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
>>>
>