My point was taken to be exonerating
> one by not taking sides against them. And so now there
> is this grievance against me for taking some perceived
> unfair swipe that I didn't even take.

Stop being so hard on yourself. You made an honest mistake.

>
> And yes, most of talk.origins readers likely think that many
> of the grievances are rooted in incorrect perceptions.
> (I'm not saying all). And we really don't care.
>
> Sure we form our own opinions about each other, who is
> level headed, who is a hot-head, who is helping, who is not.
> But we don't want to get lost in endless squabbles about
> it. Doing so amplifies the misunderstandings. It feeds the
> fires to create more heat than light.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

When you request Greig to ban you, you should bring up the example of
the Dr Dr. Greig gave the Dr Dr a second chance, but what happened? As
far as I'm concerned you already had your second chance and blew it by
continuing your senseless assoholic harassment by lying about the past
to harass me. I just have to put up the last holy water repost session
that you have been running from since August and then your initial post
to me in this thread. The thread of your last senseless harassment
would be put up along with what I told you would happen if you continued
your assoholic behavior. You had your chance to do the right thing, but
you just can't help yourself, so you need assistance in doing the right
thing. I do not follow you around TO with a pooper scooper, you know
that you are the one that has to harass me. You need to request that
Greig ban you. He might give you a second chance, but my guess is that
you would blow that chance, just like you did above.

You have until next Wed. to request your own banning, before I will do
it for you. You know what I told you, and you chose to be banned from
TO. Over a decade of senseless harassment should end.

You know that you won't be able to defend your assoholic behavior, so
what are your options? It was your choice to be banned or not, and you
chose to be banned.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 12:35:31 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Re: Frozen Planet II
> > > Mar 26, 2023, 6:50:39 PM

> > >
> > > His trajectory from that post continues, carrying him to new heights, best not mentioned
> > > at this point -- anyone wanting to see them can scroll to the end.
> > >
> > > He writes like a man who was programmed to ignore all the mollifying
> > > comments made to him from people who are respected by him.
> > > The first came only a bit over a half hour after he made the post:
> > >

> > > Bill Rogers at Mar 26, 2023, 7:25:39 PM:

> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/0j-_VMavAQAJ
> > > then, a few minutes later, came

> > > Bob Casanova at Mar 26, 2023, 7:30:39 PM:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/JtPhHQywAQAJ
> > > and then came erik simpson at Mar 26, 2023, 10:30:40 PM

> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/I_v18t65AQAJ
> > >
> > > Not only that, but Bill and Bob kept dealing with Ron O's objections to their mollifying comments,
> > > Bill and Bob later on the 26th and Bill again on the 27th, twice. The same day, Lawyer Daggett
> > > reinforced Bill Rogers with a long piece of gentle advice for such and similar occasions.
> > > Bill agreed with that in a reply on the same day, adding a few comments in the same general
> > > direction. Then jillery agreed with Bill, and so did Daggett; they were joined on the same day
> > > by Mark Isaak and DB Cates, with Mark giving concrete advice that Ron O could apply easily.
> > > Then Mark gave his own direct reply Ron O, tactfully disagreeing with two extreme
> > > things Ron O had written. When that made Ron O irate, Bill made some tough but fair
> > > to Ron O that should have sobered Ron O up.
> > >
> > > It didn't do that: a lot more of the same kind of traffic went on the same day, less than
> > > 24 hours after Ron O's threat-filled tirade, and for several more days to come.
> > > However, I do believe that IF Ron O complains to DIG, and DIG is made aware of
> > > this past history, he will take it into account and make a wise decision.
> > >
> > > However, Ron O's fire-breathing tirade at the end notwithstanding, I don't think
> > > DIG will have to make any such decision because I don't think the IF clause
> > > will come into play.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > PS I've deleted nothing below; at the end comes the fire-breathing, with nary
> > > a sign that Ron O had read anything from the post to which he is responding.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 7:25:30 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> > >> On 5/22/2023 9:05 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:56:47 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> > >>>> On 5/22/2023 6:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 13:37:06 UTC+3, RonO wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 5/22/2023 3:35 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 10:35:29 UTC+3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 2023-05-22 07:05:33 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
> > >>>>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 08:41:30 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dave Farina in video starting 1:49.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hilarious!
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxEWXGSIpAI&t=5406s
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dave Farina is clown ... I think he has studied a bit maybe masters degree in
> > >>>>>>>>> organic chemistry ... but too lazy to work, so became self-acclaimed
> > >>>>>>>>> "professor"
> > >>>>>>>>> in youtube, has researched nothing. World view is atheist.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dr. James Tour is awarded scientist and actual professor of computer
> > >>>>>>>>> science, materials science, nano-engineering and chemistry.
> > >>>>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>> Yes, but no qualifications in biology, especially evolution, or in the
> > >>>>>>>> origin of life.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Was it biological evolution that originated life? Were there
> > >>>>>>> whatever biological processes already involved? Can you tell some
> > >>>>>>> scientists with qualifications (note, *not* publications) in origin of
> > >>>>>>> life? IMHO he is as well qualified as only can be.
> > >>>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>>> World view
> > >>>>>>>>> is Messianic Jew.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Seems that Dr. Tour decided to debate with a buffoon. Does truth arise from
> > >>>>>>>>> such debate? Appears that Glenn thinks so.
> > >>>>>>>>

> > >> your assoholic behavior. Why should I do you that favor? If you

> > >> haven't requested to be banned in a week I will ask Greig to do it.
> > >>

> > >> Ron Okimoto
> > >
> I have not been in favor of banning people from TO. But I'm starting to change my mind. I'm in an on-line piano discussion group which is moderated actively not so much for content as for courtesy. People who are rude and hostile just get banned, and quickly. As a result, 99% of the posts are interesting, generally friendly, and often helpful. Since that's the culture, newcomers generally adopt the same attitude. Lately, it seems the great majority of posts here are angry, insulting, hostile, contemptuous, or some mixture of the above. Sure, you can ignore all that stuff and just read the few interesting posts, but after a while it hardly seems worth it to poke through the negative energy looking for something worth reading.
>

> One argument has always been that TO was a place to draw cranks away from the real science groups. When the cranks were people like the poster, decades ago, who kept proving that radioactive dating could give arbitrary results, using a proof that involved dividing by zero, or Pagano arguing about Flood geology, or Ed "man is as old as coal" Conrad, that may have made sense. It was fun to debate those folks and you could learn a good bit about parts of science you were unfamiliar with by addressing their arguments. But when the cranks are just cranky and hostile, I think there's a good case to be made just to ban them, and then let the real science groups ban them, too, if they migrate there. So I'm tending to be in favor of banning posters who are consistently rude and hostile, without limiting it to just one individual that bugs you. That would add a lot to DIG's workload, but I think a few weeks of effort could change things much for the better.

Posting against my better judgement on this thread. I think there is. difference between groups where people despite their differences come together because of a shared love in something (your piano group) and one where despite any similarities they might otherwise have, come together to shout about a thing they strongly disagree on. Different aims, different dynamics, inevitably. I agree, we don't have the same quality of creationists any longer (but then, everything was better when I was young), but even though I learned a lot over the years on TO on a variety of optics, that was only every a side effect, and if I really want to learn about science I read a book, or corner a colleague in the common room (they think I don't spot them when they hide behind the potted plant, hah!) So for me there'd be little point running TO like one of the science groups.

And yes, it gets more and more difficult to find the few interesting posts, but that's also b/c they can come from the otherwise obnoxious posters, so banning would simply reduce a small list further.

So i'd keep the policy that bans are only needed when a poster has disruptive impact beyond their posts. And the only one currently posting on TO whom I would seriously consider to ban for that very reason would be RonO, and by a very long distance. Not b/c his posts annoy "me" - I know what to expert from them and taken care of them with a filter, and now by simply ignoring, is easy But because every newcomer from the creationist/ID side who does not know yet the lay of the land find themselves harangued and pestered in ways that are frankly unacceptable, and likely to discourage any sane person from staying. And they'd conclude, quite reasonably, that people who argue for the ToE are fanatic ideologues who are several sandwiches short of a breakfast, probably confirming their worst prejudices.

That type of systemic effect undermines the very purpose of TO, and that makes it a case for banning- apart from quite possibly being kind to him in the long run too, as he clearly needs a different type of support from what he can get here., and I doubt being here is good for him.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I love "several sandwiches short of a breakfast." Never heard it before.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 17:43:04 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/25/2023 4:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:21:44?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:47:52?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

Your pursuit of the above line of reasoning reminds me of the phrase
"cutting off your nose to spite your face".

[RonO]

The simple fact of the matter is that Nyikos has requested to be banned
from TO. He did not have to do what he did, but he did it anyway. He
understood what would happen, and he still did it. It is likely a cry
for help, so he should ask for the help himself. He knows what I am
going to do, so I am leaving him some sense of doing the right thing,
and leave TO with having done something positive to make up for the mess
he has made all these years. I did not have to give him that chance.
It is up to him whether he takes advantage of it or not.

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:30:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/25/23 11:09 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Picking up where I left off:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >> Ignoring abusive posters is probably the best solution available, but it
> >> is not a good solution. It is like ignoring street-corner drug dealing,
> >> minor vandalism, and petty theft occurring in your neighborhood. By
> >> ignoring one scalawag, you send the signal to others that scalawaggery
> >> is acceptable behavior. And just telling the abusive poster that they
> >> are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
> >> telling can be seen as abusive, too.
> >
> > Exactly. Almost everyone who considers me abusive is dealing with my
> > behavior as a "goddamn moralizer." [1] Most of them act as though
> > they think dishonesty, even outright libel, is no big deal as long as they
> > aren't "traitors" for turning on people with whom they have been
> > in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship.
> > Ditto for unfairness, hypocrisy, and rank cowardice.

> Must jump in here: I think you're mischaracterizing both why others see
> you as abusive and their opinions on dishonesty, etc., and regarding the
> existence of some mutual defense relationship.

Anyone can think anything they want about anybody.
However, anyone trying to assess your "thoughts" should keep
in mind the big mistake you made below.

> > But they are also very aware of how the big outside world
> > see these kinds of actions, and they have no idea of
> > what lurkers think, and so they treat the "whistleblower" like a pariah.

> No, it's just that people disagree with your characterizations of events
> and personalities.

Value-free choice of the word "disagree" noted.

>
> Since you've agreed to try to stop bringing up unassociated third
> parties (a worthy goal),

That is utterly different from what I actually wrote, which was:

"And so, I will break my habit of naming gross offenders of justice in threads where they are not posting."

-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/khZM_6plMSc/m/2qZdtFGNAQAJ

I will even extend it to "... naming people about whom I say something negative
in threads where they are not posting," at least until the end of next week.
If I am banned before then, that should be remembered as "a worthy goal."

> it would be best to delete your footnote.

This is pure GIGO. Moreover, what is technically a "footnote" is longer than all
the rest of the post put together. It is about the one claiming that he will ask DIG to ban me,
and his presence on this thread is not only voluminous, but incredibly abusive of me.

If I am to stand a really good chance of avoiding being banned, synopses of the history
of the clash between us are very important. Your deleting it ensures that, for now, anyone
who reads the posts of this abuser but not my posts will remain ignorant of this history.

And I hereby request that anyone who replies to the same post to
which you are replying will leave intact everything in the footnote,
even if no comment is made on it.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

It seems that he's returning to quibbling over words, and has no committment
to civility. I'm not surprised.

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/23 6:50 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:30:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/25/23 11:09 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Picking up where I left off:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:36:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ignoring abusive posters is probably the best solution available, but it
>>>> is not a good solution. It is like ignoring street-corner drug dealing,
>>>> minor vandalism, and petty theft occurring in your neighborhood. By
>>>> ignoring one scalawag, you send the signal to others that scalawaggery
>>>> is acceptable behavior. And just telling the abusive poster that they
>>>> are misbehaving doesn't work, either, because then the one doing the
>>>> telling can be seen as abusive, too.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Almost everyone who considers me abusive is dealing with my
>>> behavior as a "goddamn moralizer." [1] Most of them act as though
>>> they think dishonesty, even outright libel, is no big deal as long as they
>>> aren't "traitors" for turning on people with whom they have been
>>> in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship.
>>> Ditto for unfairness, hypocrisy, and rank cowardice.
>
>> Must jump in here: I think you're mischaracterizing both why others see
>> you as abusive and their opinions on dishonesty, etc., and regarding the
>> existence of some mutual defense relationship.
>
> Anyone can think anything they want about anybody.
> However, anyone trying to assess your "thoughts" should keep
> in mind the big mistake you made below.

Can't imagine why, but, to be clear, I'm not asking.

>>> But they are also very aware of how the big outside world
>>> see these kinds of actions, and they have no idea of
>>> what lurkers think, and so they treat the "whistleblower" like a pariah.
>
>> No, it's just that people disagree with your characterizations of events
>> and personalities.
>
> Value-free choice of the word "disagree" noted.

Whatever does that even mean? This time I'm asking. What I'm saying is
that people commonly disagree that they're dishonest, lying, or libelous
in the various cases you harp on.

>> Since you've agreed to try to stop bringing up unassociated third
>> parties (a worthy goal),
>
> That is utterly different from what I actually wrote, which was:
>
> "And so, I will break my habit of naming gross offenders of justice in threads where they are not posting."
> -- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/khZM_6plMSc/m/2qZdtFGNAQAJ
>
> I will even extend it to "... naming people about whom I say something negative
> in threads where they are not posting," at least until the end of next week.
> If I am banned before then, that should be remembered as "a worthy goal."
>
>
>> it would be best to delete your footnote.
>
> This is pure GIGO. Moreover, what is technically a "footnote" is longer than all
> the rest of the post put together. It is about the one claiming that he will ask DIG to ban me,
> and his presence on this thread is not only voluminous, but incredibly abusive of me.
>
> If I am to stand a really good chance of avoiding being banned, synopses of the history
> of the clash between us are very important. Your deleting it ensures that, for now, anyone
> who reads the posts of this abuser but not my posts will remain ignorant of this history.
>
> And I hereby request that anyone who replies to the same post to
> which you are replying will leave intact everything in the footnote,
> even if no comment is made on it.

That's silly. You are in no danger of being banned, and if you were,
your footnote would have no influence.

[Lawyer Daggett]

When you get around to trying to have someone banned,
count me among those who think that, if anyone has been
begging to be banned, it is Ron O. That's my vote.
I don't know if voting matters.

The reason would be spamming of abusive harassment.
That behavior is ultimately damaging the group. Further,
by repeatedly threatening to have someone banned, he
asserts himself into a moderation role he lacks.

My preference would be for DIG to warn people off
bringing up banning others, the abuse of which (in DIG's
eyes) could get someone banned.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I probably should reply directly to Peter, but then I saw your post come
in. The "accusation" of __value-free__ was included in a response to
my ramble. I object.

I've seen it tangled up with accusation of "atheist" and accusations
that some people don't think that lying or bearing false witness
is wrong. This perception, that others disagree with him because
they don't object to lying or other immoral behaviors seems to be
a common theme.

It is a source of great trouble in communicating with Peter.
It transfers many points of disagreement to accusations of
"you disagree because you lack values", which is a whole
different thing than simply disagreeing.

I also am sure he's wrong as I often have similar disagreements
with him as those he has with others. It isn't because I am
amoral, have no values, don't despise lying and liars.

When he makes such accusations, about people I have read
and mentally agreed with. My conclusions are, he doesn't
understand people well. When others have echoed my thoughts,
I figure they and I have at least that common understanding.

But this continued connection between disagreeing about
things and imputations of it being because someone is
dishonest, or immoral, or in some way a "bad" person is
absolutely poisonous to interactions. I think it explains
much of the dynamic.

[jillery]

Your comments above are incoherent. He didn't make any such request.
Even if he had, he wouldn't need your "help" to repeat it. Either way
doesn't inform the larger issues I raised.

For your own sake, and for the sake of the froup, don't involve DIG.
You have the power and authority all by yourself to ignore any post
and poster you find personally objectionable.

But if demonstrating self-control and self-discipline don't inspire
you, consider the fact that changes to Beagle's robo-moderation often
create unintended consequences, from dropping posts for no apparent
reason, to shutting down T.O. for days at a time.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 21:30:51 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 6:46:55?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
>> On 5/25/2023 4:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:21:44?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

I agree with your last paragraph. WRT spamming about abusive
behavior, IMO that is no more damaging than spamming the abusive
behavior itself, or for that matter, spamming about spamming the
abusive behavior. I acknowledge that your mileage varies.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I’m taking a break from the meta- to delve into Larry’s _What’s in Your
Genome?_. Very informative and well written. Loving the chapter where he
thoroughly eviscerates ENCODE. Instead of biochemical activity (vs.
evolutionary conservation) indicating function, it transformed into a stamp
collecting hobby— stamps being spurious transcripts. There were some vague
extras like chromatin marks, but I came away with a new appreciation for
junk RNA. I didn’t realize how messy our genome really is. Some creator.

[RonO]

Yes he did. He even cited the Frozen thread where I informed Nyikos
that he continued to harass me with his lies about the past that I would
ask Greig to ban him. He quit for a while, but he decided to ask to be
banned. He knew what would happen if he started back up with his
baseless harassment, and he chose to be banned. As stupid as it may
seem, Nyikos decided to start up his stupid lies about my religious
beliefs when he has been running from that holy water repost since last
August. He knows that he is lying about the issue, but he just can't
help himself.

>
> For your own sake, and for the sake of the froup, don't involve DIG.
> You have the power and authority all by yourself to ignore any post
> and poster you find personally objectionable.

It is too late. Nyikos has requested to be banned, and that is how it
is going to go down unless he makes the request himself.

>
> But if demonstrating self-control and self-discipline don't inspire
> you, consider the fact that changes to Beagle's robo-moderation often
> create unintended consequences, from dropping posts for no apparent
> reason, to shutting down T.O. for days at a time.

I did show self control and self-discipline it was Nyikos that decided
that he should be banned. He has been posting his stupid lies to harass
me for over a decade. He can try to demonstrate that any of it was more
than that. He can't because you should know how his three knockdowns
went for him. It has all been harassment and Nyikos wanted to land his
knockdowns. By the time that he claimed to have delivered his third
knockdown (he would not tell me what it was, nor give me a link to the
post) he had over 4 years of harassing posts where he had obviously been
trying to knock me down to achieve his technical knockout, but he came
up empty. It had all been senseless harassment. I have lived with that
stupidity for over a decade, and if that isn't what you consider to be
self control you are out to lunch.

Nyikos has decided that he wants to be banned. He made that decision.
He did not have to do what he did. Try to get him to put up any
examples where his assoholic harassment has ever turned out to be
anything that he can claim to be a positive win for the loser. Nykios
keeps up the harassment with that lame track record. If you check out
his latest harassment attempts after the last holy water repost you will
see that he doesn't care if he is harassing me about anything real, and
even lies about what he is harassing me about. Just check out the
frozen thread. When Nyikos finds out that he was wrong about the
situation he starts to lie about what subjects he was harassing me
about. A flat out lie that I just had to put up what Nyikos had posted
to demonstrate that he was lying.

This has been going on long enough. Nyikos knows that he can't defend
what he has done for over a decade, and he obviously requested to be
banned. Why would I not follow through with what I told him would
happen? Nyikos knows that it wasn't an idle threat, because I don't
make them. I was just telling Nyikos what would happen if he continued.
He ran for a while, but once his lying meter is recharged, he is back
to doing it again. He knew what would happen, and he chose to make it
happen.

Ron Okimoto

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:47:11 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:


> I’m taking a break from the meta- to delve into Larry’s _What’s in Your
> Genome?_. Very informative and well written. Loving the chapter where he
> thoroughly eviscerates ENCODE. Instead of biochemical activity (vs.
> evolutionary conservation) indicating function, it transformed into a stamp
> collecting hobby— stamps being spurious transcripts. There were some vague
> extras like chromatin marks, but I came away with a new appreciation for
> junk RNA. I didn’t realize how messy our genome really is. Some creator.

I've yet to read it but will be requesting that my local library obtain a copy.

I'm curious if Larry makes this point: ENCODE essentially conflates a signal
in an assay with a biological function. Many of the leaders of ENCODE
were technologists. And despite working with enzymes, they really don't
understand them. Someone who understands enzymes, and biochemistry,
expects spurious translation. You even expect cell line/tissue specific
spurious translation because the spurious translation is still a function
of tissue specific cofactors.

There were a few debates back in the day where this was presented to
the ENCODE folks. To paraphrase their response, "but these go to 11."

[*Hemidactylus*]

I got the notion that some of the spurious transcription could proceed to
translation and that there could be crap polypeptide resulting, but to what
extent is there junk protein? My takeaway is ENCODE did tissue specific
stuff that may have some value, but much of the transcription was producing
rare and nonabundant junk RNA and that its sequential uniqueness violates
conservation. Stuff lit up on assays but to paraphrase Metallica ‘the light
at the end of ENCODEs tunnel was a freight train of junk coming their way’.

Admittedly much of Larry’s forte is a little beyond me. I can follow along
intuitively but as far as explaining it myself in detail I need some work.

But I did appreciate that RNA polymerases and transcription factors aren’t
as selective where they latch on to genomic regions as the cookie-cutter
version of molecular biology would imply. I probably got that a little
wrong.

[Lawyer Daggett]

You got that last part exactly right. Nobody told RNA polymerases or
transcription factors about the simplified cartoons in molecular biology
textbooks. They don't behave in digital ways but instead in analog ways,
over broad spectrums of binding and polymerization kinetics. And indeed
you were very gentle over my brain-farting translation for transcription.

I am aware of those looking into spurious translation, some John Mattick
colleagues as it happens, and they've found some but for the most part
they were over-interpreting noise.

[John Harshman]

My copy hasn't arrived yet so I don't know what Larry says, but
tissue-specific junk RNAs are to be expected in response to
tissue-specific transcription factors. Why ENCODE couldn't figure that
out is beyond me.

And there's junk produced at each stage of the process: junk
transcription, bad splicing of perfectly good raw mRNAs, and junk
translation (usually premature termination) of perfectly good mature mRNAs.