Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Something rotten in talk.origins: virtual witch-hunts
401 views
Skip to first unread message
pnyikos
Jan 22, 2013, 5:38:18 PM1/22/13
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
analogues of witchcraft.
To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "QJ"
accusing "NH," with FS saying:
"[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
"witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
"People DIE because of people like NH."
NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
"OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
below) read as follows:
"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
witch-hunts.
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
analogues of witchcraft.
To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "QJ"
accusing "NH," with FS saying:
"[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
"witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
"People DIE because of people like NH."
NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
"OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
below) read as follows:
"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
witch-hunts.
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
pnyikos
Jan 22, 2013, 8:05:53 PM1/22/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 22, 5:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "qj"
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
> accusing "NH," with FS saying:
> "[QJ] was right that [NH] was antisemitic, also that [NH]
> was a Holcaust denier, also that [NH] was pro-Nazi."
The following words are taken from the Quote of the Week [see end of
> "[QJ] was right that [NH] was antisemitic, also that [NH]
> was a Holcaust denier, also that [NH] was pro-Nazi."
this post]:
Anyone who defended accused witches or denied
their crimes deserved the same punishment as witches,
Bodin wrote.
of the "witchcraft" charges against others are sometimes accused of
"defending" them or "denying their crimes". One person who had asked
for evidence of the above charges against "NH" was "SG" told the
following late last year by "QJ":
"One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and
check it out yourself. People DIE because of people
like [NH]."
Note the implication that SG is partly guilty of NH still having his
own website ("are still around") and thereby, indirectly being
responsible for people DYING. This is one kind of punishment I was
referring to in my first post, claims of responsiblity for:
> dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
post thread, repeatedly asked for evidence of the charges of
"antisemitism," "Holocaust denier" and "pro-Nazi."
SG got proof from FS about the charge of antisemitism, and then SG
held NH's feet to the fire on that charge in post after post.
However, to exonerate himself from the attack by QJ quoted above, SG
would have had to either acquiesce in the under-supported assertion of
NH being a "Holocaust denier" and the unsupported one of "Nazi" or
else dig up evidence for these two charges himself.
FS kept SG "in the doghouse" a few days after QJ's comments with:
"Anyone interested in exactly how depraved [SG] was, and have a
strong stomach, may search Google Groups, using "[SG] [NH]
holocaust."
Anyone taking FS at his word here would naturally start with the
nearly 300 post thread referred to above, inasmuch as it is the only
thread FS mentioned explicitly in this connection. The Subject line
frequently was (the undocumented) "[NH] the Nazi." But no evidence of
"Nazi" ever came out in that thread, quite in line with:
""Not one witch in a million would be accused or
punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure
were governed by ordinary rules."
Tomorrow: how SG tried to exonerate himself using ordinary rules of
evidence.
> QUOTE OF THE WEEK
> The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> --http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jan 22, 2013, 9:19:16 PM1/22/13
to
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
I'm not ostracising you, I just choose not to read your contributions...
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
or is that the same thing?
Indeed I'm inclined to complain about people who are /not/ ostracising
you. But, come to think, I would have to talk to you if they didn't.
pnyikos
Jan 22, 2013, 10:21:41 PM1/22/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 22, 9:19�pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
accused of the analogue of witchcraft are met by repetition of the
charges, often by many accusers, while the things the accused actually
posts are almost completely ignored and are usually snipped.
> Indeed I'm inclined to complain about people who are /not/ ostracising
> you. �But, come to think, I would have to talk to you if they didn't.
I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
elsewhere and then been brought here?
I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
here so long ago.
We talk a lot about the pros and cons of this hypothesis on the FAQ
thread. I try to make due allowance for all the criticisms, and I'm
not insistent on the truth of directed panspermia; my current feeling
about the odds for it are that they are between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1.
It all sounds like science fiction to a lot of participants, but I
stay within the bounds of mainstream science when assessing the
evidence pro and con.
Peter Nyikos
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �wrote:
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> I'm not ostracising you, I just choose not to read your contributions...
> or is that the same thing?
Far from it. Ostracism, the way I use it, means that posts by the one
> On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �wrote:
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> I'm not ostracising you, I just choose not to read your contributions...
> or is that the same thing?
accused of the analogue of witchcraft are met by repetition of the
charges, often by many accusers, while the things the accused actually
posts are almost completely ignored and are usually snipped.
> Indeed I'm inclined to complain about people who are /not/ ostracising
> you. �But, come to think, I would have to talk to you if they didn't.
every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
elsewhere and then been brought here?
I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
here so long ago.
We talk a lot about the pros and cons of this hypothesis on the FAQ
thread. I try to make due allowance for all the criticisms, and I'm
not insistent on the truth of directed panspermia; my current feeling
about the odds for it are that they are between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1.
It all sounds like science fiction to a lot of participants, but I
stay within the bounds of mainstream science when assessing the
evidence pro and con.
Peter Nyikos
raven1
Jan 23, 2013, 10:32:03 AM1/23/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
>"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
>"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
eridanus
Jan 23, 2013, 11:39:13 AM1/23/13
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
El martes, 22 de enero de 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos escribi�:
oh, dear. You look a little paranoid. Some people is more prone
than other to scorn someone else, or to demean him. But this is not
a general rule, even if it seem to you that a particular offender
have some allies.
Follow the Asiatic saying, "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
It is from the proverbial three sage monkeys.
I will add another advice, "remember not evil". We have not a figurine
for this saying, as it is difficult to make a monkey figurine that
shows a monkey that do not remember.
Follow the yellow brick road of "forgetfulness". "Forget" and you will be
forgiven. It must be also a sort of sin to remember offenses.
Try your best to forget, dear. Your karma would be enhanced and grow
much in virtue. You even can achieve the enlightenment. Try to forget.
Eridanus
than other to scorn someone else, or to demean him. But this is not
a general rule, even if it seem to you that a particular offender
have some allies.
Follow the Asiatic saying, "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
It is from the proverbial three sage monkeys.
I will add another advice, "remember not evil". We have not a figurine
for this saying, as it is difficult to make a monkey figurine that
shows a monkey that do not remember.
Follow the yellow brick road of "forgetfulness". "Forget" and you will be
forgiven. It must be also a sort of sin to remember offenses.
Try your best to forget, dear. Your karma would be enhanced and grow
much in virtue. You even can achieve the enlightenment. Try to forget.
Eridanus
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jan 23, 2013, 1:21:34 PM1/23/13
to
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
Apparently I am. Sorry.
> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
> The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> elsewhere and then been brought here?
>
> I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> here so long ago.
the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
evolution. And I'm sceptical whether you really faťvour this as
a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
already raised these issues.
eridanus
Jan 23, 2013, 1:41:42 PM1/23/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 23 de enero de 2013 18:21:34 UTC, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org escribi�:
another part of the universe or the galaxy. It is more or less
to say that "god did it". What problem could have this planet
to start a new life in form of a bacteria or any other "living"
and simpler organism?
On the other hand, I do not see any problem if someone adds,
"well besides the genuinely earth organisms, a few other came
from outer space". It is not that I consider probably or even
necessary that life could had come from outer space; but perhaps
even if improbably it cannot be deemed impossible.
Eridanus
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
>
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>
>
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
>
> >
>
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>
> > here so long ago.
>
>
>
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>
> the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
>
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
>
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
>
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
>
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
>
> evolution. And I'm sceptical whether you really fa�vour this as
>
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
>
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>
>
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
>
> >
>
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>
> > here so long ago.
>
>
>
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>
> the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
>
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
>
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
>
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
>
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
>
>
> a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
>
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
>
> already raised these issues.
it makes not any sense to me, to postulate the start of life in
> a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
>
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
>
> already raised these issues.
another part of the universe or the galaxy. It is more or less
to say that "god did it". What problem could have this planet
to start a new life in form of a bacteria or any other "living"
and simpler organism?
On the other hand, I do not see any problem if someone adds,
"well besides the genuinely earth organisms, a few other came
from outer space". It is not that I consider probably or even
necessary that life could had come from outer space; but perhaps
even if improbably it cannot be deemed impossible.
Eridanus
pnyikos
Jan 23, 2013, 1:57:52 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 10:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
By the way, "raven," might you be someone who posted under a different
name in 1995-2001 and played the above "definition" to the hilt by
asking people denouncing him for dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc whether
they wanted cheese/brie with their whine?
Peter Nyikos
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jan 23, 2013, 2:05:25 PM1/23/13
to
On 23 jan, 18:21, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
many in favor of a terrestrial origin that this hypothesis is totally
devoid of interest presently.
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos �wrote:
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
> Apparently I am. �Sorry.
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > here so long ago.
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
> evolution. �And I'm sceptical whether you really fa vour this as
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos �wrote:
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
> Apparently I am. �Sorry.
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > here so long ago.
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
> a non-supernatural explanation. �Basically, these are questions
> that I wasn't going to ask. �But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
I totally agree with you that "that only pushes the question of the
> that I wasn't going to ask. �But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
origin of life back to the origin of the intelligent alien species"
and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
many in favor of a terrestrial origin that this hypothesis is totally
devoid of interest presently.
pnyikos
Jan 23, 2013, 2:25:45 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 11:39�am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El martes, 22 de enero de 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �escribi :
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> > accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
FS's statement below is in clear violation of your recommendations
> El martes, 22 de enero de 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �escribi :
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> > accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
below, eridanus, to "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
> > � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> > � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> > Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> > "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> > � "People DIE because of people like NH."
A violation by QJ, don't you agree, eridanus?
>
> > Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> > "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> > � "People DIE because of people like NH."
> > NH did his last Usenet post in 2008,
> > but his case was recalled because
> > of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> > wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> > "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> > His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> > below) read as follows:
>
> > �"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
> > �pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
> > In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
> > attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to
> > these two witch-hunts.
>
>
> > The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> > such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> > century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> > Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> > exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> > had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> > punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> > rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> > deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> > � �--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
>
> oh, dear. �You look a little paranoid.
What you say below doesn't even begin to support this "diagnosis" of
> > The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> > such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> > century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> > Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> > exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> > had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> > punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> > rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> > deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> > � �--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
>
> oh, dear. �You look a little paranoid.
yours. If anything, it undermines it, as I've already suggested
above.
>�Some people is more prone
> than other to scorn someone else, or to demean him.
Yup, especially QJ and FS, as documented above. Your use of
"paranoid" above suggests that you too have caught their tendency.
> But this is not
> a general rule, even if it seem to you that a particular offender
> have some allies.
>
> Follow the Asiatic saying, "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
places.
> It is from the proverbial three sage monkeys.
> I will add another advice, "remember not evil".
about in my second post took place way back in 2001. It was FS who
first mentioned it, and then QJ leaped in wholeheartedly, as you can
see above.
A far cry from my "remembering" something that happened in November-
December of 2012.
>�We have not a figurine
> for this saying, as it is difficult to make a monkey figurine that
> shows a monkey that do not remember.
>
> Follow the yellow brick road of "forgetfulness". "Forget" and you will be
> forgiven. �It must be also a sort of sin to remember offenses.
> Try your best to forget, dear. �Your karma would be enhanced and grow
> much in virtue. �You even can achieve the enlightenment. �Try to forget.
>
> Eridanus
Are you a Hindu? a Buddhist?
> shows a monkey that do not remember.
>
> Follow the yellow brick road of "forgetfulness". "Forget" and you will be
> forgiven. �It must be also a sort of sin to remember offenses.
> Try your best to forget, dear. �Your karma would be enhanced and grow
> much in virtue. �You even can achieve the enlightenment. �Try to forget.
>
> Eridanus
Anyway, your solicitations for me are better directed towards QJ and
FS. "Google is your friend," should you wish to look up their
statements where they were originally uttered.
Peter Nyikos
Desertphile
Jan 23, 2013, 2:36:25 PM1/23/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming
chris thompson
Jan 23, 2013, 2:38:59 PM1/23/13
to
yourself in the same league as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Karl
Marx (um, his writing was turgid to the bursting point, so no envy
points there), Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Shakespeare and the Bible.
Hubris much, do you?
Chris
pnyikos
Jan 23, 2013, 2:41:20 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 1:21 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
issue;
B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
where the origin of life is concerned?
This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
life ON EARTH.
============= end of entry
I believe that the panspermists arose via abiogenesis on their home
planet, but that isn't part of the directed panspermia hypothesis
itself.
incorporated it into Section B of the FAQ already.
The key here is that the early universe had a far greater number
supergiants, going supernova and spewing heavier elements into the
cosmos, than it does now; and so 8 billion years ago, when the
universe was already 5 billion years old, planets formed then may have
had a good number of heavier elements.
> you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
or lots of other things which would have made my reply to you over
1000 lines long. The FAQ thread is there, and I've given you the
Subject line, and I'd love to have you on board there.
Here is the url for the first section of the FAQ, to help you get
started:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7ca17ee6d7adf6c
[small snip]
> And I'm sceptical whether you really fa vour this as
> a non-supernatural explanation.
I do indeed. I am strongly inclined towards a non-supernatural
explanation myself, and even if it were otherwise, I would still stick
to scientific methodology in my FAQ as far as the evidence goes.
> Basically, these are questions
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
And I've answered them, and many others as well, elsewhere.
Peter Nyikos
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
>
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > here so long ago.
>
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> the origin of the intelligent alien species
Well duh. Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
> > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > elsewhere and then been brought here?
>
> > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > here so long ago.
>
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> the origin of the intelligent alien species
issue;
B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
where the origin of life is concerned?
This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
life ON EARTH.
============= end of entry
I believe that the panspermists arose via abiogenesis on their home
planet, but that isn't part of the directed panspermia hypothesis
itself.
> (presumably in a less
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of),
I've dealt with this issue before, but you are right, I should have
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of),
incorporated it into Section B of the FAQ already.
The key here is that the early universe had a far greater number
supergiants, going supernova and spewing heavier elements into the
cosmos, than it does now; and so 8 billion years ago, when the
universe was already 5 billion years old, planets formed then may have
had a good number of heavier elements.
> you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
1000 lines long. The FAQ thread is there, and I've given you the
Subject line, and I'd love to have you on board there.
Here is the url for the first section of the FAQ, to help you get
started:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7ca17ee6d7adf6c
[small snip]
> And I'm sceptical whether you really fa vour this as
> a non-supernatural explanation.
I do indeed. I am strongly inclined towards a non-supernatural
explanation myself, and even if it were otherwise, I would still stick
to scientific methodology in my FAQ as far as the evidence goes.
> Basically, these are questions
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
Peter Nyikos
John Stockwell
Jan 23, 2013, 2:56:36 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
posts on the average. That is about all of your pompous, self-aggrandizing gasbaggery that I can stand.
-John
pnyikos
Jan 23, 2013, 3:08:33 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 22, 8:05 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
> > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "qj"
> > accusing "NH," with FS saying:
Here are those "witchcraft" charges against [NH] again:
> On Jan 22, 5:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
> > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "qj"
> > accusing "NH," with FS saying:
> > "[QJ] was right that [NH] was antisemitic, also that [NH]
> > was a Holcaust denier, also that [NH] was pro-Nazi."
"I saw unsupported accusations against [NH] just as I see
unsupported accusations galore about [OS] from [FS] in the
paragraph on which you, [kD] have put your stamp of
approval."
QJ took umbrage at this attempt to use ordinary rules [see Quote of
the Week] in these virtual witch-hunts, and shot back with:
"At the time I told you to go google "[NH]" and see for yourself."
To which SG replied immediately:
"That is SOP by the likes of you, telling people to start
looking for evidence that YOU should be familiar with."
And now came the post from which I quoted earlier. QJ's immediate
reply to the above began:
"No [SG], you would not believe me."
and further down was when QJ stated:
> "One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
> is the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and
> check it out yourself. People DIE because of people
> like [NH]."
"I don't believe your unsupported say-so
on much of anything, and that is perfectly
legitimate. It is your refusal to provide
documentation that is the issue here."
SG also wrote, referring to the challenge to Google "NH":
"I did, and it only confirmed what I'd confirmed earlier:
rabid, voluminous anti-semite, gas chamber denier.
But I couldn't find a clear denial of the Holocaust itself,
nor any indication that [NH's] anti-Zionism is motivated
by Nazi ideology."
[Elsewhere, SG also used "anti-semitism" in the same way that he used
"anti-Zionism" on that occasion.]
Nobody replied to the post from which these last two quotes are taken,
even though FS went great guns about NH later on, and QJ did one more
post to that thread, but not in reply to SG.
The silence about this reply of SG's may be due to the way SG handled
QJ's by now familiar statement about people dying because of people
like NH, etc.
But that documentation will have to wait until tomorrow. Duty calls.
raven1
Jan 23, 2013, 3:37:24 PM1/23/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:57:52 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 10:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
>
>WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>were it made logically consistent and defined
>broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
> it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>and hence would encompass much or all
>of each of the following:
>the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>John the Baptist's denunciation of
>Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
Wow. Self-important much?
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 10:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
>
>WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>were it made logically consistent and defined
>broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
> it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>and hence would encompass much or all
>of each of the following:
>the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>John the Baptist's denunciation of
>Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
>By the way, "raven," might you be someone who posted under a different
>name in 1995-2001 and played the above "definition" to the hilt by
>asking people denouncing him for dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc whether
>they wanted cheese/brie with their whine?
1996.
eridanus
Jan 23, 2013, 4:12:44 PM1/23/13
to Deser...@spammegmail.com
harm whatever. It is just a social teasing to someone that offends easily.
Eridanus
eridanus
Jan 23, 2013, 4:08:46 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
El mi�rcoles, 23 de enero de 2013 19:25:45 UTC, pnyikos escribi�:
modification" technology.
In behavior modification, when one observes an "undesired" behavior
on a child or even on adult, it is pertinent to ask, "what variable
is reinforcing this behavior?" It is in general considered, that
any behavior that repeats itself often, is "reinforced" by some sort
of pleasant contingency, in common English you can call it a "reward"
Then, the reward someone is taking by demeaning you, or offending you
somewhat, is to see your replies getting angry, or showing you were
hurt. I learned this first time during the military service, when I
was about twenty years old. Then, when a thug wanted to offend me
telling some teasing comments, I replied to him with clear smile.
This smile probably told him, "I know you. We come from the same mean streets." Then, he did not tried again to tease me, by proving how
sensible I was. In general, a group of thugs is always proving who
is sensible, to tease and harass him. It is quite pleasant for thugs
to see them mortified.
With this end my recommendations. It does not mean I endorse any of
your theories or believes about this or that. On the other hand, I
don't even know what are you really postulating. I rarely read your
post, or perhaps I do not understand your way of reasoning. This must
be the reason I had the feeling that I do not read your posts.
Summing up, I really do not know what is the real problem behind the
harassing you are suffering.
Then, the next question is "how do you need to enlighten people
on this forum with questions they reject?" You have not any need
to enlighten anyone in this planet.
There is a minimum capacity of social verbal communication. The
capacity of communication among two person is a function of how
much they have in common.
In fact, when a person hears something that is not stored in its
mind, it means something.
a) it has been rejected long ago, when he heard about it.
b) He had never heard about. Then it is suspicious of being false.
Why false? Any educated person is conscious he is informed about
all the relevant questions that must be known.
c) He has some arguments to reject the suspicious argument he has
heard. And try to counter-enlighten the other person about how wrong
he is.
d) if the person that presented the rejected argument do not accept
the counter-enlightening, it start some sort of dialectical war, that
can become very nasty.
Resuming my comments, social niceties are very easy to result when you
agree with the person you are talking to but not when the disagreements
become total or nearly so.
As a famous book I never read about how to make friends, it seems it
advised to agree with your interlocutor is almost everything.
I you want to be happy, you must agree with the arguments of the people
you are talking with.
Eridanus
Then, to stay here, there must exist a minimum of interest in what
people here is saying. If they are not saying anything of interest
the best attitude is to leave the place.
> On Jan 23, 11:39�am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El martes, 22 de enero de 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �escribi :
>
>
>
> > > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >
>
> > > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >
>
> > > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
>
> > > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>
> > > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
>
> > > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>
> > > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> >
>
> > > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
>
> > > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
>
> > > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> >
>
> > > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
>
> > > accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
>
>
> FS's statement below is in clear violation of your recommendations
>
> below, eridanus, to "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
>
>
>
> > > � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
>
> > > � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> >
>
> > > Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
>
> > > "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> >
>
> > > � "People DIE because of people like NH."
>
>
>
> A violation by QJ, don't you agree, eridanus?
>
>
>
> > > NH did his last Usenet post in 2008,
>
>
>
> "remember not evil," you wrote below, eridanus. Comments?
My general comment is as follows. It comes directly from "behavior
>
> > El martes, 22 de enero de 2013 22:38:18 UTC, pnyikos �escribi :
>
>
>
> > > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >
>
> > > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >
>
> > > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
>
> > > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>
> > > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
>
> > > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>
> > > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> >
>
> > > To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
>
> > > witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
>
> > > letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> >
>
> > > Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
>
> > > accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
>
>
> FS's statement below is in clear violation of your recommendations
>
> below, eridanus, to "hear not evil, see not evil, talk no evil."
>
>
>
> > > � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
>
> > > � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> >
>
> > > Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
>
> > > "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> >
>
> > > � "People DIE because of people like NH."
>
>
>
> A violation by QJ, don't you agree, eridanus?
>
>
>
> > > NH did his last Usenet post in 2008,
>
>
>
> "remember not evil," you wrote below, eridanus. Comments?
modification" technology.
In behavior modification, when one observes an "undesired" behavior
on a child or even on adult, it is pertinent to ask, "what variable
is reinforcing this behavior?" It is in general considered, that
any behavior that repeats itself often, is "reinforced" by some sort
of pleasant contingency, in common English you can call it a "reward"
Then, the reward someone is taking by demeaning you, or offending you
somewhat, is to see your replies getting angry, or showing you were
hurt. I learned this first time during the military service, when I
was about twenty years old. Then, when a thug wanted to offend me
telling some teasing comments, I replied to him with clear smile.
This smile probably told him, "I know you. We come from the same mean streets." Then, he did not tried again to tease me, by proving how
sensible I was. In general, a group of thugs is always proving who
is sensible, to tease and harass him. It is quite pleasant for thugs
to see them mortified.
With this end my recommendations. It does not mean I endorse any of
your theories or believes about this or that. On the other hand, I
don't even know what are you really postulating. I rarely read your
post, or perhaps I do not understand your way of reasoning. This must
be the reason I had the feeling that I do not read your posts.
Summing up, I really do not know what is the real problem behind the
harassing you are suffering.
Then, the next question is "how do you need to enlighten people
on this forum with questions they reject?" You have not any need
to enlighten anyone in this planet.
There is a minimum capacity of social verbal communication. The
capacity of communication among two person is a function of how
much they have in common.
In fact, when a person hears something that is not stored in its
mind, it means something.
a) it has been rejected long ago, when he heard about it.
b) He had never heard about. Then it is suspicious of being false.
Why false? Any educated person is conscious he is informed about
all the relevant questions that must be known.
c) He has some arguments to reject the suspicious argument he has
heard. And try to counter-enlighten the other person about how wrong
he is.
d) if the person that presented the rejected argument do not accept
the counter-enlightening, it start some sort of dialectical war, that
can become very nasty.
Resuming my comments, social niceties are very easy to result when you
agree with the person you are talking to but not when the disagreements
become total or nearly so.
As a famous book I never read about how to make friends, it seems it
advised to agree with your interlocutor is almost everything.
I you want to be happy, you must agree with the arguments of the people
you are talking with.
Eridanus
Then, to stay here, there must exist a minimum of interest in what
people here is saying. If they are not saying anything of interest
the best attitude is to leave the place.
eridanus
Jan 23, 2013, 4:26:45 PM1/23/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
El mi�rcoles, 23 de enero de 2013 19:41:20 UTC, pnyikos escribi�:
oh, man if people here is tired of your argument of panspermia,
why to you insist in presenting it? Kick out the whole thing,
man. It is easier to postulate that "god didit". At least is
a topic much older and has a lot more of partisans.
Try to talk about another different topic. Of course, it is better
if you pass a time in banishment and come back with another nick.
And of course, bring a different topic to chat. Preferable one that
is suppose to be stored in the brains of people here.
To speak about topics people do not know, or do not understand (it is
about the same thing) is like talking to them in a foreign language
they do not understand. It is sort of offensive.
In other words, never try to be more intelligent than the people you
talking to, or try to be talking with.
If you are telling me something I do not know, I must feel somewhat
threatened in my self-esteem. A question apart is that you can be
right or wrong. But if I do not understand the matter, I tend to think
it is a silly theory, or a silly thing.
I am talking of psychology. It does not determine if an argument
rejected is valid or not.
Eridanus
why to you insist in presenting it? Kick out the whole thing,
man. It is easier to postulate that "god didit". At least is
a topic much older and has a lot more of partisans.
Try to talk about another different topic. Of course, it is better
if you pass a time in banishment and come back with another nick.
And of course, bring a different topic to chat. Preferable one that
is suppose to be stored in the brains of people here.
To speak about topics people do not know, or do not understand (it is
about the same thing) is like talking to them in a foreign language
they do not understand. It is sort of offensive.
In other words, never try to be more intelligent than the people you
talking to, or try to be talking with.
If you are telling me something I do not know, I must feel somewhat
threatened in my self-esteem. A question apart is that you can be
right or wrong. But if I do not understand the matter, I tend to think
it is a silly theory, or a silly thing.
I am talking of psychology. It does not determine if an argument
rejected is valid or not.
Eridanus
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 4:46:56 PM1/23/13
to
On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
Peter turned me into a newt!
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
Malygris
Jan 23, 2013, 4:56:55 PM1/23/13
to
--
Malygris
Burkhard
Jan 23, 2013, 4:58:40 PM1/23/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 5:03:51 PM1/23/13
to
Robert Camp
Jan 23, 2013, 5:05:52 PM1/23/13
to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Newt_Gingrich_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg
That one's still waiting to get better.
RLC
Burkhard
Jan 23, 2013, 5:53:00 PM1/23/13
to
Michael Siemon
Jan 23, 2013, 6:15:05 PM1/23/13
to
In article
<7474c22c-0a94-4532...@x18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Possibly the gingrich that stole something or other...
<7474c22c-0a94-4532...@x18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 6:22:10 PM1/23/13
to
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 7:22:08 PM1/23/13
to
Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
>> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>> analogues of witchcraft.
>Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
No, no! Stoning is the accepted method you heretic!
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
>> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>> analogues of witchcraft.
>Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 7:28:29 PM1/23/13
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[deletions[
>> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>> the origin of the intelligent alien species
>Well duh. Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
>issue;
>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>where the origin of life is concerned?
>This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>life ON EARTH.
>============= end of entry
[more deletions]
So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
This is very clever. The net result of this is to forbid any
discussion of the origins of life, leaving that question open
to supernatural explanation.
I guess it goes as follows:
A: How did life originate on earth?
B: It likely did not, but came here as a directed
panspermy event from planet X.
A: So how did life originate on planet X?
B: We can't answer that.
I'd think that's an example of kicking the can down the
road. Of course, YMMV.
[deletions[
>> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>> the origin of the intelligent alien species
>Well duh. Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
>issue;
>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>where the origin of life is concerned?
>This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>life ON EARTH.
>============= end of entry
So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
This is very clever. The net result of this is to forbid any
discussion of the origins of life, leaving that question open
to supernatural explanation.
I guess it goes as follows:
A: How did life originate on earth?
B: It likely did not, but came here as a directed
panspermy event from planet X.
A: So how did life originate on planet X?
B: We can't answer that.
I'd think that's an example of kicking the can down the
road. Of course, YMMV.
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 7:32:32 PM1/23/13
to
Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
loss to talk.origins?
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 7:33:53 PM1/23/13
to
miscopied to "me a newt".
You know, reproduction with copying errors.
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 7:34:32 PM1/23/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 8:51:54 PM1/23/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 8:53:13 PM1/23/13
to
as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
Michael Siemon
Jan 23, 2013, 9:09:44 PM1/23/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 9:17:41 PM1/23/13
to
least.
Burkhard
Jan 23, 2013, 9:18:58 PM1/23/13
to
On Jan 24, 12:32 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
Paul J Gans
Jan 23, 2013, 9:27:39 PM1/23/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 23, 2013, 9:42:49 PM1/23/13
to
On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>
>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>
>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>
>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>
>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>
> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>
No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author. By the way, there's
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>
>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>
>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>
>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>
>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>
> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>
good evidence that Shakespeare didn't really write Gay Boys in Bondage.
Michael Siemon
Jan 23, 2013, 9:54:11 PM1/23/13
to
William Morse
Jan 23, 2013, 11:51:27 PM1/23/13
to
duck?
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 24, 2013, 12:00:05 AM1/24/13
to
own name.
Mitchell
jillery
Jan 24, 2013, 7:46:23 AM1/24/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:21:34 -0800 (PST), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
>> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
>Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>> The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>> abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>> elsewhere and then been brought here?
>>
>> I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>> species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>> years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>> tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>> here so long ago.
>
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
>> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
>Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>> The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>> abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>> elsewhere and then been brought here?
>>
>> I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>> species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>> years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>> tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>> here so long ago.
>
>Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
>mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
>to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
>why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
>alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
>evolution. And I'm sceptical whether you really fa?vour this as
>a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
>that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
>already raised these issues.
It's as common a trope as geocentrism, and as you point out, for
>already raised these issues.
similar reasons.
jillery
Jan 24, 2013, 7:53:39 AM1/24/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:37:24 -0500, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:57:52 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>>were it made logically consistent and defined
>>broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>>uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
>> it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>>in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>>and hence would encompass much or all
>>of each of the following:
>>the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>>Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>>dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>>in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>>John the Baptist's denunciation of
>>Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>>and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
>
>Wow. Self-important much?
My impression is he can't do it often enough. He is obsessed with
himself.
>>By the way, "raven," might you be someone who posted under a different
>>name in 1995-2001 and played the above "definition" to the hilt by
>>asking people denouncing him for dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc whether
>>they wanted cheese/brie with their whine?
>
>No. This is the only nym I have ever used on Usenet, dating back to
>1996.
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:57:52 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 23, 10:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>>
>>On Jan 23, 10:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>>
>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>
>>> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>
>>> Would monsieur like some cheese with his whine?
>>> >For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>
>>> >"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>
>>
>>WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
>>were it made logically consistent and defined
>>broadly enough to encompass the most influential
>>uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
>> it would mean "anything that can be construed,
>>in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
>>and hence would encompass much or all
>>of each of the following:
>>the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
>>Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
>>dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
>>in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
>>John the Baptist's denunciation of
>>Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
>>and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
>
>Wow. Self-important much?
My impression is he can't do it often enough. He is obsessed with
himself.
>>By the way, "raven," might you be someone who posted under a different
>>name in 1995-2001 and played the above "definition" to the hilt by
>>asking people denouncing him for dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc whether
>>they wanted cheese/brie with their whine?
>
>No. This is the only nym I have ever used on Usenet, dating back to
>1996.
John S. Wilkins
Jan 24, 2013, 8:47:43 AM1/24/13
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," with FS saying:
>
> "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> "People DIE because of people like NH."
>
> NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
> of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> below) read as follows:
>
> "a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
> pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
>
> In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
> attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
> witch-hunts.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> QUOTE OF THE WEEK
> The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> --http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
A List! A List! a veritable List!
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net
Steven L.
Jan 24, 2013, 10:06:44 AM1/24/13
to
On 1/22/2013 5:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
If the punishments are that different, then they deserve a different
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
name from "witch-hunt."
A witch-hunt is when someone is persecuted--actually being
mistreated--for their beliefs. That has not happened. Have you or any
of these other people received death threats or something? I doubt it.
I don't like the use of personal or ad hominem attacks in lieu of sound
argument. And unfortunately that is quite common on the Internet.
But anyone who is actually suffering as a result of such attacks must be
quite sensitive.
Didn't President Truman say: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen"?
--
Steven L.
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 11:26:16 AM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 4:46�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
from me.
I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
are quite isolated.
Peter Nyikos
> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
>
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> Peter turned me into a newt!
Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
from me.
I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
are quite isolated.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 11:28:06 AM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
the twit who got banned for calling you "dad" once too often.
Or did he get banned for something else?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 11:37:00 AM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 4:12�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El mi rcoles, 23 de enero de 2013 19:36:25 UTC, Desertphile �escribi :
>
> > Nemo me impune lacessit.
>
> > "The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming
>
> by example I take this post as a case of joking.
So do I. He comes across like an "eridanus on steroids" who goes
well beyond "monkey see, monkey do."
The most probable alternative that he had the words of "QJ" in mind:
"One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around
is the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass
and check it out yourself. People DIE because of
people like [NH]."
It does sound a bit hysterical, and maybe "Desertphile" figured "QJ"
never meant for these words to be taken seriously.
> It is not intending any
> harm whatever. It is just a social teasing to someone that offends easily.
I may come across that way, because I have no one else in this
newsgroup to set people straight about me. Back in the late 90's
there was one, Joe Potter, but he is long gone.
In contrast, people like "QJ" are grandfathered into this newsgroup,
so to speak, and very few people ever call attention to statements
like the one quoted above.
Peter Nyikos
> El mi rcoles, 23 de enero de 2013 19:36:25 UTC, Desertphile �escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:38:18 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
>
> > > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
>
> > > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>
> > > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
>
> > > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>
> > > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> > > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>
> > > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
>
> > > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>
> > > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> > Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
>
> > --
>
>
> > Nemo me impune lacessit.
>
> > "The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming
>
> by example I take this post as a case of joking.
So do I. He comes across like an "eridanus on steroids" who goes
well beyond "monkey see, monkey do."
The most probable alternative that he had the words of "QJ" in mind:
"One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around
is the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass
and check it out yourself. People DIE because of
people like [NH]."
It does sound a bit hysterical, and maybe "Desertphile" figured "QJ"
never meant for these words to be taken seriously.
> It is not intending any
> harm whatever. It is just a social teasing to someone that offends easily.
I may come across that way, because I have no one else in this
newsgroup to set people straight about me. Back in the late 90's
there was one, Joe Potter, but he is long gone.
In contrast, people like "QJ" are grandfathered into this newsgroup,
so to speak, and very few people ever call attention to statements
like the one quoted above.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 11:45:54 AM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 7:28�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Directed Panspermia is doing a disservice to both issues.
Remainder of GIGO deleted. I've gone on record innumerable times as
saying that I think it probable that it arose by natural abiogenesis
on the home planet of the hypothetical panspermists. But again, that
is a separate issue.
And enough already with the "poor little me" act. You were the one
who tried to browbeat me into sticking to ONE issue on the FAQ thread,
one isolated sentence of mine that you tore out of its context.
That was all a big clown act of yours, wasn't it? The way Coffey and
Wilkins handled it, I suspect that's what they thought it was too.
Peter Nyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [deletions[
>
> >> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> >> the origin of the intelligent alien species
> >Well duh. �Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
> >issue;
> >B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
> >where the origin of life is concerned?
> >This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
> >panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
> >ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
> >life ON EARTH.
> >============= end of entry
>
> [more deletions]
>
> So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
> to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
Come off it, Gans. That is a separate issue, and conflating it with
>
> [deletions[
>
> >> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> >> the origin of the intelligent alien species
> >Well duh. �Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
> >issue;
> >B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
> >where the origin of life is concerned?
> >This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
> >panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
> >ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
> >life ON EARTH.
> >============= end of entry
>
> [more deletions]
>
> So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
> to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
Directed Panspermia is doing a disservice to both issues.
Remainder of GIGO deleted. I've gone on record innumerable times as
saying that I think it probable that it arose by natural abiogenesis
on the home planet of the hypothetical panspermists. But again, that
is a separate issue.
And enough already with the "poor little me" act. You were the one
who tried to browbeat me into sticking to ONE issue on the FAQ thread,
one isolated sentence of mine that you tore out of its context.
That was all a big clown act of yours, wasn't it? The way Coffey and
Wilkins handled it, I suspect that's what they thought it was too.
Peter Nyikos
Dexter
Jan 24, 2013, 12:01:26 PM1/24/13
to
"eridanus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Desertphile escribi�:
>> pnyikos
> by example I take this post as a case of joking. It is not intending
___________________________________________________
Thanks for clearing that up.
> Desertphile escribi�:
>> pnyikos
>> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
>> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>> > analogues of witchcraft.
>>
>> Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
>> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>> > analogues of witchcraft.
>>
>> Hysterical paranoid alarmist nutter. Burn him!
> by example I take this post as a case of joking. It is not intending
> any harm whatever. It is just a social teasing to someone that
> offends easily.
>
> Eridanus
> offends easily.
>
___________________________________________________
Thanks for clearing that up.
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 12:04:55 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 24, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 1/22/2013 5:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> If the punishments are that different, then they deserve a different
> name from "witch-hunt."
But the dynamics are very similar, as can be seen from the Quote of
> On 1/22/2013 5:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> > because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> > different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> > ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> > analogues of witchcraft.
>
> If the punishments are that different, then they deserve a different
> name from "witch-hunt."
the Week [see below]. Hence the term "virtual". You did notice the
bit about the punishments taking place in cyberspace.
> A witch-hunt is when someone is persecuted--actually being
> mistreated--for their beliefs. That has not happened. Have you or any
> of these other people received death threats or something? I doubt it.
because I've only seen a tiny fraction of the posts he did while he
was active on Usenet. Next time I look at his website, though, I'll
see whether he mentions such things there.
Certainly, if some crazies took the words of "QJ" seriously, they
might do such things to NH:
"One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and
check it out yourself. People DIE because of people
like [NH]."
regular on the abortion newsgroups who frequently tells me to kill
myself, and sometimes to also kill my family, on the alleged grounds
that the world would be a better place if that happened.
Also, as I already told John Harshman, I have not been the target of
any virtual witch-hunts in talk.origins, although some attacks on me
over a dozen years ago might have escalated into one, had I not done
damage control in a timely fashion.
> I don't like the use of personal or ad hominem attacks in lieu of sound
> argument. And unfortunately that is quite common on the Internet.
>
> But anyone who is actually suffering as a result of such attacks must be
> quite sensitive.
>
> Didn't President Truman say: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
> the kitchen"?
another statement attributed to Truman.
"I don't give them hell. I give them the truth,
and they think it's hell."
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 1:52:49 PM1/24/13
to
self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 2:19:41 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 23, 2:05�pm, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
this FAQ. See below.
> > Apparently I am. Sorry.
> > > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > > elsewhere and then been brought here?
> > > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > > here so long ago.
[snip rest of Robert's rehashing some arguments]
> I totally agree with you that "that only pushes the question of the
origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
which could be in a great many places in the universe.
Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
started.
The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
translation mechanism.
Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
we do not know it"?
I actually mention this possibility as one of six for what the
panspermists were like and what they did:
_________________ excerpt__________________
C9: Is, then, intelligent design an integral part of directed
panspermia theory?
No, because there are many alternative possibilities for the nature of
the panspermists and the kinds of life they sent -- one of which, of
course, was our own kinds of microorganisms.
[snip five possibilities, to get to the sixth:]
(6) And finally, there is the possibility of our own microorganisms
being designed by an intelligent species built on cells that are
radically different from our own, described in C8, and perhaps much
simpler than our own. These include the "ur-cells" and "small molecule
systems" mentioned above, or the "lipid vesicles" of Marc Tessera.
============== end of excerpt from post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6fbd247e3493bd81
> and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
seems to be via (6) above.
> Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> many in favor of a terrestrial origin
Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
(1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
(2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
dealt with in direct reply to him), and
(3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
it" and the time life on earth began
?
I've discussed (3) elsewhere; to me, it seems just as strong an
argument against terrestrial origin as it is against directed
panspermia.
> that this hypothesis is totally
> devoid of interest presently.
Please don't say things like this until you've looked over my FAQ.
That url up there will take you to the thread where Parts A through D
are laid out and discussed.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
> On 23 jan, 18:21, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
By the way, Marc, you are mentioned by name at the end of Section C of
> > On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > > I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
> > > every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
this FAQ. See below.
> > Apparently I am. Sorry.
> > > The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
> > > abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
> > > elsewhere and then been brought here?
> > > I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
> > > species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
> > > years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
> > > tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
> > > here so long ago.
> > Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> > the origin of the intelligent alien species
Not really. I tell you why below, Marc.
> > the origin of the intelligent alien species
[snip rest of Robert's rehashing some arguments]
> I totally agree with you that "that only pushes the question of the
> origin of life back to the origin of the intelligent alien species"
You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
which could be in a great many places in the universe.
Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
started.
The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
translation mechanism.
Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
we do not know it"?
I actually mention this possibility as one of six for what the
panspermists were like and what they did:
_________________ excerpt__________________
C9: Is, then, intelligent design an integral part of directed
panspermia theory?
No, because there are many alternative possibilities for the nature of
the panspermists and the kinds of life they sent -- one of which, of
course, was our own kinds of microorganisms.
[snip five possibilities, to get to the sixth:]
(6) And finally, there is the possibility of our own microorganisms
being designed by an intelligent species built on cells that are
radically different from our own, described in C8, and perhaps much
simpler than our own. These include the "ur-cells" and "small molecule
systems" mentioned above, or the "lipid vesicles" of Marc Tessera.
============== end of excerpt from post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6fbd247e3493bd81
> and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
seems to be via (6) above.
> Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> many in favor of a terrestrial origin
Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
(1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
(2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
dealt with in direct reply to him), and
(3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
it" and the time life on earth began
?
I've discussed (3) elsewhere; to me, it seems just as strong an
argument against terrestrial origin as it is against directed
panspermia.
> that this hypothesis is totally
> devoid of interest presently.
Please don't say things like this until you've looked over my FAQ.
That url up there will take you to the thread where Parts A through D
are laid out and discussed.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 2:52:05 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
derogatory comments about me."
You occasionally make such allegations about me yourself, often hiding
behind formulas like "Most people..." but you seem to forget the times
(about equally occasionally) I catch you behaving as "badly" as I ever
behave.
But enough of you for the nonce. I'll be posting the final outcome on
that "virtual witch-hunt" of QJ against NH later today, and I predict
you will be utterly uninterested in it, because it has nothing to do
with you, and also because you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; his last
post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
*A fortiori*, I don't think you take these words of QJ seriously:
"One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and
check it out yourself. People DIE because of people
like [NH]."
do take the postings of that pro-Nazi, etc. propagandist seriously,
and wish more people would counter them.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 3:05:35 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 24, 2:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > >>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > >>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > >>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> > >> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> > > Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> > > hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
> > > from me.
>
> > > I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> > > accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> > > are quite isolated.
>
> > Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> > self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> derogatory comments about me."
Since it is still between the quotes, that last word should be "you".
> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > >>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> > >>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > >>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> > >> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> > > Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> > > hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
> > > from me.
>
> > > I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> > > accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> > > are quite isolated.
>
> > Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> > self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> derogatory comments about me."
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 3:20:40 PM1/24/13
to
On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
>>> hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
>>> from me.
>>
>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>>> are quite isolated.
>>
>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> derogatory comments about me."
Sure. Most people who make any sort of comments about you at all. The
> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
>>> hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
>>> from me.
>>
>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>>> are quite isolated.
>>
>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> derogatory comments about me."
people who don't make comments but still read anything you write may not
believe any such things, but I bet they do anyway.
> you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
> theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
> Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
> voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
> openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
> someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; his last
> post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
Bill
Jan 24, 2013, 3:42:55 PM1/24/13
to
On Jan 23, 5:38�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
> � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> � "People DIE because of people like NH."
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
> � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
>
> NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
> of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> below) read as follows:
>
> �"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
> �pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
>
> In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
> attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
> witch-hunts.
>
> NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
> of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> below) read as follows:
>
> �"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
> �pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
>
> In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
> attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
> witch-hunts.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> � � � � � � � � � � � � QUOTE OF THE WEEK
> The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> � �--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
People say all sorts of stupid stuff in this and other groups. The
> � � � � � � � � � � � � QUOTE OF THE WEEK
> The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
> such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
> century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
> Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
> exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
> had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
> punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
> rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
> deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
> � �--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/
great thing is that you don't have to pay any attention to them.
People make all sorts of ridiculous accusations here and in other
internet groups. The great thing is, virtually nobody cares or pays
any attention.
If someone calls you a fascist, I probably won't notice, and if I do
notice, I'll forget about it instantly. I would never think worse of
anyone because of some nutty name calling on t.o. The only folks who
intrude on my attention and about whom I do develop a negative opinion
are the small subset of pairs of posters who get involved in long,
personal, unpleasant wrangles with each other. Then, a plague on both
their houses. But not much of a plague, because even that stuff is
easy enough to ignore.
If people here irritate you, just leave, and go talk to flesh and
blood people. People are often more pleasant face to face than in
here.
For the record, I do think you're sort of a nutter about directed
panspermia, but why should you care what I think?
Burkhard
Jan 24, 2013, 5:38:59 PM1/24/13
to
can't afford any longer to put plaques on people's houses
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 6:31:53 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 22, 8:05�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:38�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Here is the by-now-familiar quote from "QJ", addressed to "SG":
> � "One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
> �like [NH]."
Here is how "SG" challenged "QJ" in his reply to the post where "QJ"
had written the above statement:
"[NH] is long gone, his last Usenet post
under that name was in 2008. Meanwhile,
there are *certified* Nazis posting
to Usenet *right* *now,* like Topaz,
whom I fought against [in 2009-2010]."
SG went on to quote a paragraph by "Topaz" in which "Topaz" praised
Hitler, in a post where "Topaz" referenced an explicitly Nazi
website, with "national-socialist" right in the url. SG also wrote:
"Here is the url ... for a long post he did
just yesterday, full of praise for the Nazis
and for Mussolini:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
"Oh, and he post lots of racist propaganda, too:"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/69a101221509ffb6
SG then challenged QJ to join him in attacking "Topaz". Not waiting
for a reply, SG attacked Topaz the following day.
He would have waited in vain. QJ only did one more post to that
thread, and it was in reply to someone who only joined the thread
after the challenge had been issued.
SG also told "FS" some things about Topaz, ending with an allusion to
the post in which the challenge to QJ was issued:
"Read what I wrote to [QJ] here today,
particularly the solemn promise
I made at the end. Interested?"
FS never replied to that post, even though he went on to attack SG for
sundry other things having nothing to do with Topaz.
In fact, no one but SG has acknowledged the very existence of Topaz on
that "virtual witch-hunt" thread to this day. It is as though a real
witch-hunter like Jean Bodin [see Quote of the Week below] had
actually learned of a genuine witch, who proudly and openly performed
the witchcraft that everyone else had been falsely accused of....
...and then had gone on his way, never taking note of the information
and letting the real witch continue doing her thing unimpeded.
> On Jan 22, 5:38�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Here is the by-now-familiar quote from "QJ", addressed to "SG":
> � "One of the reason why rats like [NH] are still around is
> �the inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and
> �check it out yourself. �People DIE because of people
> �like [NH]."
Here is how "SG" challenged "QJ" in his reply to the post where "QJ"
had written the above statement:
"[NH] is long gone, his last Usenet post
under that name was in 2008. Meanwhile,
there are *certified* Nazis posting
to Usenet *right* *now,* like Topaz,
whom I fought against [in 2009-2010]."
SG went on to quote a paragraph by "Topaz" in which "Topaz" praised
Hitler, in a post where "Topaz" referenced an explicitly Nazi
website, with "national-socialist" right in the url. SG also wrote:
"Here is the url ... for a long post he did
just yesterday, full of praise for the Nazis
and for Mussolini:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
"Oh, and he post lots of racist propaganda, too:"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/69a101221509ffb6
SG then challenged QJ to join him in attacking "Topaz". Not waiting
for a reply, SG attacked Topaz the following day.
He would have waited in vain. QJ only did one more post to that
thread, and it was in reply to someone who only joined the thread
after the challenge had been issued.
SG also told "FS" some things about Topaz, ending with an allusion to
the post in which the challenge to QJ was issued:
"Read what I wrote to [QJ] here today,
particularly the solemn promise
I made at the end. Interested?"
FS never replied to that post, even though he went on to attack SG for
sundry other things having nothing to do with Topaz.
In fact, no one but SG has acknowledged the very existence of Topaz on
that "virtual witch-hunt" thread to this day. It is as though a real
witch-hunter like Jean Bodin [see Quote of the Week below] had
actually learned of a genuine witch, who proudly and openly performed
the witchcraft that everyone else had been falsely accused of....
...and then had gone on his way, never taking note of the information
and letting the real witch continue doing her thing unimpeded.
chris thompson
Jan 24, 2013, 6:41:24 PM1/24/13
to
Fascism in Europe. He taught Hitler (GODWIN POINTS!) Nah, I'd believe
Mitchell to be a Mussolini Fascist before you.
Chris
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 6:42:38 PM1/24/13
to
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 1/23/13 6:09 PM, Michael Siemon wrote:
>> In article<--mdncDgGoeX...@giganews.com>,
>On 1/23/13 6:09 PM, Michael Siemon wrote:
>> In article<--mdncDgGoeX...@giganews.com>,
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>
>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>
>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>
>> we got the "I got better" ref; chose to ignore it... :-)
>>
>Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>least.
You'll have to speak to Peter about that. He's the one who
>>
>Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>least.
turned you into a newt... ;-)
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 6:43:18 PM1/24/13
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 12:32?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
>> loss to talk.origins?
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
That's frogs, not newts.
>On Jan 24, 12:32?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> >> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>> >Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>> Good grief! ?Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>> >On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> >> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>> >Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
>> loss to talk.origins?
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
That's frogs, not newts.
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 6:48:35 PM1/24/13
to
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>
>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>
>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>
>No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
There's another Shakespeare?
>On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>
>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>
>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>
>No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
>By the way, there's
>good evidence that Shakespeare didn't really write Gay Boys in Bondage.
You are shaking the foundations of western literature!
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 6:52:16 PM1/24/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 6:57:10 PM1/24/13
to
On 1/24/13 3:42 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 6:09 PM, Michael Siemon wrote:
>>> In article<--mdncDgGoeX...@giganews.com>,
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>
>>> we got the "I got better" ref; chose to ignore it... :-)
>>>
>> Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>> least.
>
> You'll have to speak to Peter about that. He's the one who
> turned you into a newt... ;-)
>
Yes, which is a perfectly respectable amphibian, not a sleazy
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 6:09 PM, Michael Siemon wrote:
>>> In article<--mdncDgGoeX...@giganews.com>,
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>
>>> we got the "I got better" ref; chose to ignore it... :-)
>>>
>> Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>> least.
>
> You'll have to speak to Peter about that. He's the one who
> turned you into a newt... ;-)
>
Republican. Have some respect for Caudata.
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 6:59:04 PM1/24/13
to
On 1/24/13 3:48 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>
>>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>>
>> No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
>
> There's another Shakespeare?
I speak, of course, of M. Python, though he's a collective rather than a
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>
>>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>>
>> No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
>
> There's another Shakespeare?
single individual. You know, rather like Howard Hershey.
>
>> By the way, there's
>> good evidence that Shakespeare didn't really write Gay Boys in Bondage.
>
> Now that's shocking! I mean, if he didn't do it, who did?
>
> You are shaking the foundations of western literature!
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 6:59:37 PM1/24/13
to
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 7:01:20 PM1/24/13
to
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 7:07:13 PM1/24/13
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
it, complain that somebody has been forging your posts. If you
did, man up and admit it.
>And enough already with the "poor little me" act. You were the one
>who tried to browbeat me into sticking to ONE issue on the FAQ thread,
>one isolated sentence of mine that you tore out of its context.
But it was such an interesting sentence. Would you like me
to post it again? Ok, I will.
"GIVEN that abiogenesis took place, what is the probability that
it took place on earth?"
I point out again that the answer to this is strongly
influenced by the fact that we DO have life on earth.
You've since claimed that I took your statement out of context
or that it was modified by later stuff you wrote. What you
have NOT done is to admit that the context doesn't matter
here. The question stands on its own and you were wrong to
omit an important fact.
Indeed, as you well know, inclusion of that fact makes it
far more likely that life originated here than it was
transferred over interstellar space.
In other words, this is the point at which your entire
premise that panspermia is the most likely origin of life
fails.
Continue to concoct excuses. I've found that the only
way to deal with you is to pick one or two issues and
harp on them.
>On Jan 23, 7:28?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> [deletions[
>>
>> >> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>> >> the origin of the intelligent alien species
>> >Well duh. ?Here is one entry from the FAQ which deals with this very
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> [deletions[
>>
>> >> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
>> >> the origin of the intelligent alien species
>> >issue;
>> >B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>> >where the origin of life is concerned?
>> >This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>> >panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>> >ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>> >life ON EARTH.
>> >============= end of entry
>>
>> [more deletions]
>>
>> So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
>> to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
>Come off it, Gans. That is a separate issue, and conflating it with
>Directed Panspermia is doing a disservice to both issues.
Dear Peter: I simply read what you wrote. If you didn't write
>> >B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>> >where the origin of life is concerned?
>> >This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>> >panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>> >ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>> >life ON EARTH.
>> >============= end of entry
>>
>> [more deletions]
>>
>> So if we accept directed panspermia, we are no longer allowed
>> to ask about the "ultimate" origins of life.
>Come off it, Gans. That is a separate issue, and conflating it with
>Directed Panspermia is doing a disservice to both issues.
it, complain that somebody has been forging your posts. If you
did, man up and admit it.
>And enough already with the "poor little me" act. You were the one
>who tried to browbeat me into sticking to ONE issue on the FAQ thread,
>one isolated sentence of mine that you tore out of its context.
to post it again? Ok, I will.
"GIVEN that abiogenesis took place, what is the probability that
it took place on earth?"
I point out again that the answer to this is strongly
influenced by the fact that we DO have life on earth.
You've since claimed that I took your statement out of context
or that it was modified by later stuff you wrote. What you
have NOT done is to admit that the context doesn't matter
here. The question stands on its own and you were wrong to
omit an important fact.
Indeed, as you well know, inclusion of that fact makes it
far more likely that life originated here than it was
transferred over interstellar space.
In other words, this is the point at which your entire
premise that panspermia is the most likely origin of life
fails.
Continue to concoct excuses. I've found that the only
way to deal with you is to pick one or two issues and
harp on them.
pnyikos
Jan 24, 2013, 7:10:22 PM1/24/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 24, 3:20�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> >>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> >>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> >>> hunts described in this thread. �"NH" and "OS" are quite different
> >>> from me.
>
> >>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> >>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> >>> are quite isolated.
>
> >> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> >> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> > For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> > derogatory comments about me."
>
> Sure. Most people who make any sort of comments about you at all.
False. But then, who cares whether it is true or false, eh?
> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> >>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> >>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> >>> hunts described in this thread. �"NH" and "OS" are quite different
> >>> from me.
>
> >>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> >>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> >>> are quite isolated.
>
> >> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> >> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>
> > For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> > derogatory comments about me."
>
> Sure. Most people who make any sort of comments about you at all.
>The
> people who don't make comments but still read anything you write may not
> believe any such things, but I bet they do anyway.
But seriously, there is ONE thing you have accused me of that I don't
think anyone else has accused me of. And that is being the "buddy" of
"OS," the target of the other witch hunt, whom "FS" accused as
follows:
"horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and
all-around ignorant slime bucket"
thing in mind when you accused me of being the "buddy" of OS.
> > you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
> > theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
FS wrote about OS qualify (if true)?
And if untrue, wouldn't that suggest there was something rotten in the
behavior of FS?
> > Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
> > voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
> > openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
> > someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; �his last
> > post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
I did this one.
> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
suggests that -- a lot more strongly than anything I've seen from "NH"
would suggest that he is pro-Nazi.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 9:42:45 PM1/24/13
to
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 3:20?pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ?wrote:
>> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ? ?wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> >>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>> >>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>> >>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
>> >>> hunts described in this thread. ?"NH" and "OS" are quite different
>>
>> >>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>> >>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> >>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>> >>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>
>> >>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
>> >>> from me.
>>
>> >>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>> >>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>> >>> are quite isolated.
>>
>> >> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>> >> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>>
>> > For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
>> > derogatory comments about me."
>>
>> Sure. Most people who make any sort of comments about you at all. The
>> people who don't make comments but still read anything you write may not
>> believe any such things, but I bet they do anyway.
>>
>> > you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
>> > theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
>>
>> > Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
>> > voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
>> > openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
>> > someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; ?his last
>>
>> >>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>> >>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>> >>> are quite isolated.
>>
>> >> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>> >> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
>>
>> > For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
>> > derogatory comments about me."
>>
>> Sure. Most people who make any sort of comments about you at all. The
>> people who don't make comments but still read anything you write may not
>> believe any such things, but I bet they do anyway.
>>
>> > you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
>> > theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
>>
>> > Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
>> > voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
>> > openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
>> > post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
>>
>> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>John, I didn't think you were pro-Mussolini. He was the father of
>Fascism in Europe. He taught Hitler (GODWIN POINTS!) Nah, I'd believe
>Mitchell to be a Mussolini Fascist before you.
Mussolini didn't even make the trains run on time.
>>
>> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>John, I didn't think you were pro-Mussolini. He was the father of
>Fascism in Europe. He taught Hitler (GODWIN POINTS!) Nah, I'd believe
>Mitchell to be a Mussolini Fascist before you.
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 9:44:01 PM1/24/13
to
for them they might have elected a President.
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 9:45:25 PM1/24/13
to
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 1/24/13 3:48 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>>
>>>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>>>
>>> No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
>>
>> There's another Shakespeare?
>I speak, of course, of M. Python, though he's a collective rather than a
>single individual. You know, rather like Howard Hershey.
Or the famous mathematician Bourbaki.
>On 1/24/13 3:48 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/23/13 6:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so Python-deficient
>>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>>
>>>> But, but, witches and newts can only mean Shakespear.
>>>>
>>> No, no. It's the *other* greatest British author.
>>
>> There's another Shakespeare?
>I speak, of course, of M. Python, though he's a collective rather than a
>single individual. You know, rather like Howard Hershey.
>>> By the way, there's
>>> good evidence that Shakespeare didn't really write Gay Boys in Bondage.
>>
>> Now that's shocking! I mean, if he didn't do it, who did?
>>
>> You are shaking the foundations of western literature!
>It was Ben Jonson and Francis Bacon, collaborating rather closely.
Paul J Gans
Jan 24, 2013, 9:46:28 PM1/24/13
to
anyway. I speak a modicum of French and some of those
frogs are real cute.
John Harshman
Jan 24, 2013, 9:57:18 PM1/24/13
to
accusing you of being anyone's buddy. But that's just me.
>>> you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
>>> theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>> You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
>
> Not sure what you would consider "Something rotten". Why doesn't what
> FS wrote about OS qualify (if true)?
>
> And if untrue, wouldn't that suggest there was something rotten in the
> behavior of FS?
understand it. I don't see one.
>>> Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
>>> voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
>>> openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
>>> someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; his last
>>> post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
>
> That "someone" was Topaz, by the way. See the post I did just before
> I did this one.
>
>> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>
> Well, the first url that I reposted in that same post strongly
> suggests that -- a lot more strongly than anything I've seen from "NH"
> would suggest that he is pro-Nazi.
jillery
Jan 24, 2013, 10:42:36 PM1/24/13
to
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:46:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>On 1/24/13 3:43 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 12:32?am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! ?Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>>>
>>>> Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
>>>
>>> That's frogs, not newts.
>>>
>>Kissing newts can be fatal.
>
>Thanks for the warning. I was going to stick to frogs
>anyway. I speak a modicum of French and some of those
>frogs are real cute.
Hopefully nobody accuses you of posting beyond the pale.
>John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>On 1/24/13 3:43 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 12:32?am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief! ?Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>>>
>>>> Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
>>>
>>> That's frogs, not newts.
>>>
>>Kissing newts can be fatal.
>
>Thanks for the warning. I was going to stick to frogs
>anyway. I speak a modicum of French and some of those
>frogs are real cute.
SkyEyes
Jan 25, 2013, 1:20:28 AM1/25/13
to
On Jan 22, 3:38�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. �I say "virtual"
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
> � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
> � "People DIE because of people like NH."
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. �They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with �"FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," �with FS saying:
>
> � "[QJ] was right that NH was antisemitic, also that NH was a
> � �Holcaust denier, also that NH was pro-Nazi."
>
> Lest anyone belittle the dire consequences of these three forms of
> "witchcraft", here are the words of QJ about that:
>
>
> NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
> of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> below) read as follows:
>
> �"a horriffic racist,homophobe, rape-apologist,
> NH did his last Usenet post in 2008, but his case was recalled because
> of charges against "OS", a currently active t.o. poster, about whom FS
> wrote, wrt the charge of anti-semitism and acting like a Nazi:
>
> "OS is the closest equivalent on T.O. since NH."
>
> His indictment of OS (treated as a verdict, see Quote of the Week
> below) read as follows:
>
> �pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket"
>
>
> In my next post, I will begin to show how apropos the claims
> attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
> witch-hunts.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Oh, grow the fuck up or stop posting to Usenet, you bug fucking
> attributed to Jean Bodin in the Quote of the Week are to these two
> witch-hunts.
>
> Peter Nyikos
crybaby.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Burkhard
Jan 25, 2013, 2:09:44 AM1/25/13
to
On Jan 25, 2:42�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
True that, they kept running on coal instead.
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 2:16:37 AM1/25/13
to
when you can be pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin? (Devil-worship would also be a
possibility for that personality type, except fewer people believe in
the Satan than God these days - in exact inversion to the evidence. This
means that two-thirds of the population wouldn't take you seriously, and
while the remaining third does take Devil worshipers seriously, they
direct equal intensity at the Harry Potter books, and for the same
reason. This would deflate the whole
I'm-a-bad-ass-storm-troopin'-blitzkriegin'-social-outcast-even-though-I'm-a-short-fat-guy-with-glasses-and-the-asthma
self-image.)
As I was saying. There is a Mussolini niche in Italy, much as there are
(this is true) Hungarian nationalists who admire Attila the Hun. But
outside of the local angle, vicarious mass-murderers are going to go
with the old standards.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 2:23:13 AM1/25/13
to
Mitchell
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jan 25, 2013, 3:46:10 AM1/25/13
to
On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip for focus>
> You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> started.
> The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> translation mechanism.
> Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
> today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
> we do not know it"?
There are 2 questions in your question:
1. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as living
today":
To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
based unicellular organisms.
2. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as fossils?"
This is not true. In the very old rocks (e.g. Barbeton greenstone belt
in South Africa, 3.2-3.5 Ga) there is compelling evidence fot the
presence of microfossil-like structures which could have been fossils
of lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA (Westall F; et al. 2001).
Reference:
Westall F; et al. Early Archean fossil bacteria and biofilms in
hydrothermally-influenced sediments from the Barbeton greenstone belt,
South Africa. Precambrian Research 2001;106:93-116.
<snip for focus>
> > and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
> Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
> origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
> seems to be via (6) above.
I agree that there is a gap between the presence of lipid vesicles
able to show Darwinian evolution (and able to synthesize peptides,
based on L-aminoacids), and D-sugars) and the emergence of the genetic
code. However the synthesis of RNA is much easier to conceive once a
metabolism based on L-peptides and D-sugars is present in lipid
vesicles. Then the relation between RNA and peptides via a genetic
code is conceivable once RNA and proteins co-exist and co-evolve.
> > Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> > many in favor of a terrestrial origin
> Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
> given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
All the scientific litterature on the origin of life is in favor or a
terrestrial origin!
> And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
> (1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
> (2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
> dealt with in direct reply to him), and
> (3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
> years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
> it" and the time life on earth began
When do you estimate the time Darwinian evolution began on earth?
> I've discussed (3) elsewhere; to me, it seems just as strong an
> argument against terrestrial origin as it is against directed
> panspermia.
> > that this hypothesis is totally
> > devoid of interest presently.
> Please don't say things like this until you've looked over my FAQ.
> That url up there will take you to the thread where Parts A through D
> are laid out and discussed.
Ok, I will try to find the time to read your FAQ and will give you my
comments.
<snip for focus>
> You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> started.
> The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> translation mechanism.
> Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
> today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
> we do not know it"?
There are 2 questions in your question:
1. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as living
today":
To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
based unicellular organisms.
2. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as fossils?"
This is not true. In the very old rocks (e.g. Barbeton greenstone belt
in South Africa, 3.2-3.5 Ga) there is compelling evidence fot the
presence of microfossil-like structures which could have been fossils
of lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA (Westall F; et al. 2001).
Reference:
Westall F; et al. Early Archean fossil bacteria and biofilms in
hydrothermally-influenced sediments from the Barbeton greenstone belt,
South Africa. Precambrian Research 2001;106:93-116.
<snip for focus>
> > and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
> Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
> origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
> seems to be via (6) above.
I agree that there is a gap between the presence of lipid vesicles
able to show Darwinian evolution (and able to synthesize peptides,
based on L-aminoacids), and D-sugars) and the emergence of the genetic
code. However the synthesis of RNA is much easier to conceive once a
metabolism based on L-peptides and D-sugars is present in lipid
vesicles. Then the relation between RNA and peptides via a genetic
code is conceivable once RNA and proteins co-exist and co-evolve.
> > Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> > many in favor of a terrestrial origin
> Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
> given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
All the scientific litterature on the origin of life is in favor or a
terrestrial origin!
> And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
> (1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
> (2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
> dealt with in direct reply to him), and
> (3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
> years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
> it" and the time life on earth began
When do you estimate the time Darwinian evolution began on earth?
> I've discussed (3) elsewhere; to me, it seems just as strong an
> argument against terrestrial origin as it is against directed
> panspermia.
> > that this hypothesis is totally
> > devoid of interest presently.
> Please don't say things like this until you've looked over my FAQ.
> That url up there will take you to the thread where Parts A through D
> are laid out and discussed.
Ok, I will try to find the time to read your FAQ and will give you my
comments.
Burkhard
Jan 25, 2013, 4:32:32 AM1/25/13
to
On Jan 25, 3:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:46:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:46:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 24, 12:32?am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
> >>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> >>>>> Good grief! ?Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
> >>>>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
> >>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>
> >>>> Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
>
> >>> That's frogs, not newts.
>
> >>Kissing newts can be fatal.
>
> >Thanks for the warning. I was going to stick to frogs
> >anyway. I speak a modicum of French and some of those
> >frogs are real cute.
>
> Hopefully nobody accuses you of posting beyond the pale.
Indeed, or he'd risk getting attacked by armed assassins, and 'many a
> >>>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
> >>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> >>>>> Good grief! ?Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
> >>>>> Can you be turned back? ?Or must we simply mourn your
> >>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>
> >>>> Give him a kiss and see what happens.....
>
> >>> That's frogs, not newts.
>
> >>Kissing newts can be fatal.
>
> >Thanks for the warning. I was going to stick to frogs
> >anyway. I speak a modicum of French and some of those
> >frogs are real cute.
>
> Hopefully nobody accuses you of posting beyond the pale.
dire killing thrust'. He might even get himself impaled (or trampled
to death by impalas)
John S. Wilkins
Jan 25, 2013, 6:22:26 AM1/25/13
to
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net
pnyikos
Jan 25, 2013, 9:41:32 AM1/25/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
someone who knows what a hellhole talk.abortion has become, being
involved in it as she is in talk.origins.
She is unconcerned with signs, like those I described in the post to
which she is replying, signs that talk.origins is devolving in the
same direction. Maybe she would even welcome the change.
Note, none of the people mentioned above is myself. Neither FS nor QJ
nor NH nor OS. Evidently anyone who is concerned about the behavior
described is a "crybaby" in her world-view.
Peter Nyikos
Matchstick
Jan 25, 2013, 10:07:39 AM1/25/13
to
In article <CdidnbJgtdc...@giganews.com>, jhar...@pacbell.net
says...
fact he managed to make the trains run on thyme.
(With apologies to XKCD)
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
says...
> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
I'm betting it was someone in one of the cooking newsgroups admiring the
fact he managed to make the trains run on thyme.
(With apologies to XKCD)
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
pnyikos
Jan 25, 2013, 10:05:11 AM1/25/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 25, 2:16�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
still haven't replied to the following post on another thread on which
we were very active in December. I did it on the 22nd of this month:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/130444d8541d9a1c
I predict you will never reply directly to that post. Care to prove
me wrong?
> >>>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> >>>> hunts described in this thread. �"NH" and "OS" are quite different
> >>>> from me.
>
> >>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> >>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> >>>> are quite isolated.
>
> >>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> >>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
Except for the "lack of ... sense of humor," these characteristics are
just as true of Harshman himself, and far more true of Paul Gans.
The exception has been noted by Tony Pagano, who once called Harshman
the "Clown Master" of talk.origins. However, Gans deserves the title
even more: he runs the whole spectrum from obvious jokes to things
that sound deadly serious, but even there you can never tell when he
is just clowning around.
> >> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> >> derogatory comments about me."
[snip]
> >> you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
> >> theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
FWIW, Harshman's staunch defender Hemidactylus has quoted it
favorably.
Documentation on request.
> >> Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
> >> voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
> >> openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
> >> someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; �his last
> >> post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
>
> > Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>
> Yeah, I see you. You gotta figure, why bother with being pro-Mussolini
> when you can be pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin?
Because Topaz, the "someone" of whom I spoke yesterday, made a very
firm connection between Nazism and fascism in the following post,
where Mussolini got a favorable mention:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
And Topaz, whose very existence you have never acknowledged, is very
much a champion of both fascism and Nazism.
>(Devil-worship would also be a
> possibility for that personality type, except fewer people believe in
> the Satan than God these days - in exact inversion to the evidence.
Yeah, all one has to do is look long and hard at what is going on in
talk.abortion to see things generally associated with Satan, but the
little that one might associate with God is completely swamped by the
other stuff.
And SkyEyes, to whom my first reply of this morning went, doesn't seem
to give a damn about that.
> This
> means that two-thirds of the population wouldn't take you seriously, and
> while the remaining third does take Devil worshipers seriously,
One does not need to take that generally ludicrous crowd seriously to
take the possibility of Satan seriously.
> they
> direct equal intensity at the Harry Potter books, and for the same
> reason. This would deflate the whole
> I'm-a-bad-ass-storm-troopin'-blitzkriegin'-social-outcast-even-though-I'm-a-short-fat-guy-with-glasses-and-the-asthma
> self-image.)
Actually, Satan-haters are very much divided on those Harry Potter
books. Several have said on Catholic Exchange that they think the
good aspects of the Harry Potter books outweigh the bad.
> As I was saying. There is a Mussolini niche in Italy, much as there are
> (this is true) Hungarian nationalists who admire Attila the Hun.
Yes, this has been a fixture of the Hungarian scene since the latter
part of the 19th century. Even today, "Attila" is a common given name
in Hungary.
Peter Nyikos
wrote:
> On 1/24/2013 3:20 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> >>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
I was wondering when you'd turn up on this thread, Mitchell. You
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> >>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> >>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>
> >>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
still haven't replied to the following post on another thread on which
we were very active in December. I did it on the 22nd of this month:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/130444d8541d9a1c
I predict you will never reply directly to that post. Care to prove
me wrong?
> >>>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
> >>>> hunts described in this thread. �"NH" and "OS" are quite different
> >>>> from me.
>
> >>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
> >>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
> >>>> are quite isolated.
>
> >>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
> >>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
just as true of Harshman himself, and far more true of Paul Gans.
The exception has been noted by Tony Pagano, who once called Harshman
the "Clown Master" of talk.origins. However, Gans deserves the title
even more: he runs the whole spectrum from obvious jokes to things
that sound deadly serious, but even there you can never tell when he
is just clowning around.
> >> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
> >> derogatory comments about me."
> >> you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
> >> theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> > You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
favorably.
Documentation on request.
> >> Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
> >> voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
> >> openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
> >> someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; �his last
> >> post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
>
> > Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>
> Yeah, I see you. You gotta figure, why bother with being pro-Mussolini
> when you can be pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin?
firm connection between Nazism and fascism in the following post,
where Mussolini got a favorable mention:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
And Topaz, whose very existence you have never acknowledged, is very
much a champion of both fascism and Nazism.
>(Devil-worship would also be a
> possibility for that personality type, except fewer people believe in
> the Satan than God these days - in exact inversion to the evidence.
talk.abortion to see things generally associated with Satan, but the
little that one might associate with God is completely swamped by the
other stuff.
And SkyEyes, to whom my first reply of this morning went, doesn't seem
to give a damn about that.
> This
> means that two-thirds of the population wouldn't take you seriously, and
> while the remaining third does take Devil worshipers seriously,
take the possibility of Satan seriously.
> they
> direct equal intensity at the Harry Potter books, and for the same
> reason. This would deflate the whole
> I'm-a-bad-ass-storm-troopin'-blitzkriegin'-social-outcast-even-though-I'm-a-short-fat-guy-with-glasses-and-the-asthma
> self-image.)
books. Several have said on Catholic Exchange that they think the
good aspects of the Harry Potter books outweigh the bad.
> As I was saying. There is a Mussolini niche in Italy, much as there are
> (this is true) Hungarian nationalists who admire Attila the Hun.
part of the 19th century. Even today, "Attila" is a common given name
in Hungary.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jan 25, 2013, 10:23:17 AM1/25/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jan 25, 3:46 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
> > You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> > origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> > be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> > which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> > Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> > interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> > least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> > have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> > that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> > started.
> > The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> > prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> > factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> > translation mechanism.
And a key part of that is the synthetases that join amino acids to
> On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
> > You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> > origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> > be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> > which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> > Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> > interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> > least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> > have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> > that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> > started.
> > The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> > prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> > factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> > translation mechanism.
tRNA with amazing fidelity -- all 20 amino acids, a synthetase for
each.
How did those synthetases, which are very different chemically from
each other, arise and supplant their ribozyme precursors?
Approximations lacking great fidelity are worse than useless -- they
mess up the whole translation mechanism.
> > Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
> > today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
> > we do not know it"?
>
> There are 2 questions in your question:
> 1. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as living
> today":
> To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
> and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
> based unicellular organisms.
> 2. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as fossils?"
> This is not true. In the very old rocks (e.g. Barbeton greenstone belt
> in South Africa, 3.2-3.5 Ga) there is compelling evidence fot the
> presence of microfossil-like structures which could have been fossils
> of lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA (Westall F; et al. 2001).
> Reference:
> Westall F; et al. Early Archean fossil bacteria and biofilms in
> hydrothermally-influenced sediments from the Barbeton greenstone belt,
> South Africa. Precambrian Research 2001;106:93-116.
and the photos from Mars do not seem to have held up? For more
information, see the Wikipedia entries, where one wag has called
nanobacteria the "the cold fusion of microbiology":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobacteria
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobe
Both mention the photographs from Mars, and the former shows a
photograph.
> <snip for focus>
>
> > > and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
> > Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
> > origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
> > seems to be via (6) above.
>
> I agree that there is a gap between the presence of lipid vesicles
> able to show Darwinian evolution (and able to synthesize peptides,
> based on L-aminoacids), and D-sugars) and the emergence of the genetic
> code. However the synthesis of RNA is much easier to conceive once a
> metabolism based on L-peptides and D-sugars is present in lipid
> vesicles. Then the relation between RNA and peptides via a genetic
> code is conceivable once RNA and proteins co-exist and co-evolve.
will glow white-hot.
> > > Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> > > many in favor of a terrestrial origin
> > Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
> > given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
>
> All the scientific litterature on the origin of life is in favor or a
> terrestrial origin!
molecules of life being produced under what is believed to be
primitive earth conditions. But those precursor molecules are not
even on the level of lipid vesicles.
> > And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
> > (1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
> > (2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
> > dealt with in direct reply to him), and
> > (3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
> > years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
> > it" and the time life on earth began
>
> When do you estimate the time Darwinian evolution began on earth?
comment:
> To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
> and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
> based unicellular organisms.
abiogenesis is true, then it could have started with lipid vesicles.
But the obstacles in the way of evolution to prokaryotes are
inconceivably formidable.
> > I've discussed (3) elsewhere; to me, it seems just as strong an
> > argument against terrestrial origin as it is against directed
> > panspermia.
> > > that this hypothesis is totally
> > > devoid of interest presently.
> > Please don't say things like this until you've looked over my FAQ.
> > That url up there will take you to the thread where Parts A through D
> > are laid out and discussed.
>
> Ok, I will try to find the time to read your FAQ and will give you my
> comments.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 11:46:11 AM1/25/13
to
On 1/24/2013 12:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> name from "witch-hunt."
>
> But the dynamics are very similar, as can be seen from the Quote of
> the Week [see below]. Hence the term "virtual". You did notice the
> bit about the punishments taking place in cyberspace.
>
>> A witch-hunt is when someone is persecuted--actually being
>> mistreated--for their beliefs. That has not happened. Have you or any
>> of these other people received death threats or something? I doubt it.
>
> I have not seen "NH" complain about such things but that may only be
> because I've only seen a tiny fraction of the posts he did while he
> was active on Usenet. Next time I look at his website, though, I'll
> see whether he mentions such things there.
[snip]
You've seen Matt Giwer's website? People directed you to it long ago, as
the primary evidence. I'd assumed you never looked at it, despite your
promise to do so, because you were too dishonest to admit you were wrong
about not having been given evidence that Giwer was more that a little
antisemitic, a Holocaust denier and Pro-Nazi.
So you claim I'm pursuing a "vendetta" against Giwer, despite the fact
that you've read his website recently, and despite the fact that I aimed
you to it at least as early as 2001:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/25c178e3612c42a3?hl=en&dmode=source:
[quote]
From: cof...@tst.tracor.com (Mitchell Coffey)
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval,sci.econ,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Matt Giwer the anti-Semite!?
Date: 6 Jun 2001 14:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: <81fbb42f.01060...@posting.google.com>
nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message
news:<9flel8$12...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>
> rick: the broken record remains the same (Was: Re: Matt Giwer the
> Nazi)
[...]
> >--
> >William Black
>
> Nice spleen-venting, but not really relevant to the
> aim of discrediting Giwer.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
You might also try Giwer's own website. More specifically:
"The Political Struggle in Europe in the First Half of the Twentieth
Century From Versailles to Nuremberg," by Matt Giwer,
http://giwersworld.org/holo/fascism.html.
Also:
http://giwersworld.org/holo/sspub.html
http://giwersworld.org/holo/
http://giwersworld.org/holo/asked.html
Mitchell Coffey
[/quote]
To that you responded:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/791172e73fd1290f?hl=en&dmode=source:
[quote in total]
From: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval,sci.econ,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Matt Giwer the anti-Semite!?
Date: 6 Jun 2001 17:03:38 -0400
Message-ID: <2001060621...@kappa.math.sc.edu>
Thanks for the urls, Mitchell. I'll check them out tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
[/quote]
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jan 24, 10:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2013 5:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>
>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
>>> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>>> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>>> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>>> analogues of witchcraft.
>>
>> If the punishments are that different, then they deserve a different
>>> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
>>> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
>>> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
>>> analogues of witchcraft.
>>
>> name from "witch-hunt."
>
> But the dynamics are very similar, as can be seen from the Quote of
> the Week [see below]. Hence the term "virtual". You did notice the
> bit about the punishments taking place in cyberspace.
>
>> A witch-hunt is when someone is persecuted--actually being
>> mistreated--for their beliefs. That has not happened. Have you or any
>> of these other people received death threats or something? I doubt it.
>
> I have not seen "NH" complain about such things but that may only be
> because I've only seen a tiny fraction of the posts he did while he
> was active on Usenet. Next time I look at his website, though, I'll
> see whether he mentions such things there.
[snip]
You've seen Matt Giwer's website? People directed you to it long ago, as
the primary evidence. I'd assumed you never looked at it, despite your
promise to do so, because you were too dishonest to admit you were wrong
about not having been given evidence that Giwer was more that a little
antisemitic, a Holocaust denier and Pro-Nazi.
So you claim I'm pursuing a "vendetta" against Giwer, despite the fact
that you've read his website recently, and despite the fact that I aimed
you to it at least as early as 2001:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/25c178e3612c42a3?hl=en&dmode=source:
[quote]
From: cof...@tst.tracor.com (Mitchell Coffey)
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval,sci.econ,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Matt Giwer the anti-Semite!?
Date: 6 Jun 2001 14:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: <81fbb42f.01060...@posting.google.com>
nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message
news:<9flel8$12...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>
> rick: the broken record remains the same (Was: Re: Matt Giwer the
> Nazi)
[...]
> >--
> >William Black
>
> Nice spleen-venting, but not really relevant to the
> aim of discrediting Giwer.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
You might also try Giwer's own website. More specifically:
"The Political Struggle in Europe in the First Half of the Twentieth
Century From Versailles to Nuremberg," by Matt Giwer,
http://giwersworld.org/holo/fascism.html.
Also:
http://giwersworld.org/holo/sspub.html
http://giwersworld.org/holo/
http://giwersworld.org/holo/asked.html
Mitchell Coffey
[/quote]
To that you responded:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/791172e73fd1290f?hl=en&dmode=source:
[quote in total]
From: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval,sci.econ,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Matt Giwer the anti-Semite!?
Date: 6 Jun 2001 17:03:38 -0400
Message-ID: <2001060621...@kappa.math.sc.edu>
Thanks for the urls, Mitchell. I'll check them out tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
[/quote]
Mitchell Coffey
Harry K
Jan 25, 2013, 12:11:17 PM1/25/13
to
Life could not have arisen on earth but easily could have elsewhere.
Very scientific that.
Harry K
Boikat
Jan 25, 2013, 12:21:40 PM1/25/13
to
On Jan 22, 4:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>
> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>
> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts. I say "virtual"
> because the punishments take place in cyberspace and are quite
> different from the old punishments for witchcraft. They include
> ostracism, and claims of dire consequences of the talk.origins
> analogues of witchcraft.
>
> To minimize distractions from my thesis, people involved in these
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," with FS saying:
<snip>
> witch-hunts, and their targets, will be referred to by one or two
> letters, neither of which is an initial of the designee.
>
> Here is an example that occurred late last year, with "FS" and "QJ"
> accusing "NH," with FS saying:
Really, do you think playing "persecuted victim" helps your arguments
any?
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
Jan 25, 2013, 12:34:55 PM1/25/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:21:34 -0500, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote
(in article <b11dace5-9b8c-45ab...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
>> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>> The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>> abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>> elsewhere and then been brought here?
>>
>> I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>> species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>> years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>> tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>> here so long ago.
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
> evolution. And I'm sceptical whether you really fa vour this as
> a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
>
It's OEC warmed over.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote
(in article <b11dace5-9b8c-45ab...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:21:41 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
>> I hope you aren't referring to my numerous on-topic posts, like almost
>> every one in the thread "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections ABCD."
>
> Apparently I am. Sorry.
>
>> The general theme is the origin of life on earth: is it due to
>> abiogenesis here on earth, or is it due to life having originated
>> elsewhere and then been brought here?
>>
>> I favor the hypothesis that it was sent here by an intelligent
>> species, in the form of microorganisms sent here almost 4 billion
>> years ago, which then evolved to produce all earth life, including the
>> tremendously successful bacteria which are similar to the things sent
>> here so long ago.
>
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> the origin of the intelligent alien species (presumably in a less
> Well, that only pushes the question of the origin of life back to
> mature universe, with less non-gaseous matter in existence for them
> to be made of), you haven't told me /why/ the aliens did it or
> why they apparently aren't here now, and it only provides an
> alternative first origin of life on Earth, and doesn't deal with
> evolution. And I'm sceptical whether you really fa vour this as
> a non-supernatural explanation. Basically, these are questions
> that I wasn't going to ask. But I expect that other folks have
> already raised these issues.
>
It's OEC warmed over.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 1:28:59 PM1/25/13
to
On 1/25/2013 10:05 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2:16 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2013 3:20 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> I was wondering when you'd turn up on this thread, Mitchell. You
> still haven't replied to the following post on another thread on which
> we were very active in December. I did it on the 22nd of this month:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/130444d8541d9a1c
>
> I predict you will never reply directly to that post. Care to prove
> me wrong?
You're lying repeatedly in that post, beginning with your claim that the
> On Jan 25, 2:16 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2013 3:20 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/13 11:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 1:52 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/13 8:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 23, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>
> I was wondering when you'd turn up on this thread, Mitchell. You
> still haven't replied to the following post on another thread on which
> we were very active in December. I did it on the 22nd of this month:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/130444d8541d9a1c
>
> I predict you will never reply directly to that post. Care to prove
> me wrong?
world is supposed to know that when you used the phrase "Looks like"
"specifically" meant, therefore I was under orders to limit my evidence
to a specific post, rather than to the actual context in which you began
not just defending Giwer, but assisting him in his Holocaust denial.
Last month, or late November, I twice quoted a post were you did the
latter - you assisted Giwer in trying to discredit evidence that there
were gas chambers in Auschwitz. Another example was when you asserted
that photos you'd been of the Auschwitz gas chambers were to blurred to
be actual evidence.
You were so extreme in you demands for evidence for the Holocaust, and
denial of the evidence you were shown, that DIG felt it necessary to
post:
[quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/81c258cd88469a35?hl=en&dmode=source
From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval,sci.econ,talk.origins
Date: 2 Jun 2001 14:35:55 -0400
Message-ID: <slrn9hicg7...@darwin.ediacara.org>
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>rick <rsatt...@iglou.com> writes:
>
>>Matt Giwer the Nazi wrote:
>
>Rick seems to think that
>
> Gas chamber denier = Holocaust denier = Nazi
>
>Has he ever presented evidence for the latter two besides
>the first?
Giwer makes 'holohoax' comments all the time, Peter.
>>> w...@ptd.net wrote:
>>> >
>
>...in response to a remark about the Dachau
>concentration camp by Giwer, which went:
>
>Even the tourist trap Dachau Museum says no one was gassed there
>despite the perjury of the US Army claiming 400,000 were gassed there.
>
>Now watch this, folks:
>
>>> > from the dachau concentration camp tourist book, page 173:
>>> >
>>> > 'in 1940 as the death rate continued to increase, a camp
>>> > crematorium
>>> > with 1 incinerator was built. in the course of the mass
>>> > extermination
>>> > plan, a bigger plant with a GAS CHAMBER and 4 incinerators-the so
>>> > called 'baracke X' was quickly erected in 1942. the gas chamber
>>> > was
>>> > never put in use...thousands of prisoners who were selected for
>>> > extermination were sent to other camps or to hartheim castle near
>>> > linz to be GASSED'.
>>> >
>>> > liar. you call ME 'not very bright'? you're not even a bright
>>> > liar. a very stupid one. very stupid indeed.
>
>Curious.
>
>"wf3h" spouts all these insults, yet he CONFIRMS the first
>line Matt wrote, and does not challenge the second.
>
>Matt, of course, picks up on this:
>
>>> You do not appear to be able to read your own quotes. Still no gas
>>> chambers there.
>
> Interesting how restrained Matt is in the part that
> "rick" quotes, considering how Matt had "wf3h" dead
> to rights as the glass-house dweller throwing stones.
>
> But, curiouser and curiouser: all
> this seems to go completely over the head of rick--if indeed
> he used his head at all instead of turning all Matt Giwer
> posts over to some automated software.
>
> Here he goes with the same old two lines:
>
>>Denial of of the truth does not make it go away.
>>The truth remains the same:
>
>And the same urls:
>
Peter, there is a gas chamber, intact, in Dachau. There are
also crematoria, intact, in Dachau.
Do you dispute the Final Solution, Peter? I'd like to know.
--D.
[/quote]
You're also lying, despicably, in your ongoing defense of Matt Giwer,
that he is not a Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi. You're lying when you
claim that people who say he is a Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi are
pursuing a "vendetta" against him. You're lying when you claim we've
never provided you with the relevant evidence.
In fact, as I show in another post, just yesterday you let slip that
you've read his webpage. You acknowledge me providing you links to it 12
years ago, and said you'd "check them out tomorrow." I've assumed you'd
pretended not to get around to it because to admit you'd read them was
to admit the moral bankruptcy of your ongoing defense of Giwer. But now
you've let out you have read it, at least recently.
People who can stomach what Peter considers *isn't* evidence that Giwer
is a Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi, I sent this to him in 2001, the
pagers are still there:
http://giwersworld.org/holo/fascism.html.
http://giwersworld.org/holo/sspub.html
http://giwersworld.org/holo/
http://giwersworld.org/holo/asked.html
>>>>>> Very funny, but I am not the target of either of the two virtual witch-
>>>>>> hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
>>>>>> from me.
>>
>>>>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>>>>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>>>>>> are quite isolated.
>>
>>>>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>>>>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
[snip]
>>>>>> hunts described in this thread. "NH" and "OS" are quite different
>>>>>> from me.
>>
>>>>>> I've been accused of many things in my day, but only a few odd twits
>>>>>> accuse me of Usenet analogues of witchcraft in talk.origins, and they
>>>>>> are quite isolated.
>>
>>>>> Agreed. Most people accuse you of pomposity, extraordinary
>>>>> self-involvement, lack of perception or sense of humor, and paranoia.
Next time you are directing a post to me, asshole, and then start
responding to someone else, I cutting off my response right there.
>>>> For "Most people" read "most of the handful of people who make such
>>>> derogatory comments about me."
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> you seem to be utterly uninterested in the
>>>> theme "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>
>>> You are correct. I would be more interested if it were true, though.
See my warning above.
>>>> Nor do I think you are at all interested in doing anything about the
>>>> voluminous postings to other Usenet newsgroups, day after day, of
>>>> openly pro-Nazi, pro-Mussolini, anti-semitic, racist propaganda by
>>>> someone who may have been banned in talk.origins by DIG; his last
>>>> post to this newsgroup was made in 2007.
>>
>>> Correct yet again. Wait, I am a bit interested. Pro-Mussolini??
>>
>> Yeah, I see you. You gotta figure, why bother with being pro-Mussolini
>> when you can be pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin?
>
> Because Topaz, the "someone" of whom I spoke yesterday, made a very
> firm connection between Nazism and fascism in the following post,
> where Mussolini got a favorable mention:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
>
> And Topaz, whose very existence you have never acknowledged, is very
> much a champion of both fascism and Nazism.
orders from someone who for 12 years has denied Matt Giwer was a
Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi, and who doesn't himself care that Topaz
advocated murdering Jews.
And in the one post you provided regarding Topaz, where demonstrated
your alleged interest in "attacking" him, you didn't in fact attack him.
In the first pace, you were not attacking Topez, but someone else for
not attacking him, as well as unnamed, generalized third parties who
"try to smear non-Nazis with t he charge 'Nazi!'" In other words, you
chose not to attack the Nazi, but to use the opportunity to attack
non-Nazis you considered your enemies. This was exactly what you did
with Giwer, when you'd minimize his lie by claiming your enemies
(including those not in the discussion) were just as bad. You'd defend
the Giwer by claiming, without evidence, that those attacking him didn't
care about murders by Communists.
Most of what you did was point out regarding Topaz was that he was a
Nazi, and that there was "NO sign of him saying anything about Hitler
going overboard." Is "going overboard" your cute summary of the history
of the Third Reich? You showed no reaction to the antisemitism,
murderous homophobia, etc. that Topaz expressed in the post you quoted.
You couldn't even bring yourself to attack his endorsement of the
Holocaust and killing Jews in general. I hope you're just too stupid to
realize that that's what Topaz was saying when he outrageously
complained how "First Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who
actually solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking
against." You somehow thought he was referring to World War Two, and
even then your reaction was to suggest some rhetorical slaps on the
wrist that "elizabeth" should have made.
What sort of moron could have thought the Nazi Topaz was claiming
Christians somehow had been advocating World War II, and yet never gave
Hitler the credit he deserved! And where exactly did you think his "and
then Muslims" came in with your scenario?
If you're going to attack Nazis, start with attacking Nazis. Congruent
with your behavior eleven years ago and recently in T.O., in the post
about Topaz you're so proud of, you seem mostly interested in calling
out people you have beefs against for not attacking people you think are
Nazis and for attacking people you claim aren't pro-Nazi. You don't seem
interested in attacking Nazis themselves.
>> (Devil-worship would also be a
>> possibility for that personality type, except fewer people believe in
>> the Satan than God these days - in exact inversion to the evidence.
Warning.
>> This
>> means that two-thirds of the population wouldn't take you seriously, and
>> while the remaining third does take Devil worshipers seriously,
>
> One does not need to take that generally ludicrous crowd seriously to
> take the possibility of Satan seriously.
at Auschwitz, then demand more, then deny that, then attack people who's
relatives died in Auschwitz, and who have been active in the ADL and
similar groups, as being uninterested in disputing Holocaust deniers...
yeah, I agree, people like you are demonic.
>> they
>> direct equal intensity at the Harry Potter books, and for the same
>> reason. This would deflate the whole
>> I'm-a-bad-ass-storm-troopin'-blitzkriegin'-social-outcast-even-though-I'm-a-short-fat-guy-with-glasses-and-the-asthma
>> self-image.)
>
> Actually, Satan-haters are very much divided on those Harry Potter
> books. Several have said on Catholic Exchange that they think the
> good aspects of the Harry Potter books outweigh the bad.
>> As I was saying. There is a Mussolini niche in Italy, much as there are
>> (this is true) Hungarian nationalists who admire Attila the Hun.
>
> Yes, this has been a fixture of the Hungarian scene since the latter
> part of the 19th century. Even today, "Attila" is a common given name
> in Hungary.
Mitchell Coffey
Paul J Gans
Jan 25, 2013, 1:34:18 PM1/25/13
to
Paul J Gans
Jan 25, 2013, 1:38:01 PM1/25/13
to
James Beck
Jan 25, 2013, 2:15:15 PM1/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:34:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
I've been a recumbent of the pale. Does that count?
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jan 25, 2013, 2:24:24 PM1/25/13
to
On Jan 25, 4:23 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 3:46 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> > > origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> > > be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> > > which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> > > Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> > > interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> > > least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> > > have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> > > that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> > > started.
> > > The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> > > prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> > > factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> > > translation mechanism.
> And a key part of that is the synthetases that join amino acids to
> tRNA with amazing fidelity -- all 20 amino acids, a synthetase for
> each.
> How did those synthetases, which are very different chemically from
> each other, arise and supplant their ribozyme precursors?
> Approximations lacking great fidelity are worse than useless -- they
> mess up the whole translation mechanism.
Why not througth Darwinian evolution?
> On Jan 25, 3:46 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > You of all people should know better, Marc. It only pushes the
> > > origin of "life as we know it" onto that other origin. But there may
> > > be lots of "life as we do not know it," like your lipid vesicles,
> > > which could be in a great many places in the universe.
> > > Perhaps now you will see why I wrote that I would be a lot more
> > > interested in your lipid vesicles if some evolutionary path were at
> > > least outlined for getting from them to "life as we know it". You
> > > have lots of good ideas for getting life of some sort to start, but
> > > that is a completely separate issue from how "life as we know it" got
> > > started.
> > > The simplest life forms on earth are the tremendously complicated
> > > prokaryotes. The simplest free-living prokaryote is a veritable
> > > factory of assembly lines, the most impressive of which is the protein
> > > translation mechanism.
> And a key part of that is the synthetases that join amino acids to
> tRNA with amazing fidelity -- all 20 amino acids, a synthetase for
> each.
> How did those synthetases, which are very different chemically from
> each other, arise and supplant their ribozyme precursors?
> Approximations lacking great fidelity are worse than useless -- they
> mess up the whole translation mechanism.
Besides very recent Harish and Caetano-Anollés'findings are “arguments
that support a peptide synthesis-first origin of translation” (Harish
and Caetano-Anollés 2012). Thus these authors “earlier this year
published a phylogenetic analysis of ribosomal RNA and ribosomal
proteins, concluding that the oldest region of the ribosome is a
helical stem of the small ribosomal subunit RNA and the ribosomal
protein that binds to it. As this helical stem has the important roles
in the modern ribosome of decoding the mRNA message and in the
movement of the two subunits relative to each other (including
translocation of the mRNA message and tRNAs), Harish and Caetano-
Anollés conclude that the original function of the ribosome was as an
RNA replicase. In addition, because RNA and protein components of the
ribosome apparently have similar ages, Harish and Caetano-Anollés
surmise that peptide synthesis has always been carried out by RNA in
association with proteins, as is the case with the modern
ribosome” (Benhardt 2012 from Harish and Caetano-Anollés 2012).
References:
Benhardt HS. The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early
evolution of life (except for all the others). Biol Direct 2012;7:23.
Harish A, Caetano-Anollés G: Ribosomal history reveals origins of
modern protein synthesis. PLoS One 2012;7:e32776.
> > > Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth, either as living
> > > today or as fossils? Could it be that these were designed by "life as
> > > we do not know it"?
> > There are 2 questions in your question:
> > 1. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as living
> > today":
> > To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
> > and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
> > based unicellular organisms.
> Not even deep underground, like the "nanobes"? See below.
Firmicutes division of microbes" "living more than 3 km (2 miles)
underground" be in favor of panspermia?
> > 2. "Why do we not see any simpler life forms on earth as fossils?"
> > This is not true. In the very old rocks (e.g. Barbeton greenstone belt
> > in South Africa, 3.2-3.5 Ga) there is compelling evidence fot the
> > presence of microfossil-like structures which could have been fossils
> > of lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA (Westall F; et al. 2001).
> > Reference:
> > Westall F; et al. Early Archean fossil bacteria and biofilms in
> > hydrothermally-influenced sediments from the Barbeton greenstone belt,
> > South Africa. Precambrian Research 2001;106:93-116.
> Has this held up under scrutiny, the way "nanobes" and "nanobacteria"
> and the photos from Mars do not seem to have held up? For more
> information, see the Wikipedia entries, where one wag has called
> nanobacteria the "the cold fusion of microbiology":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobacteria
that these structures exist, and appear to replicate in some way.
However, the idea that they are living entities has now largely been
discarded, and the particles are instead believed to be nonliving
crystallizations of minerals and organic molecules".
> andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobe
> Both mention the photographs from Mars, and the former shows a
> photograph.
> photograph.
> > > > and thus the question of our origin would be much less interesting.
> > > Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
> > > origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
> > > seems to be via (6) above.
> > I agree that there is a gap between the presence of lipid vesicles
> > able to show Darwinian evolution (and able to synthesize peptides,
> > based on L-aminoacids), and D-sugars) and the emergence of the genetic
> > code. However the synthesis of RNA is much easier to conceive once a
> > metabolism based on L-peptides and D-sugars is present in lipid
> > vesicles. Then the relation between RNA and peptides via a genetic
> > code is conceivable once RNA and proteins co-exist and co-evolve.
> Show me a possible path, and suddenly my interest in lipid vesicles
> will glow white-hot.
The path is Darwinian evolution as for any organism increasing
> > > Why say this, when your lipid vesicles don't seem to connect to OUR
> > > origin via direct evolution? The simplest way to make the connection
> > > seems to be via (6) above.
> > I agree that there is a gap between the presence of lipid vesicles
> > able to show Darwinian evolution (and able to synthesize peptides,
> > based on L-aminoacids), and D-sugars) and the emergence of the genetic
> > code. However the synthesis of RNA is much easier to conceive once a
> > metabolism based on L-peptides and D-sugars is present in lipid
> > vesicles. Then the relation between RNA and peptides via a genetic
> > code is conceivable once RNA and proteins co-exist and co-evolve.
> Show me a possible path, and suddenly my interest in lipid vesicles
> will glow white-hot.
complexity in the history of Darwinian evolution on Earth. To me
Darwinian evolution was and is the relevant mechanism par excellence.
> > > > Anyway there are so many arguments against such a hypothesis and so
> > > > many in favor of a terrestrial origin
> > > Can you name a single one in favor of a terrestrial origin? I've
> > > given an argument AGAINST terrestrial origin above.
> > All the scientific litterature on the origin of life is in favor or a
> > terrestrial origin!
> Virtually all of it is earth-neutral. It has to do with the precursor
> molecules of life being produced under what is believed to be
> primitive earth conditions. But those precursor molecules are not
> even on the level of lipid vesicles.
needs complex molecules like peptides (or even L- or D-amino acids)
and nucleic acids (or even D- or L-sugars) to emerge.
If my hypothesis that Darwinian evolution emerged from lipid vesicles
with a very heterogeneous membrane is true then there is no more
problem with a terrestrial origin.
Anyway I don't see the usefulness of the panspermia hypothesis: how
would your alien bacteria have emeged on another planet? Why would
such a planet be a better craddle for the emergence of Darwinian
evolution?
> > > And, can you name me an argument against Directed Panspermia besides:
> > > (1) the ones I deal with in the FAQ,
> > > (2) the one in the part I snipped from what Robert wrote (and which I
> > > dealt with in direct reply to him), and
> > > (3) the one about the short interval of time (a few hundred million
> > > years) between the time earth became hospitable to "life as we know
> > > it" and the time life on earth began
> > When do you estimate the time Darwinian evolution began on earth?
> If directed panspermia is true, then the answer is clear from your
> comment:
bacteria, do you?
Thus you don't agree with my hypothesis that Darwinian evolution could
have emerged on Earth without the help of any alien supply?
> > To me the answer is simple: today no lipid vesicles without RNA or DNA
> > and the genetic code could challenge the competition with present DNA-
> > based unicellular organisms.
> They would have sent prokaryotes. On the other hand, if earth-grown
> abiogenesis is true, then it could have started with lipid vesicles.
> But the obstacles in the way of evolution to prokaryotes are
> inconceivably formidable.
such an evolution (by definition!).
<snip for focus>
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 3:57:05 PM1/25/13
to
On 1/24/2013 6:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>>
responsible for the iniquities of her husband... Wait, I thought you
said "Callista."
Mitchell
Callista
>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief! Are you now an ex speaker of the House?
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/23/13 4:32 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13 2:38 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> For some time now, I've been advancing the thesis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An example is what I call virtual witch-hunts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter turned me into a newt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you be turned back? Or must we simply mourn your
>>>>>> loss to talk.origins?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to believe that anyone who posts to TO is so
>>>>> Python-deficient
>>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>>
>>>>> Python-deficient
>>>>> as to miss the reference. Wilkins can explain.
>>>>
>>>> we got the "I got better" ref; chose to ignore it... :-)
>>>>
>>> Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>>> least.
>>
>> You'll have to speak to Peter about that. He's the one who
>> turned you into a newt... ;-)
>>
> Yes, which is a perfectly respectable amphibian, not a sleazy
> Republican. Have some respect for Caudata.
Certainly. As my wife is want to caution, no woman can be held wholly
>>>>
>>> Accusations that I'm the former speaker are in poor taste, at the very
>>> least.
>>
>> You'll have to speak to Peter about that. He's the one who
>> turned you into a newt... ;-)
>>
> Yes, which is a perfectly respectable amphibian, not a sleazy
> Republican. Have some respect for Caudata.
responsible for the iniquities of her husband... Wait, I thought you
said "Callista."
Mitchell
Callista
Mitchell Coffey
Jan 25, 2013, 4:06:19 PM1/25/13
to
Mitchell Coffey
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages