OT spinoff from `Darwin of the Gaps'

[peter2...@gmail.com]

There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 06:48:52 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 3:35:21 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:43:14 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:40:21 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 14, 2022 at 8:31:08 PM EST, "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> [...]
> >> >I wonder, though, how the treachery of jillery affected you last year;
> >> >you seem to have become distressed at the tremendous contrast with
> >> >jillery's earlier reasonable-seeming behavior.
> >> >
> >> >Now you are hearing two siren songs, one by John Harshman and one by
> >> >"Lawyer Daggett". As long as you have become inured by your experience
> >> >with jillery, and think you can take such treachery in your stride, I think you might
> >> >accept one invitation or even both. But do keep both eyes open.
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >
> >The people I named, and whose boots Martin is licking below, are really nasty people,
> >and so is Martin himself.
> >
> >> Ron, this from the guy warning you about nasty people. You might want
> >> to think about that.
> >
> >Harshman is seldom noticeably nasty, for reasons I indicated above.
> >But on the rare times when he is provably dishonest, he really makes up
> >in quality what he loses in quantity.
> >
> >All three "nasty" people in the text that Martin has preserved have superlatives attached to them.
> >There are fewer than ten superlatives of the following sort that I have used, all but one for over
> >four years now.
> >
> >For reasons identified above, and some refinements, John Harshman is the most cunningly dishonest regular
> >in both t.o. and s.b.p., separately.
> >
> >"jillery" is the most dangerously dishonest regular in t.o. [hint: "jillerybot" vs "Mastermind Jillery"
> >in last night's first reply to "Lawyer Daggett".
> >
> >With the disappearance of Oxyaena, the title "most ruthlessly dishonest regular"
> >has gone vacant, and no clear winner among the competitors for that title has emerged yet.
> >
> >
> >However, there is the following similar title replacing it:
> >
> >"Lawyer Daggett" is the most ruthlessly *hypocritical* regular in talk.origins.
> >
> >
> >"hypocritical" has two distinct meanings: (1) frequent use of double standards,
> >and (2) expressing oneself as though far more upright socially and morally than one is.
> >
> >This was the first time it seemed appropriate to mention this superlative publicly,
> >but I gathered enough evidence to have decided on it several months ago.
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos


> A master class from TO's outstanding master in nastiness.

In *justifiable* nastiness. You are lucky that two of the three regulars with attached superlatives above
exceed your volume of *unjustifiable* nastiness, of which your one-liner here is an example.

I'll give you one guess as to who the exception ("the one man out," as the Brits would say) is.


Peter Nyikos

PS Do you have an unblemished 2022 record this year of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," about
jillery? I saw a post in which jillery linked a 2021 post in which seemed to be an exception, but none this year.

PPS Are you sufficiently amoral to think nastiness is something to be more ashamed of than
dishonesty or hypocrisy [in both senses, see text preserved above from last time]? In that case,
feel free to name some exceptions if "no evil" is replaced by "no nastiness" in the formula above.
[Simply saying that you no longer reply to posts by jillery is not the same as accusing jillery of being nasty.]

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

Funny thing, guess whose post was the first to get personal? It was Glenn.
The prior ones focused on the idea you presented. He made it personal.
And then you continued with a post that began with the words:

. All Mark is doing here is showing how paranoid he is about me.
. He's already done that with his utterly ridiculous and totally unsupported,
. yea perverse, charge that I am a fascist.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:10:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,'
> > and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> > a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

There is a possible source of confusion as to what fits under that rubric,
and I take care of it below.

> Funny thing, guess whose post was the first to get personal? It was Glenn.

On the whole "Darwin of the Gaps" thread? It seems you are using
a definition of "thread" that I have only seen jillery use so far.

But on to more serious matters.

There are ways of being personal and honest, and ways of being personal
and dishonest. You were very dishonest in the reply which I will be making
to a post of yours, to this thread, soon after I post this one.

And while there was on-topic material in the preserved older text,
the use you made of it was purely personal. So it fits under the rubric,
the way I conceived it originally.

> The prior ones focused on the idea you presented. He made it personal.
> And then you continued with a post that began with the words:
>
> . All Mark is doing here is showing how paranoid he is about me.
> . He's already done that with his utterly ridiculous and totally unsupported,
> . yea perverse, charge that I am a fascist.

All very true, and honest. What's more, I've reminded you that Mark is a proven liar
about an *on-topic* issue, and has expressed no regrets about having lied:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/rqaKLEaiBgAJ
Re: Darwin of the Gaps
Dec 14, 2022, 1:10:21 PM


Are you such an ethical nihilist that you think dishonesty of that magnitude
is nothing to be ashamed of?

And that you think telling inconvenient [1] truths about people you like is more to be ashamed of
than lying about people you dislike?

"inconvenient" is an understatement, of course, and it means "inconvenient for the people you like."
Evidently Mark is one of the people you like. [Of course, Glenn is one of the people you dislike.]


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:40:22 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 10:20:21 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:00:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:55:21 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:20:20 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > On 12/14/22 11:04 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:00:20 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > > > >> On Dec 14, 2022 at 7:11:13 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:11:48 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I believe you have misunderstood what jillery is saying, which I believe
> > > > > is that Gould isn't a scientific researcher who discovered evidence for ID.
> > >
> > > > Jillery may be ignorant enough to think the way you are thinking here.
> > > > No one who knows that Behe makes tremendous use of scientific facts
> > > > that were not intended to promote ID and may even be hostile to ID would
> > > > think that way.
> > > >
> > > > It's an intellectual analogue of exaptation, which you and almost every one
> > > > of your fans here knows about, but this analogy is so novel to you and everyone
> > > > here that it will take a long time before more than one or two can wrap their
> > > > minds around it. I believe Ron Dean will be one of the first, while you lag far behind.
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

> > I've left a lot of text in up there for context, and now I snip a good bit to get to
> > where I left off in my first reply. This includes some text that I called an
> > unmarked snip in my first reply, which turns out to have been snipped by myself.
> > > Then a puzzling sentence.
> >
> > > > No one who knows that Behe makes tremendous use of scientific facts
> > > > that were not intended to promote ID and may even be hostile to ID would
> > > > think that way.
> >
> > > It's a curious non-sequitur with an ill-defined antecedent for "that way".

> > Stop trying to sound perceptive. It was a clear sequel to its antecedent, which was:
> > "Jillery may be ignorant enough to think the way you are thinking here."

> > > Best I can manage is that you assert 1. Behe is, by definition, doing Intelligent Design
> > > research.

> > Why the clumsy jillery-style "by definition"? It's out of place here.

> > 2. Behe uses facts obtained from non-ID research. And this somehow makes
> > > a connection to Gould being an ID researcher because he used scientific facts too.

> > Crikey, what drivel! I'd be mortified if anyone caught me writing or talking like that.
> >
> > Look at what I wrote about the gold mine of evolutionary developmental biology
> > in my first reply for a clue as to how to write in a mature adult fashion about this issue.
> > Since that would cramp your style, I invite you to at least think about what
> > you can read about Gould and his role in it here:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
> >
> > In case the term isn't familiar to you: it's the same thing as "evo-devo."

> > > It's argumentative without actually making a coherent argument. Why bother?

> > Wrong. Maybe what I wrote this time around will make some sense to you,
> > but that depends on how determined you are to sound clever.
> > >
> > > Then, we're treated to this:
> > > >
> > > > It's an intellectual analogue of exaptation, which you and almost every one
> > > > of your fans here knows about, but this analogy is so novel to you and everyone
> > > > here that it will take a long time before more than one or two can wrap their
> > > > minds around it. I believe Ron Dean will be one of the first, while you lag far behind.
> >
> > > What analogue?

> > Re-read the text that precedes it, intact, at the very beginning of this post, and stop
> > asking silly questions.
> >
> >
> > <lots of silly questions snipped here>
> >
> > Like I said, it may take you a long time to wrap your mind around it.

> > >
> > > I won't keep this going but have to note that you add some words about your admiration
> > > for Gould's expository skills.

> > Fully deserved ones. Have you ever read _The_Panda's_Thumb_ or _Ever Since Darwin_
> > or any other books of essays? have you even LOOKED at any of them?

I asked these questions without ever having seen the words which "Lawyer Daggett"
reposted below. It took me a while to find the post where he wrote them, because
he conveniently neglected to provide a reference or a link for them.

Fortunately for me, I only had a few posts to look at, because I only started
replying to him yesterday.

> To answer yor dishonest, and insinuation about not being familiar with Gould, I ask:

It would seem that "Lawyer Daggett" was under the (somewhat natural) impression
that I had seen the words he quotes below. Even so, this response would indicate
that "Lawyer Daggett" thinks it is dishonest to ask questions about things to which
one may have forgotten the answers.


> Would it be nasty of me to point out that you very recently responded to a post of mine
> where I wrote:

That response of mine was here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/rqaKLEaiBgAJ
Re: Darwin of the Gaps
Dec 14, 2022, 1:10:21 PM

However, I didn't bother to read anything that came after the words
to which I responded, which were far above the words that Daggett is quoting below.
I snipped them all without looking, and I made it clear why I was doing it, at the end of the linked post.

> [quote]
> I have here in my hand my copy of The Panda's Thumb. It's a 1992
> Norton paperback edition. My fist copy was loaned out and
> never returned. In my edition page 191 is within the chapter
> "Return of the Hopeful Monster". The top of the page begins
> "born from Zeus". This isn't obscure (the ensuing passages) and
> I'm sure discussion can be found within older posts. I wouldn't be
> surprised if I could dig out some of the current caste in talk.origins
> being involved in related threads. Now to the point.
>
> You assert that some group of current contributors are completely
> unaware of Gould's ideas, have never read them or considered them.

This is a multiple lie about my words. What I wrote was:

" I do believe, by the way, that this sorry remnant of a once robust talk.origins
does not include anyone else who is aware of Gould's method, nor even cares
to find out what it is."

A statement of opinion is not an assertion, and "Gould's ideas" is a far
cry from a very specific *method* that I clearly identified in the post
to which "Lawyer Daggett" is alluding.

I call these gross distortions lies, inasmuch as he had the same
identical quote a few lines further down to check the wording of.
Keep reading, anyone who has illusions about "Lawyer Daggett" being an honest man.


> And yet I expect many have.

There is no reason given for this expectation, and it is foolish and probaby insincere.
Harshman gave no sign of knowing the method of Gould to which I was referring.

>Then they read your assessment that you believe

Here comes the statement that "Lawyer Daggett" spin-doctored the bejesus out of above.

> > I do believe, by the way, that this sorry remnant of a once robust talk.origins
> > does not include anyone else who is aware of Gould's method, nor even cares
> > to find out what it is. "Darwin of the Gaps" bulks too large in their thought processes.




> And so here I sit (or stand, it's more healthy) reading you make yet
> another claim about me (repeat across the sorry remnant).

To repeat: a question is not a claim, no matter how aggressive it is.


> We have rather
> clear knowledge that your belief is wrong.

A question is not a statement of belief, either.

> How do you think that colors the way your beliefs about other people
> are weighed?


> The answer is obvious but do pause.

The obvious answer is: not at all. But you sure know how
to rub in what you HOPE readers will think is the obvious answer:

> Let it sink in. Hold that
> thought a bit more, don't just dismiss it. Own the result.

You are just adding evidence that you are the same person who
posted under the name, "Jon Richfield."

Are you, indeed, the same person?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to if I see a need for it. It consisted of
overkill in rubbing it in, but I see no reason to reciprocate in kind.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

To me, your argument boils down to "when I get personal, it's justified because
I am in the right, and when others get personal, it's bad because they are wrong."

I responded to your assertions that Mark was being dishonest. I gave reasons to
why I disagree. Your unilateral insistence that you are correct, and that yours
is the only possible correct view, colors things. You then leverage your insistence
that your perspective is the only honest one to accuse me of ethical nihilism.
No doubt you will incorporate your accusation into a conviction and then
color everything I write into your self-conception that I am a proven ethical
nihilist. It's such a tidy little self-affirming echo chamber. You've built a trap
for yourself and are seemingly incapable of recognizing it for what it is.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:00:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:40:22 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> To repeat: a question is not a claim, no matter how aggressive it is.

And have you stopped beating your wife?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:20:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:00:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:40:22 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
> > To repeat: a question is not a claim, no matter how aggressive it is.

You, Lawyer Daggett, seem to have no qualms or regrets about having lied,
even though you were caught red-handed in it in the post to which you are directly replying.
You deleted everything, both above and below the one line above, and which clearly showed your lies
and my explanation of why I label them as outright lies instead of just "falsehoods" or some similar ameliorative term.

If jillery were in my shoes, I believe [s]he/they would say at this point, "Lawyer Daggett is a liar and proud of it."
But I like to make sure of what I say, and so far, such a statement would be premature.

> And have you stopped beating your wife?

IMO, that is an implicit claim disguised as a question. Do you, or does anyone reading this
think otherwise?

Be that as it may, my questions were not of that sort: they could have been
answered by a simple Yes or No, and in this case the correct answer to
the second one was Yes, and probably the answer to the first was also.

The following question is of the same sort, but I don't know the answer:

Are you the same person who posted some time in the latter half of the 1990's as Jon Richfield?

A direct answer would be appreciated.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

First, let's repair this from your obfuscation

> > > To repeat: a question is not a claim, no matter how aggressive it is.

> > And have you stopped beating your wife?

> IMO, that is an implicit claim disguised as a question. Do you, or does anyone reading this
> think otherwise?

Somehow, you don't get it.

Because of your "special" capacity to not get it, your questions were also implicit claims
disguised as questions. And i remind you, people can see you.

Next,

> Are you the same person who posted some time in the latter half of the 1990's as Jon Richfield?
> A direct answer would be appreciated.

You dodge direct answers and delete parts of posts that are embarrassing to you, and yet you
think you deserve direct answers. Ha. Nevertheless, I am not Jon Richfield and have no clue who he is.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:37:42 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> spams his 300+ lines of obfuscating noise:

>There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly,

Some willfully clueless posters express dismay at how such a thing
happens so often to so many T.O. topics. An irony here is, they only
have to read the following to know with certainty that the cause is
the author of this OP.

<the following left uncommented for documentation purposes>

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

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:06:49 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> continues to expand his spam of 300+ lines of
transparent obfuscating noise:


<snip for focus, a futile effort when PeeWee Peter is involved>

>If jillery were in my shoes, I believe [s]he/they would say at this point, "Lawyer Daggett is a liar and proud of it."
>But I like to make sure of what I say, and so far, such a statement would be premature.

It would be more that premature, it would be transparent obfuscation.
But that never stops PeeWee Peter from exercising his compulsion to
lie about jillery. And that puts the lie to PeeWee Peter's claim that
he likes to make sure of what he says.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:10:05 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
>> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.
>
>Funny thing, guess whose post was the first to get personal? It was Glenn.
>The prior ones focused on the idea you presented. He made it personal.

FTR Glenn's first post to DOTG is here:
*********************************
From: Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f1b2c61b-2100-4612...@googlegroups.com>
*********************************

where he wrote:

"Spoken by an "ardent" atheist evolutionist:"

in reply to Mark Isaak's comment:

"Spoken like an ardent creationist."

in reply to PeeWee Peter's OP.

In one sense, Glenn was merely echoing Isaak's comment back at him.
OTOH Glenn's "atheist" is unambiguously and gratuitously personal, and
is Glenn's inspired personal touch.

More to the point, the OP is in fact a verbose version of a common
Creationist PRATT, that natural selection doesn't provide a plausible
explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, which is a point I
made here:

******************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 23:03:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4018ph50nnnknt4o7...@4ax.com>
******************************

and which PeeWee Peter conveniently ignored, instead spawning 300+
lines of spam, which include transparent lies about me, you, Isaak,
and others.

So, to the degree that PeeWee Peter regularly uses Creationist PRATTs
to initiate such personal spam, I argue it wasn't Glenn, or Isaak, or
even me, to first "get personal" in DOTG. Instead it was PeeWee Peter
himself.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> You dodge direct answers and delete parts of posts that are embarrassing
> to you, and yet you
> think you deserve direct answers. Ha. Nevertheless,
> I am not Jon Richfield and have no clue who he is.
>

Yet another avatar of the chocolate kisses man? He “contained” multitudes.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:37:42 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"

You claim that your nastiness is justified. Well here are a few things
from recent weeks where I asked you to justify your accusations
against me and I'm still waiting for your response:

* Identify any issue on which I have been secretive (waiting since 13
Nov)

* Explain how my commenting twice on a claim by Glenn qualifies as a
"broken record" (waiting since 07 Dec)

* Identify something that I should have apologised for and didn't
(waiting since 09 Dec)

* Explain why, when I ignore the crap Jillery posts about me, I should
involve myself in stuff she posts about you that you regard as crap.
(waiting 14 Dec)

* Identify anything I was ever asked by anyone to explain and didn't.
(waiting 14 Dec)

* Identify where I have renounced my Catholic faith to become an
apostate (waiting since 16 Dec)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:37:42 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> spams his 300+ lines of obfuscating noise:
> >There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly,

> Some willfully clueless posters express dismay at how such a thing
> happens so often to so many T.O. topics.

Yes, and one of the most intense is your ally Erik Simpson; it was either he or Hemidactylus,
with whom you have occasional tiffs, but no more intense than the ones
you used to have with Harshman, who pronounced talk.origins effectively dead.
But neither of them contributes anything of value to on-topic discussion.

I'm not complaining here, I'm doing something about it. Much as you might wish
it otherwise, I'm still doing a lot of on-topic discussion. How about you?

>An irony here is, they only
> have to read the following to know with certainty that the cause is
> the author of this OP.

A willfully stupid, perverse claim. You couldn't prove it if your life's savings
depended on it.

And, by religiously living according to what I call "The Second Commandment
of Talk.origins" [for your kind], you are assured that this will never happen:

"Thou shalt not take the name of The Ultimate Weapon of a Talk.Origins Scoundrel in vain;
save it for anyone who is foolish enough to take thee to court for libel."

>
> <the following left uncommented for documentation purposes>

Documentation of what? I originally responded on the original thread,
and then decided "enough is enough".

You would have to repost the whole "Darwin of the Gaps" thread
to provide evidence for your willfully stupid, perverse claim.
And then it would become obvious to all how stupid and perverse it is.

If you were to apply this .sig to yourself, your entire presence in talk.origins would
be so radically altered, you would be unrecognizable.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:35:22 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:10:05 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> >> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

> >
> >Funny thing, guess whose post was the first to get personal? It was Glenn.
> >The prior ones focused on the idea you presented. He made it personal.


> FTR Glenn's first post to DOTG is here:

FTR the history of where the personal remarks on DOTG got started is irrelevant to what I wrote above.
So I leave this discussion up to you and your erstwhile partner Daggett in a "stately minuet" of over a year
ago, where each of you did their level best to avoid making all but the most bland comments
about what each of you thought of the other.

> *********************************
> From: Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:02:03 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <f1b2c61b-2100-4612...@googlegroups.com>
> *********************************
>
> where he wrote:
>
> "Spoken by an "ardent" atheist evolutionist:"
>
> in reply to Mark Isaak's comment:
>
> "Spoken like an ardent creationist."
>
> in reply to PeeWee Peter's OP.
>
> In one sense, Glenn was merely echoing Isaak's comment back at him.
> OTOH Glenn's "atheist" is unambiguously and gratuitously personal, and
> is Glenn's inspired personal touch.

So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

You are an atheist and proud of it, and it doesn't seem to hurt your
reputation here one whit. In fact, you and Harshman, another admitted
ardent atheist, are arguably the two most popular regulars here in talk.origins.

>
> More to the point, the OP is in fact a verbose version of a common
> Creationist PRATT, that natural selection doesn't provide a plausible
> explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,

Wrong word: diversity is sheer number of species, disparity is what
really counts and what the OP is . And it is a lie to say that it is a PRATT.
No evolutionary biologist has ever done anything approaching a refutation.

> which is a point I
> made here:

Your "point" is worthless. I hope you aren't so deluded as to think
you know what no evolutionary biologist knows.

> ******************************
> From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 23:03:12 -0500
> Message-ID: <4018ph50nnnknt4o7...@4ax.com>
> ******************************
>
> and which PeeWee Peter conveniently ignored,

Now you know WHY I ignored it.

> instead spawning 300+
> lines of spam, which include transparent lies about me, you, Isaak,
> and others.

There are no lies, let alone transparent ones, and you are
conveniently ignoring the fact that I have documentation
that both Mark and Daggett lied, and that it is available
right on this thread in the case of Daggett.

But that's talk.origins: the more each of you sees proof that the others are
liars, the more tightly you will bond with each other.

> So, to the degree that PeeWee Peter regularly uses Creationist PRATTs

The degree is zero, but by lying incessantly about it,
you might even convince yourself that it is anything else.

> to initiate such personal spam, I argue it wasn't Glenn, or Isaak, or
> even me, to first "get personal" in DOTG. Instead it was PeeWee Peter
> himself.

You only show how you will resort to transparent illogic to avoid
facing the truth about how little scientists are able to *explain*
how evolution is responsible for our magnificent biota.

How sad is that?

[That question one of the favorite formulas of your beholden-to-you ally Ron O.]


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

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

snip

> So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
> damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

Okay, I'll bite. Why should insinuating that one doesn't believe in a god be damaging
to one's reputation?

I've challenged Professor Nyikos on this before. It's a puzzlement. He seems a bit
duplicitous about it. Should someone be ashamed of not having a belief in a god?
Is it a serious stain on a person to not be a believer? I've met a few practicing
Jesuits who are technically atheists. They want to believe, but they don't.

I get this odd perception that Nyikos has some dual conception of atheist and Atheist,
with some hard to specify distinction between the two. One is reprehensible and, as
indicated above, damaging to one's "reputation", whatever the heck is implied by that.

Before you run away on your posting break, please to provide a clear and thorough
explanation of what is disreputable about not having an affirmative belief in the
existence of any, or perhaps some particular god.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I did that back in November, but you've been in denial about it and still are.
But I'll humor you below by identifying a very different issue.

>
> * Explain how my commenting twice on a claim by Glenn qualifies as a
> "broken record" (waiting since 07 Dec)

You didn't add anything to back up your first response.

> * Identify something that I should have apologised for and didn't
> (waiting since 09 Dec)

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate your sincerity, by explaining
your ignoring of a post by me on the thread you are referring to.
Your "explanation" was so insincere, it didn't qualify.

> * Explain why, when I ignore the crap Jillery posts about me, I should
> involve myself in stuff she posts about you that you regard as crap.
> (waiting 14 Dec)

"about you" is dishonest spin-doctoring, as is the rest of the sentence.

Also, I said nothing about "should." I made a statement of fact:
for months, perhaps over a year, you have been in a state of
"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about jillery.
See also what I wrote in the PS and PPS.

But you HAVE been indulging in a massive campaign of vilification
against me for several months now.

You are VERY secretive about why you treat us so differently.

> * Identify anything I was ever asked by anyone to explain and didn't.
> (waiting 14 Dec)

See above.

> * Identify where I have renounced my Catholic faith to become an
> apostate (waiting since 16 Dec)

I don't do things on your timetable. I'm saving this one for later.

As I keep telling unjustifiably nasty people like you,
"The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."

> >You are lucky that two of the three regulars with attached superlatives above
> >exceed your volume of *unjustifiable* nastiness, of which your one-liner here is an example.
> >
> > I'll give you one guess as to who the exception ("the one man out," as the Brits would say) is.
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
> >
> >PS Do you have an unblemished 2022 record this year of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," about
> >jillery? I saw a post in which jillery linked a 2021 post in which seemed to be an exception, but none this year.

<crickets>

> >PPS Are you sufficiently amoral to think nastiness is something to be more ashamed of than
> >dishonesty or hypocrisy [in both senses, see text preserved above from last time]?

<crickets>

> >In that case, feel free to name some exceptions if "no evil" is replaced by "no nastiness" in the formula above.
> >[Simply saying that you no longer reply to posts by jillery is not the same as accusing jillery of being nasty.]

You didn't take advantage of this offer. So, you demonstrate how full of crap your spin-doctoring

was when you wrote:

> * Explain why, when I ignore the crap Jillery posts about me, I should
> involve myself in stuff she posts about you that you regard as crap.
> (waiting 14 Dec)

"should" is missing the point, and I'm sure you know that.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip

As jillery has said in dozens of threads:

Works for me. Thanks for the precedent.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote in
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/TQNBzqofBQAJ:

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:32:04 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> [... a reply to Mark]
>
>
> It always strikes me as a bit sad when a person feels compelled to
> write something to somebody even though they have been told it won't
> be read.

The use of passive voice makes this a completely irrelevant and pointless comment,
and probably an insincere one ("a bit sad").

I read Glenn's post today, but haven't gotten around to replying to it yet.
Besides Mark, he also wrote about Burkhard. AFAIK, you've been
in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with
both of them ever since you stopped calling yourself AlwaysAskingQuestions.

Can you think of any exceptions?


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

Run away, run run away.

>> Okay, I'll bite. Why should insinuating that one doesn't believe in a god be damaging
>> to one's reputation?

.

>> I've challenged Professor Nyikos on this before. It's a puzzlement. He seems a bit
>> duplicitous about it. Should someone be ashamed of not having a belief in a god?
>> Is it a serious stain on a person to not be a believer? I've met a few practicing
>> Jesuits who are technically atheists. They want to believe, but they don't.
.
>> I get this odd perception that Nyikos has some dual conception of atheist and Atheist,
>> with some hard to specify distinction between the two. One is reprehensible and, as
>> indicated above, damaging to one's "reputation", whatever the heck is implied by that.
.
>> Before you run away on your posting break, please to provide a clear and thorough
>> explanation of what is disreputable about not having an affirmative belief in the
> >existence of any, or perhaps some particular god.

The smell of fear exudes from you. And as I have noted before,

people can see you.

If you insist on embarrassing and discrediting yourself, continue.

You indulge in your invidious insinuations that being an atheist is a bad thing.
But you cowardly refuse to defend your invidious insinuations. Own it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:35:22 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>

[snip]

>
>>
>> More to the point, the OP is in fact a verbose version of a common
>> Creationist PRATT, that natural selection doesn't provide a plausible
>> explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,
>
> Wrong word: diversity is sheer number of species, disparity is what
> really counts and what the OP is . And it is a lie to say that it is a PRATT.
> No evolutionary biologist has ever done anything approaching a refutation.
>
> > which is a point I
>> made here:
>
> Your "point" is worthless. I hope you aren't so deluded as to think
> you know what no evolutionary biologist knows.
>

What the fuck are you even babbling on about here bozo? I was aware of
disparity long before you latched onto it suddenly here. This post is the
first mention from you I see in this thread. When have you brought it up
before here?

Another term like “megaevolution” that you think you have some unique
traction upon. Rudy Raff covered disparity in 1996 during his evodevo book
_The Shape of Life_. Douglas Futuyma has a detailed section on disparity in
his 1997 text _Evolutionary Biology_. Wallace Arthur mentions morphological
disparity in passing several times in 2011’s _Evolution : a developmental
approach_. Then there’s…wait for it…Gould in his classic _Wonderful Life_.

Twit. You should now grovel upon your knees worm for including me in your
status anxiety laden: “But neither of them contributes anything of value to
on-topic discussion.” Get over yourself.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:47:26 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> continued to spam 300+ lines of obfuscating
noise:

>On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:35:22 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:10:05 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
>> >> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.
>
>> >
>> >Funny thing, guess whose post was the first to get personal? It was Glenn.
>> >The prior ones focused on the idea you presented. He made it personal.
>
>
>> FTR Glenn's first post to DOTG is here:
>
>FTR the history of where the personal remarks on DOTG got started is irrelevant to what I wrote above.

FTR if the history is irrelevant, then so is your OP. Pick your
poison.

>> *********************************
>> From: Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:02:03 -0800 (PST)
>> Message-ID: <f1b2c61b-2100-4612...@googlegroups.com>
>> *********************************
>>
>> where he wrote:
>>
>> "Spoken by an "ardent" atheist evolutionist:"
>>
>> in reply to Mark Isaak's comment:
>>
>> "Spoken like an ardent creationist."
>>
>> in reply to PeeWee Peter's OP.
>>
>> In one sense, Glenn was merely echoing Isaak's comment back at him.
>> OTOH Glenn's "atheist" is unambiguously and gratuitously personal, and
>> is Glenn's inspired personal touch.
>
>So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
>damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

False equivalence. Isaak's comment is an accurate if undiplomatic
characterization of your OP. Glenn's comment is mindless parroting.

<snip PeeWee Peter's remaining obfuscating noise>

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 05:20:59 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> continues to spam his 300+ lines of

obfuscating noise:

>On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:37:42 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> spams his 300+ lines of obfuscating noise:
>> >There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly,
>
>> Some willfully clueless posters express dismay at how such a thing
>> happens so often to so many T.O. topics.
>
>Yes, and one of the most intense is your ally Erik Simpson; it was either he or Hemidactylus,
>with whom you have occasional tiffs, but no more intense than the ones
>you used to have with Harshman, who pronounced talk.origins effectively dead.
>But neither of them contributes anything of value to on-topic discussion.
>
>I'm not complaining here, I'm doing something about it. Much as you might wish
>it otherwise, I'm still doing a lot of on-topic discussion. How about you?
>
>
>>An irony here is, they only
>> have to read the following to know with certainty that the cause is
>> the author of this OP.
>
>A willfully stupid, perverse claim. You couldn't prove it if your life's savings
>depended on it.

Even a casual reading of your post below identifies multiple personal
attacks authored by you, which makes your denial of them willfully
stupid and perverse.

>And, by religiously living according to what I call "The Second Commandment
>of Talk.origins" [for your kind], you are assured that this will never happen:
>
>"Thou shalt not take the name of The Ultimate Weapon of a Talk.Origins Scoundrel in vain;
>save it for anyone who is foolish enough to take thee to court for libel."

Pounding on the pulpit and shouting to the choir doesn't help your
case.

>> <the following left uncommented for documentation purposes>
>
>Documentation of what? I originally responded on the original thread,
>and then decided "enough is enough".
>
>You would have to repost the whole "Darwin of the Gaps" thread
>to provide evidence for your willfully stupid, perverse claim.
>And then it would become obvious to all how stupid and perverse it is.

Your demand to repost the whole DOTG thread is willfully stupid and
perverse. As I know you know, Usenet by design archives topics,
almost all servers retaining at least a year, and many a decade and
more. Anybody who is interested can read the entire DOTG thread at
their convenience.

The above is yet more of your hate-ravaged obfuscating noise.

[jillery]

You and Glenn share a Bad Habit(c) of failing to distinguish between
relevant context and obfuscating noise. This makes your post above
just another example of self-parody.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:00:34 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"

No, you didn't, all you did was whine about how I behave towards you.
If you had identified any example of me being secretive, you could
have given it here again but you can't because you didn't.

>But I'll humor you below by identifying a very different issue.

No thanks, it wouldn't humour me at all - I'd rather you deal with the
issues at hand rather than you trying to distract attention from them.

>
>>
>> * Explain how my commenting twice on a claim by Glenn qualifies as a
>> "broken record" (waiting since 07 Dec)
>
>You didn't add anything to back up your first response.

I answered a direct question by Glenn.

.
>
>
>> * Identify something that I should have apologised for and didn't
>> (waiting since 09 Dec)
>
>I'm waiting for you to demonstrate your sincerity, by explaining
>your ignoring of a post by me on the thread you are referring to.
>Your "explanation" was so insincere, it didn't qualify.

So you agree that I did explain it, you just didn't like my
explanation. Not quite sure how you figure this as an example of me
not apologising for something unless you seriously think I should
apologise for not picking up something you posted to someone else.

>
>> * Explain why, when I ignore the crap Jillery posts about me, I should
>> involve myself in stuff she posts about you that you regard as crap.
>> (waiting 14 Dec)
>
>"about you" is dishonest spin-doctoring, as is the rest of the sentence.

It's not crap, it's exactly what you were whining about.

>
>Also, I said nothing about "should." I made a statement of fact:
>for months, perhaps over a year, you have been in a state of
>"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about jillery.

You complained about me not doing stuff and I asked you why I should.
Beats me what your hang-up is about the word "should" in that context.
And I note that you have still not offered any explanation as to why I
should have got involved between you and Jillery..

>See also what I wrote in the PS and PPS.
>
>But you HAVE been indulging in a massive campaign of vilification
>against me for several months now.
>
>You are VERY secretive about why you treat us so differently.

I have told you many times why I react to you as I do. It's because of
the lies you tell about me; the insults you throw at me; the way you
bring my name into discussions in which I have had no part; the way
you accuse me of taking part in some sort of grand conspiracy against
you, an imaginary conspiracy formed purely by your paranoia.

You might not like my reasons but there is nothing secretive about
them.

>
>
>> * Identify anything I was ever asked by anyone to explain and didn't.
>> (waiting 14 Dec)
>
>See above.

The one which you agree that I did explain, you just didn't like my
explanation.

>
>
>> * Identify where I have renounced my Catholic faith to become an
>> apostate (waiting since 16 Dec)
>
>I don't do things on your timetable. I'm saving this one for later.

Bullshit, you have absolutely nothing to keep for later to justify you
calling me an apostate Catholic. That response is an epitomic
demosnstration that you are just a lying blowhard.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:28:36 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote in
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/TQNBzqofBQAJ:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:32:04 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [... a reply to Mark]
>>
>>
>> It always strikes me as a bit sad when a person feels compelled to
>> write something to somebody even though they have been told it won't
>> be read.
>
>The use of passive voice makes this a completely irrelevant and pointless comment,

The passive voice was entirely appropriate choice as I was making a
general observation, not just about Glenn; I have made similar
comments about at least one other poster here.

>and probably an insincere one ("a bit sad").

Yet again you make an entirely unfounded accusation against me,
another example of what you consider "justified" nastiness towards
people.

>
>I read Glenn's post today, but haven't gotten around to replying to it yet.
>Besides Mark, he also wrote about Burkhard.

Glenn's simply said "Peter, you don't really have any more respect
for Burkhard than you do for Mark, right?" - claiming that amounts to
writing about Burkhard is a bit of a stretch.

>AFAIK, you've been
>in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with
>both of them ever since you stopped calling yourself AlwaysAskingQuestions.
>
>Can you think of any exceptions?

I have had numerous disagreements with Mark, for example on the
subject of consciousness, and I have challenged him vociferously about
some of his statements about the Catholic Church. Unlike you, however,
Mark and I are able to respect each other's views and live with our
differences of opinion without resorting to gratuitous invective.


I have disagreed less often with Burkhard as his posts are mostly
objective, well reasoned out and backed by evidence. I have, however,
disagreed with him on several occasions where his opinions have been
more subjective, for example on some specific aspects relating to
Galileo.

So, yes, lots of "exceptions" but I'm not surprised they didn't
register with you as you have a predilection for ignoring anything
that disagrees with your preconceptions.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:23:47 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:00:34 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>>Also, I said nothing about "should." I made a statement of fact:
>>for months, perhaps over a year, you have been in a state of
>>"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about jillery.
>
>You complained about me not doing stuff and I asked you why I should.
>Beats me what your hang-up is about the word "should" in that context.
>And I note that you have still not offered any explanation as to why I
>should have got involved between you and Jillery..
>
>>See also what I wrote in the PS and PPS.
>>
>>But you HAVE been indulging in a massive campaign of vilification
>>against me for several months now.
>>
>>You are VERY secretive about why you treat us so differently.
>
>I have told you many times why I react to you as I do. It's because of
>the lies you tell about me; the insults you throw at me; the way you
>bring my name into discussions in which I have had no part; the way
>you accuse me of taking part in some sort of grand conspiracy against
>you, an imaginary conspiracy formed purely by your paranoia.
>
>You might not like my reasons but there is nothing secretive about
>them.

The irony, it burns. As jillery has noted many times, by Harran's own
words, he says PeeWee Peter behaves exactly as Harran says jillery
behaves toward Harran, yet Harran *still* continues to "discuss" with
PeeWee Peter his terrible behavior, even while neither of them make
any effort to actually back up their claims against jillery. This
shared hypocrisy is what qualifies Harran as one of PeeWee Peter's
strange bedfellows.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/20/22 3:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:28:36 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> [...]

>> AFAIK, you've been
>> in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with
>> both of them ever since you stopped calling yourself AlwaysAskingQuestions.
>>
>> Can you think of any exceptions?
>
> I have had numerous disagreements with Mark, for example on the
> subject of consciousness, and I have challenged him vociferously about
> some of his statements about the Catholic Church. Unlike you, however,
> Mark and I are able to respect each other's views and live with our
> differences of opinion without resorting to gratuitous invective.

I might add that Martin's approach has (albeit rarely) caused me to
shift my views on issues. Peter, however, has shown that I cannot trust
his (Peter's) judgment, honesty, or objectivity. Peter's persistent
invective against other people has hurt his own reputation the most.

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

That is also true of a post by Glenn that I think is worth pondering. Here we go.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 7:35:24 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:25:23 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > On 12/18/22 12:17 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> > > peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> > >>> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>>> If I find a gum wrapper by a trail in the park, should I assume a
> > >>>> person
> > >>>> dropped it nearby, or that God created a gum wrapper there? Since I
> > >>>> see
> > >>>> no other people around and have no hope of discovering who dropped it,
> > >>>> you, presumably, would favor the creation by God option.
> > >>
> > >> Glenn has disposed of this idiotic attempt at analogy, and I expect
> > >> you, Burk, to be helpless at helping Mark out.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't know about that. What did Glen say? "You have farted", the
> > > rapier wit of which left Mark bereft of a response? Or something equally
> > > erudite? Whatever it was, I'm fully confident Mark can deal with it just
> > > fine.

Naturally, neither Mark nor his pinch hitter, jillery, informed Burk about the content.
So he is as helpless as ever.

> Peter, you don't really have any more respect for Burkhard than you do for Mark, right?

That is very true. Burkhard had me fooled for years, claiming that he killfiled me because
I spend too much time at personal conflicts. I finally got him to un-killfile me, and we had
a reasonable set of conversations before he totally blew his "neutralist" cover,
ranting and raving at me because I had dared to expose John Harshman's despicable
behavior in sci.bio.paleontology. John had pandered to Oxyaena's worst instincts,
including Oxyaena's favorite habit of calling others, including myself, victims of
the Dunning-Kruger effect.

John's pandering to this habit fueled an intensified campaign against me
by Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, until I took the drastic step of putting
both in a *de facto* killfile for the rest of 2019. This was the state of affairs
when Burkhard blew his "neutralist" cover with torrents of abuse for
daring to air John's dirty linen in public.

So intense was his abuse that it attracted the attention of two other
"neutralists," Bill Rogers and, through him, Ernest Major, and they too blew their covers
by making personal attacks on me, without any attempt to justify their generic insults
with identification of specific incidents.


What made Burk's original killfile claim plausible was that he had killfiled Ron Okimoto, of all people,
years before, and the last straw was an abusive response by Ron O to me, of all people!

But that's another story for another post.


And here's Burk, illustrating his immature behavior that has been a mainstay
of his replies to me ever since he blew his cover:

> > Actually not, for the simple reason that I don't read Glenn's posts.
> >
> > Come to think of it, that surely qualifies as dealing with them just fine.

Burk is a nonentity where biology is concerned, and so he is naturally
not interested in your on-topic contributions.

But they are there, if rather sporadic, and I talked about two of them in sci.bio.paleontology,
to Erik Simpson and John Harshman. I let them know that I learned a lot from them,
and that they had misrepresented them.


> Yes, that is about how you "deal" with everyone that isn't what you think is a creationist.
> Your gum wrapper spiel is what you think "deals" with Peter's claims, and is tantamount to
> "I just farted", and about as close to not reading Peter's posts as one could get.

Not quite true, sometimes he makes what look to him and others like reasonable responses,
so I have to tread carefully there.

On the other hand, I think he is secretly happy that his buddy Hemidactylus
appropriated "I just farted" for his own use against me.


> You're really afraid to read my posts, which is why you play the "killfile" game. Sad.

In hindsight, I believe that this was true when he played that game against me
for about five years or so.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 07:38:36 -0800, Mark Isaak
<spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:

>On 12/20/22 3:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:28:36 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> AFAIK, you've been
>>> in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with
>>> both of them ever since you stopped calling yourself AlwaysAskingQuestions.
>>>
>>> Can you think of any exceptions?
>>
>> I have had numerous disagreements with Mark, for example on the
>> subject of consciousness, and I have challenged him vociferously about
>> some of his statements about the Catholic Church. Unlike you, however,
>> Mark and I are able to respect each other's views and live with our
>> differences of opinion without resorting to gratuitous invective.
>
>I might add that Martin's approach has (albeit rarely) caused me to
>shift my views on issues. Peter, however, has shown that I cannot trust
>his (Peter's) judgment, honesty, or objectivity. Peter's persistent
>invective against other people has hurt his own reputation the most.

I think the problem is that Peter is absolutely convinced that what he
says is correct and justified. That is why I and others have
questioned his mental competence.

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:49:13 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> continues to spam 300+ lines of obfuscating
noise:

Your comment above is a willfully stupid lie, by your own definition
of "lie". In fact, both R.Dean and I posted with Glenn's pearls
preserved in the quoted text, as you should know because you replied
to R.Dean's posts.

More to the point, nobody has an obligation to "inform" other posters
of same.

More to the point, Burkhard characterization is reasonably accurate,
especially since Glenn has written such "content" in the past.

More to the point, both you and Glenn *still* haven't even tried to
actually back up your baseless opinions about either Glenn's or
Isaak's comments. Instead, you repeatedly ran away from my challenges
for you to do so, while you posted more LINES of your obfuscating
noise.

<snip your remaining obfuscating noise>

[Burkhard]

First time you spun this story one could attribute it to your usual
reading comprehension problems. After repeated corrections, it's now
simply a lie.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:10:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,'
>>and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> > a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:15:26 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:20:26 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Last year, I spent several months trying to make sense of the Jan. 6 crisis, and this year,
> What was hard about understanding the Jan. 6 crisis?

Plenty. Why, for example, were so few witnesses called during impeachment
proceedings and during the Senate trial? I looked and looked for reasons
in the media and blogs of all political strips, but all I could learn was the bare
fact that all talk of calling witnesses ended with a huddle by opposing factions, and then the vote took place.

I finally, cynically, concluded one or both of two things:

(1) that both parties were happy with the wildly conflicting
narratives that were gong around and *still* are going
around as to what went on inside the Capitol, because
(a) Congress does not care what the American public thinks or knows, only how it votes and
(b) each party relies on their radical fringe to get out the vote.

[Most party faithful are too lazy or too unmotivated to do the tough legwork.]

(2) that the Senators had agreed that since enough
Republicans would vote "not guilty," they might as well get on with the business of running the country.

The collective madness that gripped the Senate when they voted *unanimously*
to make Daylight Saving time permanent makes both
explanations absolutely plausible. Fortunately, cooler heads in the House
have put the brakes on the madness.

Ironically, this is opposite the role the framers of the Constitution envisioned
for the two branches of Congress, but kudos to them for putting so many checks and balances into it.

Now let's see what you have to say.

> An absolutely dishonest narcisist announced before the election even occurred
> that he would not accept any result other than him winning.

Trump's narcissism is his downfall. When he announced recently that
he was in favor of suspending parts of the Constitution, all reasonable
people should have written him off if they had not already done so.

>His stooge Bannon
> had planned to do the same in 2016, having created an astroturf movement
> called Stop the Steal way back then. He promoted myriad trivially false claims
> of election fraud but couldn't even keep his own story straight. The ultimate play
> at the end to pressure Pence to try to deny certification was discussed ahead of
> time in the media with Trump repeatedly going public to goad Pence into doing
> a clearly unconstitutional thing. He and his cronies lured a known violent element
> to DC, a group that had been repeatedly caught instigating violence at BLM rallies,
> but a group that included significant numbers of actual law enforcement (Proud Boys,
> Oath Keepers, and 3 percenters: all known to be white supremacist groups).
>
> In the two days before, the 4th and 5th, groups of Proud Boys and Oathkeepers
> were caught in numerous confrontations with the DC police where they were
> attempting to start riots but those cops were on strict orders to use de-escallation
> tactics. The provocateurs were caught on live network broadcasts shouting at
> the cops "hey, you're supposed to be on our side".
>
> Counter-protester organizations specifically asked their members to stay away
> because of reports that Trump was going to try to use unrest as an excuse to
> declare martial law.
>
> This was all knowable as things unfolded.

What surprises me is what you say next:

> The surprise was the actual breaching of the Capitol itself. I don't think it was
> a surprise that some might attempt it. The lack of ready National Guard
> backup was somewhat complex. In the end, it looks like they were held back
> because of some real fears that Trump would try to use them to support and
> even worse flavor of coup.

Strange coup, in which the only use of a firearm was to fatally shoot
a Trump supporter.

The one who fired the shot was appalled by the outcome, but the question
in my mind is, Was anyone who breached the Capitol caught with a firearm?

Why are so many people still held in prison in apparent violation of
*habeas* *corpus*?

Why is it so widely rumored that the police *invited* the protesters in?
At least one person has been found not guilty in a trial because he
was under the sincere impression that this was actually the case!

There are MANY unanswered questions about what actually went on
during the "insurrection". Like the January 6 Committee, you are too
narrowly focused on Trump.

He was on record as having requested a presence
> at his rally "to protect my people", which was part of the scheme to have violent
> protests and declare martial law.
>
> I bet you spent months denying the obvious. I won't be surprised if you deny
> many of the above facts to this very day.

Is THIS the opinion of me that you have made on the basis of the canards
that have been told about me?

Or are you making up a new canard of your own?

Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:55:27 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:10:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,'
> >>and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
> > > a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:15:26 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:20:26 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Last year, I spent several months trying to make sense of the Jan. 6 crisis, and this year,
> > What was hard about understanding the Jan. 6 crisis?
>
> Plenty. Why, for example, were so few witnesses called during impeachment
> proceedings and during the Senate trial? I looked and looked for reasons
> in the media and blogs of all political strips, but all I could learn was the bare
> fact that all talk of calling witnesses ended with a huddle by opposing factions, and then the vote took place.

Because it would have drug things out for little to no purpose.
Why would it have drug things out? The main witnesses of significance
at that point would have been those speaking directly of their own
communications with the President. These would have been objected
to on the grounds of Executive Privilege. That objection would have had
to go through the courts, with predictable appeals, all the way to SCOTUS.
At that point, it was rather predictable that SCOTUS would have granted
EP and denied the requirement to testify to direct communications between
a witness and the President. This would be a bad precedent, especially if,
as was reasonably guessed, the Senate would never vote to convict.

And, beyond that focused reason, the delays involved in calling witnesses
would drag things out with the same point of the Senate never being
convinced to convict. This would just further push the polarization that
Biden was optimistic about overcoming.

Be clear, it was known which Senators were going to vote which way and
which few were wavering.

> I finally, cynically, concluded one or both of two things:
>
> (1) that both parties were happy with the wildly conflicting
> narratives that were gong around and *still* are going
> around as to what went on inside the Capitol, because
> (a) Congress does not care what the American public thinks or knows, only how it votes and
> (b) each party relies on their radical fringe to get out the vote.
>
> [Most party faithful are too lazy or too unmotivated to do the tough legwork.]

That is frankly nonsense. What went on was clear. It remains clear.
The only thing required of witnesses was testimony about things
Trump knew about the potential for violence in the days just before J6,
and exactly what he was doing during the riot that invaded the Capitol.
There existed evidence about that, it was presented sufficiently.

> (2) that the Senators had agreed that since enough
> Republicans would vote "not guilty," they might as well get on with the business of running the country.

This is the essential reason. The House voted to impeach because the
events of J6 could simply not go unaddressed. The Senate had already
decided, even among those like McConnell who were furious at Trump,
that he was already out of office and they wanted to move on. And
McConnell still held enough of his caucus together to hold that line.
This was known and reported publicly. Why it took you time to figure
it out is strange.

> The collective madness that gripped the Senate when they voted *unanimously*
> to make Daylight Saving time permanent makes both
> explanations absolutely plausible. Fortunately, cooler heads in the House
> have put the brakes on the madness.

And odd sense of proportion.

> Ironically, this is opposite the role the framers of the Constitution envisioned
> for the two branches of Congress, but kudos to them for putting so many checks and balances into it.

Whatever romantic notions one holds about what was envisioned for the
Senate, it is currently a manifestation of Party Politics. The Framers didn't
want that. But the Senate has never really held up to the dream of a body
of elder statesmen. So it's an odd aside by you.

> Now let's see what you have to say.
>
> > An absolutely dishonest narcisist announced before the election even occurred
> > that he would not accept any result other than him winning.
>
> Trump's narcissism is his downfall. When he announced recently that
> he was in favor of suspending parts of the Constitution, all reasonable
> people should have written him off if they had not already done so.

The if they had not already done so hangs in the air. I don't think the guy
ever read the Constitution. This was apparent of the candidate. It was
obvious early on when he protested accusations that he was violating
the Emoluments Clause by asking what the hell an Emolument was and
that nobody had ever even heard of the word. And odd thing for someone
who took an oath to defend the Constitution.

Was anyone stopped and frisked? or were they allowed to leave?
And what the hell difference does it make? Seriously, what difference
does it make? They had erected a gallows and as a mob were chanting
"Hang Mike Pence". They were behaving as a mob.

> Why are so many people still held in prison in apparent violation of
> *habeas* *corpus*?

Only to those who don't understand what they are talking about.

> Why is it so widely rumored that the police *invited* the protesters in?
> At least one person has been found not guilty in a trial because he
> was under the sincere impression that this was actually the case!

Did you not see the live video feed while it was occurring?
Did you not see the many re-broadcasts in the following days?

The breach was violent. Yes, once inside a significant contingent
of the Capitol police acted in a very cozy way with some of those
who surged in. I agree that this fact has been somewhat swept
under the rug since but this is a separate issue. And no, the initial
breech of the Capitol was not of people being invited in. Given that
view any credence requires some very exceptional evidence filtering.

> There are MANY unanswered questions about what actually went on
> during the "insurrection". Like the January 6 Committee, you are too
> narrowly focused on Trump.

With dozens of those who invaded the Capitol testifying in court,
under oath, that they felt they were called there by Trump, it's a fair
focus. By the testimony of many involved that Trump was the one
that pushed for the Jan6 rally and a continued fight to contest the
election results, it's fair focus.

The record is clear that most of his advisors from before the election
had urged him to concede but that he essentially pushed them aside
and only listened to a suite of lunatics that wanted him to fight at all
costs, no matter what. Where would you focus? He was playing the
role of autocrat and gathering together a cast of characters who
worshiped him as such. Of course you focus on the autocrat there.
No single person was pulling the strings behind him. Multiple people
were trying but he was too chaotic and could not be controlled.

> > He was on record as having requested a presence
> > at his rally "to protect my people", which was part of the scheme to have violent
> > protests and declare martial law.
> >
> > I bet you spent months denying the obvious. I won't be surprised if you deny
> > many of the above facts to this very day.
>
> Is THIS the opinion of me that you have made on the basis of the canards
> that have been told about me?
>
> Or are you making up a new canard of your own?
>
> Peter Nyikos

That you could have observed all of the facts I've listed, and many more
that I didn't bother to include in a spur of the moment rant, and not see
the obvious feeds my opinion of you. That you've been suckered into a
false narrative about habitus corpus being denied feeds my opinion of
you. That it seemingly took until Trump recently suggested suspending
the Constitution for you to understand something about him that has
been obvious all along informs my opinion of you. Your ability to wiggle
out of the theme of an argument by shifting your focus to a minor point
of pedantry which is of no consequence informs my opinion of you.
Your words and actions inform my opinion of you.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:30:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:10:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > snip
> > As jillery has said in dozens of threads:
> >
> > Works for me. Thanks for the precedent.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> Run away, run run away.

I'm sure jillery will like the way you are thumbing your nose at his/her/their numerous
precedents at treating snips as described. Some treatments were even
supplemented by the deceitful "You never learn."


By the way, you are channeling Ron O here [metaphorically, of course]. He acts as though
running away were a blot on one's reputation, and he's so sick he actually believes it
to the extent that he leaves in mountains of lines unanswered *below* where he signs off.
That is where his sick mind draws the line, snipping vs. leaving in unanswered,
between running away and not running away.

> >> Okay, I'll bite. Why should insinuating that one doesn't believe in a god

Isn't "a god" spin-doctoring my words? Why did you see fit to delete all of them?
including the qualifier, "in talk.origins"?

> >> be damaging to one's reputation?

Ask your strange bedfellow Martin Harran. He used to take umbrage at questions such
as "Did you go to Catholic parochial school?" as insinuations that he is not a faithful Catholic.

He still doesn't like any suspicions about that, nor about being an atheist. But he seems
much more detached about it, as though he now believes that claiming to be a Catholic
and being thought of as not believing in the Christian God (not "a god") is not
damaging to his reputation here in talk.origins.

But hey, if you don't want to bother Martin about it, think of Ray Martinez, who jealously
guarded his reputation as a believer, even though he belonged to a strange cult of one Rev. Chase.
[IIRC that was the name of the cu;t pastor of his congregation.]

> >> I've challenged Professor Nyikos on this before. It's a puzzlement. He seems a bit
> >> duplicitous about it.

I have no idea where you got that idea, and the reason I deleted your
words originally is that I believe you are alarmed at the way I've been focused
on on-topic issues so much, and you want me to waste my time answering
stupid accusations and stupid questions.

I still believe that, but since you insist, I'll show you how totally
idiotic your spiel below is. For the sake of other readers, not you,
who seem to be too far gone to care.

>>> Should someone be ashamed of not having a belief in a god?

No.

> >> Is it a serious stain on a person to not be a believer? I've met a few practicing
> >> Jesuits who are technically atheists. They want to believe, but they don't.

I am an agnostic, and I am *therefore* technically what atheists call 'a soft atheist.'
I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who follows the rules to which
the Church officially has its members adhere. In this I am unlike Martin Harran,
who has no use for Jesus's commandment, "Do not bear false witness".

> >> I get this odd perception that Nyikos has some dual conception of atheist and Atheist,

Well, if one only claims to be an atheist to curry favor with the likes of you,
I suppose I'll go along with your Humpty Dumptyish term and call him/her an "Atheist"
with a capital A.

I saw that dynamic in talk.abortion back around 1994. There was a pro-life atheist
who joined for a couple of months, and the abortion rights fanatics who
dominated the newsgroup knew she only wanted abortion legal for
rape, incest, and life of the mother --- and yet they were quite respectful to her.

And it wasn't because she was a woman. They treated a pro-life Catholic
named Suzanne Forgach the way you and your buddies would treat someone
who is like Glenn and myself rolled into one.

I concluded that "atheism covers a multitude of sins" even in the eyes
of the abortion rights fanatics who were secretive about their religious beliefs.

Is it any different here in talk.origins? Do you think there are no "Atheists"
(in the newly coined sense above) here? and that my conclusion there doesn't apply here?

> >> with some hard to specify distinction between the two. One is reprehensible and, as
> >> indicated above, damaging to one's "reputation", whatever the heck is implied by that.

You are building castles in the air.

> >> Before you run away on your posting break, please to provide a clear and thorough
> >> explanation of what is disreputable about not having an affirmative belief in the
> > >existence of any, or perhaps some particular god.

Sorry to disappoint you. But don't let it stop you from posting the same crap about
me during my posting break.

As the old saying goes, "When the cat's away, the mice will play." And here,
as in 99% of the animated cartoons I've seen, the cat is the underdog.

> The smell of fear exudes from you.

Wishful thinking is OK up to a point, but in you it's assumed pathological proportions.

> And as I have noted before,
>
> people can see you.
>
> If you insist on embarrassing and discrediting yourself, continue.

You are showing that you fully deserving of the superlative,

"The most ruthlessly hypocritical regular in talk.origins."

> You indulge in your invidious insinuations that being an atheist is a bad thing.

Liar.

> But you cowardly refuse to defend your invidious insinuations. Own it.

Sorry, that's not good enough to deserve the superlative,

"The most ruthlessly dishonest regular in talk.origins."

You are still way behind the competition for that one. So don't own it.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:10:22 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,'
>>>and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
>> > a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.
>
>On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:15:26 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:20:26 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > Last year, I spent several months trying to make sense of the Jan. 6 crisis, and this year,
>> What was hard about understanding the Jan. 6 crisis?
>
>Plenty. Why, for example, were so few witnesses called during impeachment
>proceedings and during the Senate trial? I looked and looked for reasons
>in the media and blogs of all political strips, but all I could learn was the bare
>fact that all talk of calling witnesses ended with a huddle by opposing factions, and then the vote took place.

It might have something to do with the fact that so many witnesses
pleaded the 5th to almost every question put to them.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Where I am concerned, this last clause is a shameless lie. I try harder
than anyone else to justify my claims to everyone, and only lack of time
keeps me from doing it on the spot all too often.


Where Martin is concerned, I don't know if what you are saying is true,
but if it is, then you and I are the strange bedfellows against Martin.
[The wording is inspired by that of your GIGO about me, started above
and completed below.]

I am now of the opinion that Martin *does* live in a different universe
than you or I, but you went the wrong way about a few years ago,
before Martin turned on me. You rearranged text to make it seem like he was admitting
to being in a different universe than an honorable one.

But the irony is that Martin *is* in a different universe than either of us.

It is the universe of a Johnny-come-lately to the art of adult deceit. He is
so clumsy at it that it sticks out like a sore thumb. For one thing, unlike you,
he doesn't know where it is more clever to be truthful than to be deceitful.


When I first became an agnostic, I thought very carefully about
what of my old unquestioned morality I ought to keep.
I concluded that if I went the way of deceit -- the way I *had*
done often when much less mature -- I would be a Johnny-come-lately
to the world of adult deceit, and would be crushed by it
if I tried to put it into practice.

And since then, I have completely internalized the old morality of truth-telling,
the way Plato did. That was totally missing from my earlier, superficial
belief in it as a cradle Catholic. The internalization shows up in the way
I am a "goddamn moralizer" not just against deceit, but against hypocrisy, injustice,
cowardice, and unfairness that does not rise to the description of outright deceit
or demonstrable injustice.


Peter Nyikos

PS I left in the second half of your GIGO below.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

That's another scam of yours, one that you've gone into denial about
each time I tried to explain why what I wrote was nothing of the sort.

But that's kid stuff compared to the way Mark Isaak, John Harshman
and Hemidactylus gaslighted me when I caught John lying about having
caught me in a reading comprehension problem.

They never dared to even allude to the existence of my demonstration
that it WAS a lie, they kept telling me that I was in need of psychiatric
counseling "for [my] own good".

Before I knew what gaslighting was, I thought Mark was just living
up to his superlative, "the most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins."
Namely, he was self-righteously adhering to a subjective, twisted form of
morality, whereby being told a very unpleasant truth by an adversary
about himself or a friend/ally of his is FAR more a thing to be ashamed
of than deceit, even libel, by himself or a friend/ally of his.

You also seem to live by that twisted morality.
Do you know what 'gaslighting' means, by the way?

>After repeated corrections, it's now
> simply a lie.

You never tried to correct me on this ORIGINAL blowing of your cover, liar.
You kept confusing it with the SECOND time you ranted and raved against me,
for something that was public knowledge: that Harshman has admitted to
being an unemployed biologist on LinkedIn.

> >John had pandered to Oxyaena's worst instincts,
> > including Oxyaena's favorite habit of calling others, including myself, victims of
> > the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> >
> > John's pandering to this habit fueled an intensified campaign against me
> > by Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, until I took the drastic step of putting
> > both in a *de facto* killfile for the rest of 2019. This was the state of affairs
> > when Burkhard blew his "neutralist" cover with torrents of abuse for
> > daring to air John's dirty linen in public.
> >
> > So intense was his abuse that it attracted the attention of two other
> > "neutralists," Bill Rogers and, through him, Ernest Major, and they too blew their covers
> > by making personal attacks on me, without any attempt to justify their generic insults
> > with identification of specific incidents.

It's interesting that you are struck mute by all this documentable history,
having supposedly "corrected" me on it often. So mute, that no words
of yours appear anywhere below. [But plenty *about* you do.]

You blew your cover after Harshman asked, in a gaslighting way,
whether I was often "this way." But he gave NO HINT that what I was saying was untrue.
He knew that I could document it.

Were you fooled by this, or did you play along with it by accusing me
of persistent "unethical" behavior that you never tried to identify,
even after I asked tactfully about it? I was tactful because I thought Harshman
HAD fooled you, and I wanted to let you retract what you had written
without losing much face.

But you weren't fooled, were you?

> >
> > What made Burk's original killfile claim plausible was that he had killfiled Ron Okimoto, of all people,
> > years before, and the last straw was an abusive response by Ron O to me, of all people!
> >
> > But that's another story for another post.

It still is that, and will probably remain so when I go on my posting break tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

PS I've deleted nothing below.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:15:27 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:30:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:10:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > As jillery has said in dozens of threads:
> > >
> > > Works for me. Thanks for the precedent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > Run away, run run away.
> I'm sure jillery will like the way you are thumbing your nose at his/her/their numerous
> precedents at treating snips as described. Some treatments were even
> supplemented by the deceitful "You never learn."

Here is what spawned this:

[quote]

> So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
> damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

Okay, I'll bite. Why should insinuating that one doesn't believe in a god be damaging
to one's reputation?

I've challenged Professor Nyikos on this before. It's a puzzlement. He seems a bit

duplicitous about it. Should someone be ashamed of not having a belief in a god?

Is it a serious stain on a person to not be a believer? I've met a few practicing
Jesuits who are technically atheists. They want to believe, but they don't.

I get this odd perception that Nyikos has some dual conception of atheist and Atheist,

with some hard to specify distinction between the two. One is reprehensible and, as
indicated above, damaging to one's "reputation", whatever the heck is implied by that.

Before you run away on your posting break, please to provide a clear and thorough
explanation of what is disreputable about not having an affirmative belief in the
existence of any, or perhaps some particular god.

[end quote]

The answer that can be extracted below is that Nyikos thinks that being an atheist
is about joining some dominant clique who team up to oppose people like him.
Somehow that is bundled into "reputation in talk.origins.

And it's bundled into special lessons he "learned" in his early usenet experiences
in talk.abortion. Then there are other conclusory allegations about various people.
And the way he weaves it, the above set of questions by me are some dastardly
deed all their own.

Now I could, theoretically, go back and find more places where he accuses one
and then another person of being an atheist, and in places where it can be seen
that said person has never made any claim about being an atheist. I could also
go back and find a few places where Nyikos has denied that he thinks being an
atheist is the condemnation that it sounds like in his use above.

So my question was to try to understand the distinction between the frequent use
that looks like he's claiming it is a disreputable thing to be an atheist, and his
denial that he's using it that way.

But he is using it that way, as evidenced below, except it's because he's
bundled it in such a way that being an atheist within talk.origins is somehow
about currying favor with the forces of evil that are allied against his righteousness.

> By the way, you are channeling Ron O here [metaphorically, of course]. He acts as though
> running away were a blot on one's reputation, and he's so sick he actually believes it
> to the extent that he leaves in mountains of lines unanswered *below* where he signs off.
> That is where his sick mind draws the line, snipping vs. leaving in unanswered,
> between running away and not running away.

> > >> Okay, I'll bite. Why should insinuating that one doesn't believe in a god

> Isn't "a god" spin-doctoring my words? Why did you see fit to delete all of them?
> including the qualifier, "in talk.origins"?

Actually, you deleted all those words in refusing to answer the first time.
I restored my question, one you have to interrupt mid sentence.

> > >> be damaging to one's reputation?

> Ask your strange bedfellow Martin Harran. He used to take umbrage at questions such
> as "Did you go to Catholic parochial school?" as insinuations that he is not a faithful Catholic.
>
> He still doesn't like any suspicions about that, nor about being an atheist. But he seems
> much more detached about it, as though he now believes that claiming to be a Catholic
> and being thought of as not believing in the Christian God (not "a god") is not
> damaging to his reputation here in talk.origins.
>
> But hey, if you don't want to bother Martin about it, think of Ray Martinez, who jealously
> guarded his reputation as a believer, even though he belonged to a strange cult of one Rev. Chase.
> [IIRC that was the name of the cu;t pastor of his congregation.]

I don't ask them because they weren't the one using an accusation of being an

atheist in the post I was responding to. It was you who wrote:

> So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
> damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

And so I asked you why you think that insinuating that someone is an atheist
should be a bad thing as a generic thing. As for calling someone an atheist who
professes faith, that is a different kettle of fish, as should be obvious. That renders
you whataboutism above to be a foolish deflection, at best.

> > >> I've challenged Professor Nyikos on this before. It's a puzzlement. He seems a bit
> > >> duplicitous about it.

> I have no idea where you got that idea, and the reason I deleted your
> words originally is that I believe you are alarmed at the way I've been focused
> on on-topic issues so much, and you want me to waste my time answering
> stupid accusations and stupid questions.
>
> I still believe that, but since you insist, I'll show you how totally
> idiotic your spiel below is. For the sake of other readers, not you,
> who seem to be too far gone to care.

You imagine the strangest things about me. I claim you have been duplicitous
because you have, at time, claimed that you don't think that being an atheist is
a black mark on one's character, but then you often use the term in accusations
as if you do think it implies immorality.

Elsewhere, you write about when you became an agnostic you felt like
you had to go and decide which if your morals you wanted to keep.
People whose morals are dependent upon believing in a god scare me.
It's a trope of sorts. I really don't get it. I guess it's people so childish in
their ethics that they only follow rules out of fear of punishment and
because somebody is always watching. But I guess I've sensed some of
that trope coming from you, that you think atheists have no reason to
tell the truth. That's a strange worldview.

> >>> Should someone be ashamed of not having a belief in a god?

> No.

Wow. That would have been easy the first time.

> > >> Is it a serious stain on a person to not be a believer? I've met a few practicing
> > >> Jesuits who are technically atheists. They want to believe, but they don't.

> I am an agnostic, and I am *therefore* technically what atheists call 'a soft atheist.'
> I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who follows the rules to which
> the Church officially has its members adhere. In this I am unlike Martin Harran,
> who has no use for Jesus's commandment, "Do not bear false witness".

Are one of the rules to never skip a chance to take a dig at somebody?
You follow all of their rules, or you let your own conscious be your guide?
I guess I also don't understand abandoning my own morality to some
religious body that exhibits all the failures of any large bureaucracy, and
has a rather checked history respective to morality.

> > >> I get this odd perception that Nyikos has some dual conception of atheist and Atheist,

> Well, if one only claims to be an atheist to curry favor with the likes of you,
> I suppose I'll go along with your Humpty Dumptyish term and call him/her an "Atheist"
> with a capital A.

Where have I ever attacked anyone for being a believer, or rallied around someone
just because they said they weren't? Hint: never. You just imagine these things
about people irrespective of what they actually do.

> I saw that dynamic in talk.abortion back around 1994. There was a pro-life atheist
> who joined for a couple of months, and the abortion rights fanatics who
> dominated the newsgroup knew she only wanted abortion legal for
> rape, incest, and life of the mother --- and yet they were quite respectful to her.
>
> And it wasn't because she was a woman. They treated a pro-life Catholic
> named Suzanne Forgach the way you and your buddies would treat someone
> who is like Glenn and myself rolled into one.
>
> I concluded that "atheism covers a multitude of sins" even in the eyes
> of the abortion rights fanatics who were secretive about their religious beliefs.
>
> Is it any different here in talk.origins? Do you think there are no "Atheists"
> (in the newly coined sense above) here? and that my conclusion there doesn't apply here?

If I've parsed all that, no, I don't think anybody is declaring their Atheism in
talk.origins as some shield from criticism, or as a means of currying favor from
others. If someone did attempt such a thing, I expect they would be sadly
disappointed as I don't think people give a damn. I don't.

> > >> with some hard to specify distinction between the two. One is reprehensible and, as
> > >> indicated above, damaging to one's "reputation", whatever the heck is implied by that.

> You are building castles in the air.

Funny that you say that after having just explained your foundation. You think
atheism in talk.origins is some sort of secret handshake to make you part
of some club.

> > >> Before you run away on your posting break, please to provide a clear and thorough
> > >> explanation of what is disreputable about not having an affirmative belief in the
> > > >existence of any, or perhaps some particular god.

> Sorry to disappoint you. But don't let it stop you from posting the same crap about
> me during my posting break.
>
> As the old saying goes, "When the cat's away, the mice will play." And here,
> as in 99% of the animated cartoons I've seen, the cat is the underdog.

Maybe you don't even understand your own words above. If someone is
an atheist in talk.origins, your default assumption is that they are just
trying to join a team. Oh, and you think the atheist team is immoral.

> > The smell of fear exudes from you.
> Wishful thinking is OK up to a point, but in you it's assumed pathological proportions.

Well, you avoided some simple questions, and then you butchered them
into an incoherent mess by breaking them up that way.

> > And as I have noted before,
> > people can see you.
> >
> > If you insist on embarrassing and discrediting yourself, continue.

> You are showing that you fully deserving of the superlative,
>
> "The most ruthlessly hypocritical regular in talk.origins."

> > You indulge in your invidious insinuations that being an atheist is a bad thing.

> Liar.

> So is Mark's. In fact, insinuating that one is a creationist is far more potentially
> damaging to one's reputation in talk.origins than insinuating that one is an atheist.

Even with your context of "in talk.origins", you're using it as an invidious
insinuation. You just attempt to justify why you think it's deserved. But
you've piled a lot of baggage into what you think it means to be 'an atheist
in talk.origins'.

> > But you cowardly refuse to defend your invidious insinuations. Own it.
> Sorry, that's not good enough to deserve the superlative,
>
> "The most ruthlessly dishonest regular in talk.origins."
>
> You are still way behind the competition for that one. So don't own it.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

Enjoy your break. I think you need it.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:50:27 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> When I first became an agnostic, I thought very carefully about
> what of my old unquestioned morality I ought to keep.
> I concluded that if I went the way of deceit -- the way I *had*
> done often when much less mature -- I would be a Johnny-come-lately
> to the world of adult deceit, and would be crushed by it
> if I tried to put it into practice.

what you write below redeems you some but I'm stuck on the above.
I just wrote some of this but ... that your morality would be so dependent
upon belief in your god scares me. Penn Joilet has a line in response to
people who challenge his atheism with "but without a belief in god, people
would just rape and murder as much as they want", to which he replies,
[paraphrased] "I already do rape and murder as much as I want. I don't want
to rape and murder."

But in the above, absent your belief in somebody watching you to see if
your being good, you considered deceitfulness but decided against it
because, in effect, you thought you would be caught. Well much like Penn,
people who are only "good" because of fear of punishment scare me.

> And since then, I have completely internalized the old morality of truth-telling,
> the way Plato did. That was totally missing from my earlier, superficial
> belief in it as a cradle Catholic. The internalization shows up in the way
> I am a "goddamn moralizer" not just against deceit, but against hypocrisy, injustice,
> cowardice, and unfairness that does not rise to the description of outright deceit
> or demonstrable injustice.

Plato didn't tilt at the windmills of his mind.
I applaud that you ultimately grew up and internalized a sense of morals.
Maybe you can eventually mature to the point where you don't feel compelled
to police all the other boys and girls who passed a note when the teacher
wasn't looking.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:47:58 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> continues to spam 300+ lines of obfuscating
noise:

Where PeeWee Peter is concerned, anything anybody disagrees with you
is a shameless lie. More to the point, neither you nor Harran have
made any effort to back up your shameless lies against me. Instead,
you just refer to your allusions and illusions all the way down, while
Harran cowardly hides behind his killfile.

>I try harder than anyone else to justify my claims to everyone,

Try smarter, not harder. The first step would be to learn to not make
claims you can't/won't back up.

>and only lack of time keeps me from doing it on the spot all too often.

The second step would be to learn not to make transparent excuses.
Don't post claims you can't/won't back up, especially since almost
none of them have anything to do with the topic, the thread, or
anything anybody said in it. Not sure how you *still* can't figure
this out.

>Where Martin is concerned, I don't know if what you are saying is true,
>but if it is, then you and I are the strange bedfellows against Martin.
>[The wording is inspired by that of your GIGO about me, started above
>and completed below.]

You have no good reason to pretend to doubt that I wrote about Harran
is true, as you have repeatedly replied to his posts, just as he has
repeatedly replied to yours. Based on your comments, the only thing
you two have in common is to post baseless lies about me. Like two
politicians from opposite sides, you have that in common. That's what
makes you strange bedfellows.

>I am now of the opinion that Martin *does* live in a different universe
>than you or I, but you went the wrong way about a few years ago,
>before Martin turned on me. You rearranged text to make it seem like he was admitting
>to being in a different universe than an honorable one.

Once again you spam yet another willfully stupid lie about me, which I
demonstrated at the time you first posted it. But you don't let facts
get in your way to spam more mindless noise.

>But the irony is that Martin *is* in a different universe than either of us.
>
>It is the universe of a Johnny-come-lately to the art of adult deceit. He is
>so clumsy at it that it sticks out like a sore thumb. For one thing, unlike you,
>he doesn't know where it is more clever to be truthful than to be deceitful.
>
>
>When I first became an agnostic, I thought very carefully about
>what of my old unquestioned morality I ought to keep.
>I concluded that if I went the way of deceit -- the way I *had*
>done often when much less mature -- I would be a Johnny-come-lately
>to the world of adult deceit, and would be crushed by it
>if I tried to put it into practice.
>
>And since then, I have completely internalized the old morality of truth-telling,
>the way Plato did. That was totally missing from my earlier, superficial
>belief in it as a cradle Catholic. The internalization shows up in the way
>I am a "goddamn moralizer" not just against deceit, but against hypocrisy, injustice,
>cowardice, and unfairness that does not rise to the description of outright deceit
>or demonstrable injustice.

Instead of tying a towel around your neck and running around the house
like you're flying, try to constrain your moralizing to the topics
under discussion. Not sure how you *still* can't figure this out.

>Peter Nyikos
>
>PS I left in the second half of your GIGO below.

How white of you. In return, I left in all of your transparent
obfuscating noise. You're welcome.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:13:19 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>Ask your strange bedfellow Martin Harran. He used to take umbrage at questions such
>as "Did you go to Catholic parochial school?" as insinuations that he is not a faithful Catholic.

You mean the Martin Harran who you claimed was an apostate and that
you had something to back it up which you didn't, exposing you for the
lying blowhard you are? The same Martin Harran who exposed a number of
your lies from which you now appear to be running.

[匽

>
>I am an agnostic, and I am *therefore* technically what atheists call 'a soft atheist.'
>I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who follows the rules to which
>the Church officially has its members adhere.

An "agnostic Catholic" is the best example yet of the weird thinking
that Peter engages in.

>In this I am unlike Martin Harran,
>who has no use for Jesus's commandment, "Do not bear false witness".

So speaks TO's number one brazen liar.

[匽

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:20:27 PM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:13:19 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >Ask your strange bedfellow Martin Harran. He used to take umbrage at questions such
> >as "Did you go to Catholic parochial school?" as insinuations that he is not a faithful Catholic.
> You mean the Martin Harran who you claimed was an apostate and that
> you had something to back it up which you didn't, exposing you for the
> lying blowhard you are? The same Martin Harran who exposed a number of
> your lies from which you now appear to be running.
>
> [匽
> >
> >I am an agnostic, and I am *therefore* technically what atheists call 'a soft atheist.'
> >I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who follows the rules to which
> >the Church officially has its members adhere.

> An "agnostic Catholic" is the best example yet of the weird thinking
> that Peter engages in.

I have to disagree.
It's a level of self-honesty if one has a certain definition of what it means
to believe. If you ask yourself, if despite a lack of objective proof (that you
accept), and the existence of reasons to doubt, do you actually cross the
threshold to say that you do authentically believe, then what is the answer?

You either do or you don't. But not crossing the threshold into belief with full
faith in the existence of the god of choice, does not mean you believe in full
faith that such a god does not exist. It's being left in the great void of "I don't know".

Now on top of that, layer on the fact that a person has come to believe something
else, that the very act of wanting to believe, and the trapping surrounding belief,
are in many ways a virtue unto themselves. That is at least one form of an
agnostic catholic. It can be slice in other ways.

The essence is placing some bar of significance to what it means to really
believe. And as much as many might wish to, they can't pass that bar.

And that general framework covers a great many people.
Not everyone feels a great need to enforce a dichotomous choice into extremes.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:20:27 PM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:13:19 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> >Ask your strange bedfellow Martin Harran. He used to take umbrage at questions such
>> >as "Did you go to Catholic parochial school?" as insinuations that he is not a faithful Catholic.
>> You mean the Martin Harran who you claimed was an apostate and that
>> you had something to back it up which you didn't, exposing you for the
>> lying blowhard you are? The same Martin Harran who exposed a number of
>> your lies from which you now appear to be running.
>>

>> [?

>> >
>> >I am an agnostic, and I am *therefore* technically what atheists call 'a soft atheist.'
>> >I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who follows the rules to which
>> >the Church officially has its members adhere.
>
>> An "agnostic Catholic" is the best example yet of the weird thinking
>> that Peter engages in.
>
>I have to disagree.
>It's a level of self-honesty if one has a certain definition of what it means
>to believe. If you ask yourself, if despite a lack of objective proof (that you
>accept), and the existence of reasons to doubt, do you actually cross the
>threshold to say that you do authentically believe, then what is the answer?
>
>You either do or you don't. But not crossing the threshold into belief with full
>faith in the existence of the god of choice, does not mean you believe in full
>faith that such a god does not exist. It's being left in the great void of "I don't know".
>
>Now on top of that, layer on the fact that a person has come to believe something
>else, that the very act of wanting to believe, and the trapping surrounding belief,
>are in many ways a virtue unto themselves. That is at least one form of an
>agnostic catholic. It can be slice in other ways.
>
>The essence is placing some bar of significance to what it means to really
>believe. And as much as many might wish to, they can't pass that bar.
>
> And that general framework covers a great many people.
>Not everyone feels a great need to enforce a dichotomous choice into extremes.

Peter said "I am also a member of the Roman Catholic Church who

follows the rules to which the Church officially has its members

adhere." I'd suggest that actually believing in God is one of the
fundamental rules.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure it's that uncommon for priests to tell parishioners who are doubting their faith or who say that they want to believe but have trouble actually believing, that they should basically go through the motions (by which I mean following the behavioral rules and going to mass) and expect that faith will develop over time. So while "agnostic Catholic" does seem a strange turn of phrase, I'm not sure that it's not a pretty good description of the situation of a certain number of practicing Catholics.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:47:58 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"

And he's very glad to do so.

>
>It is the universe of a Johnny-come-lately to the art of adult deceit. He is
>so clumsy at it that it sticks out like a sore thumb. For one thing, unlike you,
>he doesn't know where it is more clever to be truthful than to be deceitful.
>
>
>When I first became an agnostic, I thought very carefully about
>what of my old unquestioned morality I ought to keep.
>I concluded that if I went the way of deceit -- the way I *had*
>done often when much less mature -- I would be a Johnny-come-lately
>to the world of adult deceit, and would be crushed by it
>if I tried to put it into practice.
>
>And since then, I have completely internalized the old morality of truth-telling,
>the way Plato did. That was totally missing from my earlier, superficial
>belief in it as a cradle Catholic. The internalization shows up in the way
>I am a "goddamn moralizer" not just against deceit, but against hypocrisy, injustice,
>cowardice, and unfairness that does not rise to the description of outright deceit
>or demonstrable injustice.

It's a pity that you don't feel the same way about hypocrisy,
injustice, cowardice, and unfairness that *does*rise to the
description of outright deceit or demonstrable injustice as practiced
by yourself so frequently.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Such a rule would exclude many priests.
There's an awkwardness in the role of the Apostle's Creed. What does it then
mean to someone to recite it ? Is a desire to believe sufficient. Long long ago,
I was told that it was by 3 different priests. I don't know if there exists an
official position on that. For my part, I lost that desire to believe as to me it
seemed pointless. My personal take on me is, however, completely beside
any point of significance.

Ultimately, one can't control if one believes. It was my impression that the
Church recognizes and accepts that, and further desires to keep those who
have lost their belief in the fold.

[Martin Harran]

I have known plenty of Catholics including myself who struggle from
time to time with various aspects of their faith and their Catholicism
but I have never known any who would describe themselves as agnostic.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Sure, experiences are different, as are the ways people describe them, but the phrase, odd as it may seem, does seem to me to describe the state of mind of various Catholics that I have known.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I have. And ...

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:30:23 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"

I think that would have been more prevalent in times gone by when many
Catholics mainly practised the routines of faith due to peer or
cultural pressure - that was certainly the case here in Ireland. That
has changed dramatically nowadays and there is arguably more peer and
cultural pressure for people to discard religious practice than adhere
to it. We obviously have to be wary of expanding our own limited
experience to a general conclusion but IME, people nowadays who doubt
the very existence of God are more likely to stop practising religion
than make the effort to continue with it. They would certainly be less
likely to "follow the rules" as Peter claims to do.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:12:09 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

IME, priests who get to the stage of seriously doubting God's very
existence generally abandon the priesthood.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Well, that's certainly one option for them. Some, however, may feel that they have a social commitment to their parishioners, that they are doing good work in the world in education or counseling, that having faith (even if they've lost it) is a good, psychologically beneficial thing that they can foster in their congregation. Then, too, depending on their age, making a new start is not necessarily very easy; they may be very comfortable with all the traditions and structure. I think that there are many ministers, not just Catholic priests who have lost their faith, but continue in their work and keep their doubts to themselves, because they think their work is useful and important and because of a sense of responsibility to their congregations.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 22, 2022 at 5:18:24 PM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>

In my experience, Catholics are caring, devoted and trustworthy. Even though
I'm not Catholic I admire and respect Catholics. I attend a United Methodist
Church frequently, I never hear them "bad mouth" any other denominations
Methodist generally consider themselves a branch of the "catholic church"
(universal) Christ's Church. In their creed, every Sunday, Methodist state
these word, "I believe in the holy catholic church......": of which they
regard
themselves as part of or as members.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 04:31:45 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Catholics are like just any other group of humans, some are very good,
some are very bad and most are somewhere in-between.

[Martin Harran]

A priest's primary purpose in life is essentially to bring people
closer to God. You don't think it would be a bit hypocritical of a
priest to pretend to do that if he was ambivalent about the very
existence of that God? You don't think he could do harm to the people
he cares about if they were to rely on him for advice and guidance and
later realise that he was unconvinced about that advice and guidance?

Again bear in mind that I am not talking about the doubts that we all
experience in various aspects of our lives, not just religion; I am
talking about someone *publicly declaring* themselves as agnostic and
still claiming to be a Catholic, not to mention a competent judge of
other people's Catholicism.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:13:19 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> continues to spam 300+ lines of obfuscating
noise:

>On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:30:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:10:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:25 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > snip
>> > As jillery has said in dozens of threads:
>> >
>> > Works for me. Thanks for the precedent.
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Nyikos
>
>> Run away, run run away.
>
>I'm sure jillery will like the way you are thumbing your nose at his/her/their numerous
>precedents at treating snips as described. Some treatments were even
>supplemented by the deceitful "You never learn."

PeeWee Peter's comments above and below make no distinction between
deleting transparent obfuscating noise, and deleting context relevant
to the issues being discussed. His posts suggest PeeWee Peter is
incapable of recognizing what are the issues being discussed. If so,
that would demonstrate as factual "you never learn".

>By the way, you are channeling Ron O here [metaphorically, of course]. He acts as though
>running away were a blot on one's reputation, and he's so sick he actually believes it
>to the extent that he leaves in mountains of lines unanswered *below* where he signs off.
>That is where his sick mind draws the line, snipping vs. leaving in unanswered,
>between running away and not running away.

PeeWee Peter practices "heads I win, tails you lose". There's just no
pleasing some trolls.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-23 04:31:45 +0000, Ron Dean said:

> On Dec 22, 2022 at 5:18:24 PM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

[ … ]

>> I have known plenty of Catholics including myself who struggle from
>> time to time with various aspects of their faith and their Catholicism
>> but I have never known any who would describe themselves as agnostic.
>>
> In my experience, Catholics are caring, devoted and trustworthy.

Just like most atheists, in fact.

> Even though
> I'm not Catholic I admire and respect Catholics. I attend a United Methodist
> Church frequently, I never hear them "bad mouth" any other denominations
> Methodist generally consider themselves a branch of the "catholic church"
> (universal) Christ's Church. In their creed, every Sunday, Methodist state
> these word, "I believe in the holy catholic church......": of which they
> regard
> themselves as part of or as members.

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

[Lawyer Daggett]

Now you're just being irrationally defensive.
Having lost one's belief is in no way the same as being ambivalent about
the existence of the god they used to believe in. We've been referencing
people who would like to believe, would love to be able to convince
themselves about the existence of their god, but just can't. That's not
ambivalence.
And I'm struggling to understand the harm you suggest? Surely belief
comes in a spectrum with varying levels of doubt in some who do believe.
Would you be harmed by the discovery that someone who counseled you
struggled with doubts? Why?

> Again bear in mind that I am not talking about the doubts that we all
> experience in various aspects of our lives, not just religion; I am
> talking about someone *publicly declaring* themselves as agnostic and
> still claiming to be a Catholic, not to mention a competent judge of
> other people's Catholicism.

What's wrong with publicly declaring one's inner truth? They should lie
about their doubts? Is agnostic a dirty word or an accurate word to
cover someone who says they just don't know?

Maybe you've reconciled yourself with a meaning of, or standard of belief
that's rather permissive. Maybe others have different standards. I've met
people who can somehow say that they choose to believe. I don't really
understand that but I don't question that it represents their truth. For my
part, it isn't something that one can choose. It's where your needle lands
and pretending it landed somewhere else is just about lying to yourself.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think that life and faith are complicated and that people's motives are complex.

>
> Again bear in mind that I am not talking about the doubts that we all
> experience in various aspects of our lives, not just religion; I am
> talking about someone *publicly declaring* themselves as agnostic and
> still claiming to be a Catholic, not to mention a competent judge of
> other people's Catholicism.

Yes, you're talking about one individual. I'm talking about the phrase itself, which I do not think is a bad description of a number of practicing Catholics.

[Burkhard]

I tried to trace down an aphorism I remembered, "The French do not have
a religion, and the religion they don't have is Catholicism" - but
failed so far. I did find however this nice article

https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-ness-of-secular-france/

Which contains the following statistics:

"The majority of the French population still identifies in some way as
Catholic, but markedly, 31 percent of those who identify as Catholic say
that they do not personally believe in God "

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:06:43 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"

Well we started off with one individual. I understand your argument
but I think you are stretching the phrase well beyond its elastic
limit.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:59:05 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

If someone categorically declares themselves agnostic, that goes
beyond what you are describing there.

>And I'm struggling to understand the harm you suggest?

The sense of betrayal coming from taking advice and guidance from
someone they trusted implicitly only to later find out that person did
not believe in the advice and guidance that they were giving.

>Surely belief
>comes in a spectrum with varying levels of doubt in some who do believe.
>Would you be harmed by the discovery that someone who counseled you
>struggled with doubts? Why?

We're not talking about *struggling with doubts*, we're talking about
someone categorically declaring themselves agnostic.

>
>> Again bear in mind that I am not talking about the doubts that we all
>> experience in various aspects of our lives, not just religion; I am
>> talking about someone *publicly declaring* themselves as agnostic and
>> still claiming to be a Catholic, not to mention a competent judge of
>> other people's Catholicism.
>
>What's wrong with publicly declaring one's inner truth?

Nothing whatsoever, I regard it as something to be encouraged. I was
responding to Bill's suggestion that priests and ministers might keep
their doubts to themselves and act as if they were still believers.

>They should lie
>about their doubts?

Absolutely not - I'm saying the opposite.

>Is agnostic a dirty word or an accurate word to
>cover someone who says they just don't know?

Nothing dirty about it if people are honest about it. I see nothing
honest about someone claiming to be agnostic but still religious, at
best it comes across as something of a Pascal's Wager approach.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 12:19:14 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

That takes us back to a thread a while ago about "What is a
Christian?" with 'Catholic' replacing 'Christian'. Anyone can label
themselves as Catholic but, at the risk of engaging true Scotsmen, I
think the validity of that label is dependent on the degree to which
they follow recognised Catholic practice. For example, I would find it
difficult to place value on a claim of Catholicism from someone who
only attends Mass for weddings and funerals.

I think some of the dichotomy comes from people confusing Catholic
*culture* with religious teaching. Many people who would have little
time for the Church's religious teachings would still place a high
value on the culture around it. For example, I don't know if it is
still the case but in the past, many Protestants in the UK would have
gone through various hoops to get their children into Catholic schools
as they felt they would get a better, more rounded education.

David Aaronovitch wrote an interesting article in the Times a few
weeks ago, "As an atheist, declining religion worries me." He is
pleased to see the decline in religion but worries about the loss of
various good values he thinks it added to society and his uncertainty
that they can be replaced.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/as-an-atheist-declining-religion-worries-me-nsd3kll3n
(paywalled)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Catholicism as with Judaism has an enculturation aspect. There are those
who are Jewish yet no longer believe. Catholicism isn’t as much an ethnic
label though. Funnily a friend who is Catholic and has Jewish heritage
refers to herself as a Cashew. She’s got Central European roots, but
there’s probably a lot of that going on in Latin America (distant Jewish
heritage…practicing Catholic).

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:59:05 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

BTW, I'm not sure we should really be arguing about this stuff in
public. Does that not infringe Rule #1 of the See No Evil, Speak No
Evil Alliance Against Peter that we all signed up to?

[Lawyer Daggett]

Well I never get any christmas cards from any of you people so
I'm quitting the evil cabal alliance and burning my official "we
are Howard Hershey" membership card.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 07:44:44 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

Sorry to be letting the side down but can some of you USians explain
who Howard Hershey is or was?

[John Harshman]

Howard Hershey was a TO poster who frequently argued with Peter. And
Peter accused several other posters of being his sock puppets, because
who else would disagree with Peter? Thus was born the Hershey Collective
(Motto: "Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.")

[*Hemidactylus*]

I’m afraid once the suspense dissipates from the Big Posting Break sendoff
party tonight, petty cabalist infighting will commence and last until the
Great Triumphant Return of 2023 when some will applaud how polite and
cordial he will seem before the facade erodes. Still too soon for a New
Year’s prediction?

[Martin Harran]

Thx for your explanation - sounds like I'm eligible for full
membership :)

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:35:53 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden"

<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-12-23 04:31:45 +0000, Ron Dean said:
>
>> On Dec 22, 2022 at 5:18:24 PM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
> [ … ]
>
>>> I have known plenty of Catholics including myself who struggle from
>>> time to time with various aspects of their faith and their Catholicism
>>> but I have never known any who would describe themselves as agnostic.
>>>
>> In my experience, Catholics are caring, devoted and trustworthy.
>
> Just like most atheists, in fact.
>

I do _not_ deny this!

[DB Cates]

There was a slew of "I am Sparticus^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Howard Hershey"
posts from participants at the time (Raises hand). Where is *your*
confession 'Howard'?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Lawyer Daggett]

Here's a snippet that is from 1998.
[quote]
. Any such statement by me is rash because talk.origins
. is the stomping grounds of a person or persons
. posting variously from her...@indiana.edu and
. hers...@indiana.edu, and it is absolutely impossible
. to predict what statement of mine outside pure mathematics ...
[ end quote]

This was not the beginning of the paranoia about Howard
being some syndicate of provocateurs. It was just part of
the continuation of the insanity.

Many an observer would say that the participants of the
time were a bit cruel in the ways they taunted he who invented
this conspiracy theory, thinking that it clearly indicated a
troubled mind that should be pitied. But the thing is, it
came from somebody who was doing their best to try to be
a bully.

Picking on the weird kid is an ugly thing, but when the weird
kid habitually shows up to the playground and throws rocks
at the other kids, he's going to get his ass kicked. When it happens
on the internet, he ignores that he just got his ass kicked and
keeps throwing more rocks.

[Burkhard]

Well, but in that case you simply define yourself correct, no?
Trivially, if you define "catholic" as being someone who believes in the
trinity etc etc, then you won't find any who declare themselves to be
agnostic.

>
> I think some of the dichotomy comes from people confusing Catholic
> *culture* with religious teaching. Many people who would have little
> time for the Church's religious teachings would still place a high
> value on the culture around it.

Sure, and that's pretty much what the article I linked argues as well.
But why should one accept that their understanding what being catholic
means (i.e. a membership in a cultural group with shared practices) is
the only right one?

[Burkhard]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 4:40:22 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> There are a lot of personal comments, as usual with t.o., in the thread `Dawin of the Gaps,' and it is cluttering up the thread pretty badly, so I decided to create
>>>> a new thread to which I move purely personal replies to purely personal posts.
>>>
>>> That is also true of a post by Glenn that I think is worth pondering. Here we go.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 7:35:24 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:25:23 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 12/18/22 12:17 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> If I find a gum wrapper by a trail in the park, should I assume a
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>> dropped it nearby, or that God created a gum wrapper there? Since I
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> no other people around and have no hope of discovering who dropped it,
>>>>>>>>> you, presumably, would favor the creation by God option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glenn has disposed of this idiotic attempt at analogy, and I expect
>>>>>>> you, Burk, to be helpless at helping Mark out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't know about that. What did Glen say? "You have farted", the
>>>>>> rapier wit of which left Mark bereft of a response? Or something equally
>>>>>> erudite? Whatever it was, I'm fully confident Mark can deal with it just
>>>>>> fine.
>>>
>>> Naturally, neither Mark nor his pinch hitter, jillery, informed Burk about the content.
>>> So he is as helpless as ever.
>>>
>>>> Peter, you don't really have any more respect for Burkhard than you do for Mark, right?
>>>
>>> That is very true. Burkhard had me fooled for years, claiming that he killfiled me because
>>> I spend too much time at personal conflicts. I finally got him to un-killfile me, and we had
>>> a reasonable set of conversations before he totally blew his "neutralist" cover,
>>> ranting and raving at me because I had dared to expose John Harshman's despicable
>>> behavior in sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>> First time you spun this story one could attribute it to your usual
>> reading comprehension problems.
>
> That's another scam of yours, one that you've gone into denial about
> each time I tried to explain why what I wrote was nothing of the sort.

You mean when you promised, several times, to "give evidence for your
claim" - and then threw a hissy fit when I reminded you that it was
still not forthcoming?

>
> But that's kid stuff compared to the way Mark Isaak, John Harshman
> and Hemidactylus gaslighted me when I caught John lying about having
> caught me in a reading comprehension problem.
>
> They never dared to even allude to the existence of my demonstration
> that it WAS a lie, they kept telling me that I was in need of psychiatric
> counseling "for [my] own good".
>
> Before I knew what gaslighting was, I thought Mark was just living
> up to his superlative, "the most self-righteously dishonest regular in talk.origins."
> Namely, he was self-righteously adhering to a subjective, twisted form of
> morality, whereby being told a very unpleasant truth by an adversary
> about himself or a friend/ally of his is FAR more a thing to be ashamed
> of than deceit, even libel, by himself or a friend/ally of his.
>
> You also seem to live by that twisted morality.
> Do you know what 'gaslighting' means, by the way?

I'm perfectly aware of the oeuvre of Hitchcock, and the denominalisation
of one of its titles, yes

>
>
> >After repeated corrections, it's now
>> simply a lie.
>
> You never tried to correct me on this ORIGINAL blowing of your cover, liar.
> You kept confusing it with the SECOND time you ranted and raved against me,
> for something that was public knowledge: that Harshman has admitted to
> being an unemployed biologist on LinkedIn.

Well, that was the best match for the above. And while I have called out
your bullying on other occasins as well, none of them matches the
description you give any better, and they too had clearly nothing to do
with you "exposing despicable behaviour"

Of course, if the entire event only happened in your imagination, then
it would indeed be true that I did not correct that fantasy
>
>
>>> John had pandered to Oxyaena's worst instincts,
>>> including Oxyaena's favorite habit of calling others, including myself, victims of
>>> the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>>>
>>> John's pandering to this habit fueled an intensified campaign against me
>>> by Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, until I took the drastic step of putting
>>> both in a *de facto* killfile for the rest of 2019. This was the state of affairs
>>> when Burkhard blew his "neutralist" cover with torrents of abuse for
>>> daring to air John's dirty linen in public.
>>>
>>> So intense was his abuse that it attracted the attention of two other
>>> "neutralists," Bill Rogers and, through him, Ernest Major, and they too blew their covers
>>> by making personal attacks on me, without any attempt to justify their generic insults
>>> with identification of specific incidents.
>
> It's interesting that you are struck mute by all this documentable history,
> having supposedly "corrected" me on it often. So mute, that no words
> of yours appear anywhere below. [But plenty *about* you do.]

Really nothing of substance in there to merit a reply - the
documentABLE" as opposed to "documented" doing way too much work here
>
> You blew your cover after Harshman asked, in a gaslighting way,
> whether I was often "this way." But he gave NO HINT that what I was saying was untrue.
> He knew that I could document it.
>
> Were you fooled by this, or did you play along with it by accusing me
> of persistent "unethical" behavior that you never tried to identify,
> even after I asked tactfully about it? I was tactful because I thought Harshman
> HAD fooled you, and I wanted to let you retract what you had written
> without losing much face.
>
> But you weren't fooled, were you?
>
>>>
>>> What made Burk's original killfile claim plausible was that he had killfiled Ron Okimoto, of all people,
>>> years before, and the last straw was an abusive response by Ron O to me, of all people!
>>>
>>> But that's another story for another post.
>
> It still is that, and will probably remain so when I go on my posting break tomorrow.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I've deleted nothing below.
>>>
>>>
>>> And here's Burk, illustrating his immature behavior that has been a mainstay
>>> of his replies to me ever since he blew his cover:
>>>
>>>>> Actually not, for the simple reason that I don't read Glenn's posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come to think of it, that surely qualifies as dealing with them just fine.
>>>
>>> Burk is a nonentity where biology is concerned, and so he is naturally
>>> not interested in your on-topic contributions.
>>>
>>> But they are there, if rather sporadic, and I talked about two of them in sci.bio.paleontology,
>>> to Erik Simpson and John Harshman. I let them know that I learned a lot from them,
>>> and that they had misrepresented them.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, that is about how you "deal" with everyone that isn't what you think is a creationist.
>>>> Your gum wrapper spiel is what you think "deals" with Peter's claims, and is tantamount to
>>>> "I just farted", and about as close to not reading Peter's posts as one could get.
>>>
>>> Not quite true, sometimes he makes what look to him and others like reasonable responses,
>>> so I have to tread carefully there.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I think he is secretly happy that his buddy Hemidactylus
>>> appropriated "I just farted" for his own use against me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're really afraid to read my posts, which is why you play the "killfile" game. Sad.
>>>
>>> In hindsight, I believe that this was true when he played that game against me
>>> for about five years or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>