Frozen Planet II

[RonO]

The last episode of the documentary series Frozen Planet II was just on
TV. They had how bad global warming is to the Arctic environment and
wild life. The ending claimed that we could change this and limit
global warming to an additional 1.5 degrees.

Species like penguins and polar bears are having a hard time, but it
should have been noted that things were worse during the last warm
period between glaciation. 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
than they are now and more ice melted. Sea levels rose to the levels
that they are claiming will be an issue. We know that the Indian Ocean
and Pacific islands that they worry about flooding did flood and
terrestrial life was wiped out on those low lying islands.

It seems that what we should be working on is determining how the ice
age species made it through that last environmental catastrophe that has
been occurring around every hundred thousand years for the last million
years. The intervals between warm periods have been getting longer in
the last half million years, and life on earth hasn't been able to adapt
to that very effectively. Most of the ice age megafauna likely nearly
went extinct the last warm period, and even though their populations
came back, the populations were likely not healthy enough to survive
this warm period. No wolly rhino, mastodons, and mammoths exist
anywhere. The giant bears and saber toothed cats that fed on them
didn't make it. Species like polar bears and penguins may not survive
this warm period, and could go the way of the mammoth.

We likely need to figure out how these species survived the last warm
period that became worse than current conditions. More ice melted last
time and sea levels were as high as they are predicting for this warm
period. In order to maintain viable populations we need to make those
regions that allowed the survival of ice age species available to these
animals. More of their habitat was lost last warm period, but the
existing arctic species found somewhere to survive. We need to figure
out what those survival places were and make them available to the
species that need them.

For the penguin example, it is obvious that the last warm period the
Adele penguins had to find some place else to nest. Finding where that
was and relocating animals is likely the best way to get a large enough
population through this warm period.

The issue with man made global warming is the prediction that was put
out a few years ago that we might skip the next glacial period and the
warm period might last a hundred thousand years longer than usual.

The warm period is not the normal environment for temperate latitudes.
For the last million years most of the time the temperate latitudes have
had an arctic alpine environment. Arctic species are adapted to what
usually exists. The current environment has them limited to the icy
regions of the world, and their environment has been rollercoasting for
the last couple million years.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Looking at the last million years is geologically and biologically
short-sighted. The climate on the Earth has been changing since Earth
was created 4.5bya. Life on Earth has been adapting to it since life
began at least 3.5bya.

The challenge "global warming" causes life isn't change, but its
rapidity. The irony of "global warming" is that we humans have done
it to ourselves unnecessarily.

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

[RonO]

Natural selection is short sighted. The planet started to cool around 3
million years ago, and the current arctic species have been adapting to
that ecology since. Not only that, but the arctic species have had to
deal with long cold periods when life would have been prosperous for
them and shorter warmer periods when their habitat would have been
greatly reduced.

Initially the cycles were shorter (40,000 years or less) until around a
million years ago when the cycles got longer. For the last half million
years the cycles have been over 100,000 years long, and the fossil
genetics that we get from the ancient DNA of ice age mega fauna indicate
that their populations started a general decline in numbers. This was
likely due to the population bottlenecks suffered during the warm
periods that occurred after they had 100,000 years to readapt to glacial
conditions. Polar bears diverged from Grizzlies within the last million
years during the period when the cold periods was getting longer. The
longer cold periods likely caused issues because the tundra and alpine
species had longer to adapt to that environment, and they would have
been more poorly equipped (in terms of genetics) to deal with the warm
period and habitat reduction.

My guess is that when the intervals were shorter that the temperate
latitude species would have been more generalist, and could more easily
shift between warm and cold periods. But when the cold intervals got
longer the cold adapted species started to take over, and due to
selection became better adapted to the glacial conditions. The problem
is that these ice age species suffered during the warm periods. This
would have especially applied to the large herbivores and carnivores
that needed large territories. The ancient DNA indicates that the mega
fauna populations were in decline for the last half million to million
years. My take is that they were having issues adapting to the longer
cold periods.

>
> The challenge "global warming" causes life isn't change, but its
> rapidity. The irony of "global warming" is that we humans have done
> it to ourselves unnecessarily.
>

No more rapid than the last time. A lot of the mega fauna went extinct
during the current warm period thousands of years before humans could
have increased the warming. The last survivors of the extinct mega
fauna were not genetically healthy, and were not maintaining large
enough populations to get through the warm period. It is likely that
the last warm period when things got even warmer than they are now left
the survivors genetically depleted so even though their populations came
back during the long cold interval, they weren't genetically healthy
enough to survive this warm interval.

Natural selection is short sighted. It could not predict the change to
warmer periods during the time that the species were being adapted to
glacial conditions.

If these longer cold periods persist you would expect that eventually
the species that survived would be adapted to the long intervals, but it
would take a long time to sort out the ones that could adapt when they
have to compete against the species that adapt the fastest and best to
the cold period, and their only advantage is during the warm period.
Their populations would not be favored during the cold even as they
were adapting to it. They would have to be mediocre in both
environments, but even being mediocre during the warm period would help
them do better than the cold adapted species. It isn't as easy as
species adapting to winter and summer because the change doesn't come
every year or generation, but every hundred thousand years.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

That's not my understanding:

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/>
****************************************
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of
Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within
a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as
10 meters

[...]

Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels by more than the rise from
roughly 180 to 260 ppm at the end of the last ice age, albeit in a few
hundred years rather than over more than a few thousand years.

[...]

In fact, the amount of global warming already guaranteed by existing
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere—392 ppm and still rising—will
also play out over centuries, if not millennia. "The rise at the end
of the Ice Age and today is about the same [a rise of 100 ppm] and
we're going to be well above and beyond
******************************************

>A lot of the mega fauna went extinct
>during the current warm period thousands of years before humans could
>have increased the warming. The last survivors of the extinct mega
>fauna were not genetically healthy, and were not maintaining large
>enough populations to get through the warm period. It is likely that
>the last warm period when things got even warmer than they are now left
>the survivors genetically depleted so even though their populations came
>back during the long cold interval, they weren't genetically healthy
>enough to survive this warm interval.
>
>Natural selection is short sighted. It could not predict the change to
>warmer periods during the time that the species were being adapted to
>glacial conditions.
>
>If these longer cold periods persist you would expect that eventually
>the species that survived would be adapted to the long intervals, but it
>would take a long time to sort out the ones that could adapt when they
>have to compete against the species that adapt the fastest and best to
>the cold period, and their only advantage is during the warm period.
>Their populations would not be favored during the cold even as they
>were adapting to it. They would have to be mediocre in both
>environments, but even being mediocre during the warm period would help
>them do better than the cold adapted species. It isn't as easy as
>species adapting to winter and summer because the change doesn't come
>every year or generation, but every hundred thousand years.
>
>Ron Okimoto

IIUC your point above is that the back-and-forth of interglacial
periods is too rapid for arctic species to fully adapt. I acknowledge
evolution has no foresight. I acknowledge that certain haplotypes and
even species disappeared during these periods. That didn't prevent
related genera from other regions to occupy expanding niches. So yes,
polar bears go extinct, but other bear species increase their range.
Or narwhal go extinct, but orca increase their range.

However, what is happening now is the next mass extinction is already
underway. Not only are the oceans getting warmer, creating large
anoxic regions, but they are also getting more acidic, killing shelled
organisms and plankton, the basis of ocean foodchains. Few species
can overcome this and massive pollution and overharvesting all at the
same time. Life will continue, and perhaps humans, but almost
certainly not our civilization.

[RonO]

The glacial maximum was 25,000 years ago, and the temperature was rising
before that. The ice kept growing even after the lowest temperatures
had been reached and the earth started to warm again. We already could
have started the usual decline in temperatures, but the industrial
revolution happened, and CO2 levels increased dramatically.
Temperatures had plateaued lower than they had gotten the previous ice
age warm interval, and this warm interval may have not been as warm as
the last one. At least two of the last 5 warm intervals reached higher
temperatures than the current interval. As a harbinger of what likely
should be happening we had the little ice age of the 14th century that
caused famine and cold weather. Sometimes the temperature fluctuates
for thousands of years at a fairly high temp, but usually there is a
rise and then fall over around a 30,000 year period. The cycles have
been getting longer, so we might have had an extended warm period.

In terms of the little ice age, the claim is that the little ice age
didn't break until the mid 19th century, and it might be that the
industrial revolution kept us from experiencing further declines in
temperature. As I noted there have been predictions that man made
global warming may cause a skip and we may not have the expected 100,000
year cold glacial period. It might be that if it wasn't for human
global warming that we could have continued to see little ice ages as
the earth cooled and it would be temperate latitude humans that would be
shifting south as polar bears started to bask and hunt further south
with the growing ice sheets. The sea ice was so bad during the little
ice age that ships could not navigate to Greenland and that colony died out.

More ice melted and the temperature was higher last warm period. The
issue is habitat. The extant species found places to survive. Humans
have already decimated their populations. Many arctic species are just
making a comeback. Things were worse for them last time, but there were
more of them to start with, and they occupied more territory than humans
have pushed them into at this time. The global warming guys want to
limit global warming to another 1.5 degrees, but the species are
suffering now. We really do need to figure out what habitats they
survived in last time and make sure that these habitats are made
available to the survivors. Without a place to live through the mess
they aren't going to make it.

This could mean creating new habitat for existing species. Important
species such as salmon likely established runs further north as the ice
melted, and we might want to help that along. They would provide the
polar bears with another source of food just when then need it. We do
need to figure out what happened last time. The extant species found
some place to survive.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

My impression is, dating the glacial maximum has large error bars,
sufficient that I would not quibble over 5,000 years.

Also, it's understood that climatic temperature changes initially due
to Milankovitch cycles, and CO2 positive feedback amplifies that
initial change.

Cite

>The
>issue is habitat. The extant species found places to survive. Humans
>have already decimated their populations. Many arctic species are just
>making a comeback. Things were worse for them last time, but there were
>more of them to start with, and they occupied more territory than humans
>have pushed them into at this time. The global warming guys want to
>limit global warming to another 1.5 degrees, but the species are
>suffering now. We really do need to figure out what habitats they
>survived in last time and make sure that these habitats are made
>available to the survivors. Without a place to live through the mess
>they aren't going to make it.
>
>This could mean creating new habitat for existing species. Important
>species such as salmon likely established runs further north as the ice
>melted, and we might want to help that along. They would provide the
>polar bears with another source of food just when then need it. We do
>need to figure out what happened last time. The extant species found
>some place to survive.
>
>Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I return after a bit over two months of break, and what do I see? A much less busy
talk.origins than when I left, and one of the most scientifically oriented discussions featuring
only two participants, neither of whom did much homework on the assertions that
one of them made in the OP, even though homework was badly called for.

Here we go:

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 10:10:18 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> The last episode of the documentary series Frozen Planet II was just on
> TV. They had how bad global warming is to the Arctic environment and
> wild life. The ending claimed that we could change this and limit
> global warming to an additional 1.5 degrees.
>
> Species like penguins and polar bears are having a hard time, but it
> should have been noted that things were worse during the last warm
> period between glaciation.

Did any of the episodes go back that far in geological history, let alone much further?

> 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
> than they are now and more ice melted. Sea levels rose to the levels
> that they are claiming will be an issue. We know that the Indian Ocean
> and Pacific islands that they worry about flooding did flood and
> terrestrial life was wiped out on those low lying islands.

If you have a source for this, did it actually cite studies done on those islands,
or did it merely deduce these things from the average global sea level rise?

> It seems that what we should be working on is determining how the ice
> age species made it through that last environmental catastrophe that has
> been occurring around every hundred thousand years for the last million
> years. The intervals between warm periods have been getting longer in
> the last half million years, and life on earth hasn't been able to adapt
> to that very effectively. Most of the ice age megafauna likely nearly
> went extinct the last warm period,

Where do you get this idea? The megafauna of the tropics and subtropics and places with
a temperate climate were doing just fine. For instance, Deinotherium, a proboscidean
with no tusks in the upper jaw and enigmatic tusks curving downwards from the lower jaw,
grew to record sizes far outstripping those of the modern elephant;
and there were mastodons more massive, and mammoths bigger than the woolly mammoth.

Also, many different orders had their giants: giant ground sloths;
camels as tall as giraffes and others much heavier than modern camels;
Diprotodon, a marsupial estimated at up to 2,000 kilos, and kangaroos 9-10 feet tall;
the elephant bird of Madagascar, the heaviest bird that ever lived as far as we know.

> and even though their populations
> came back, the populations were likely not healthy enough to survive
> this warm period.

Unorthodox speculation. Specialists in this area lean towards a very different explanation.

> No wolly rhino, mastodons, and mammoths exist
> anywhere.

Right: unlike the elephants and rhinos of Africa and India, these did not coevolve with
humans, and so they were mowed down by Homo sapiens sapiens as it invaded Europe,
Asia, and much later the Americas.

Heck, just look at how cold Siberia is even today, and tell me with a straight face
that the animals you name couldn't make it today if they hadn't become extinct.

>The giant bears and saber toothed cats that fed on them
> didn't make it.

There were no bears more giant than the Kodiak and polar bears.

Anyway, saber toothed cats died out mainly because their giant prey was gone,
and the same is true of Teratornis, the giant cousin of the California condor;
a giant eagle that preyed on the giant moa of New Zealand; and Thylacoleo,
a marsupial that preyed on the megafauna of Australia.

Btw the saber tooth's prey included the giant ground sloths that successfully invaded North America
once the isthmus of Panama linked the two Americas. These too were probable casualties
of Homo sapiens sapiens. Their giant claws, bigger than bear claws, probably protected
them well from all other predators.

>Species like polar bears and penguins may not survive
> this warm period, and could go the way of the mammoth.

Antarctica has been glaciated for the last ten million years. The ice ages and interglacials
only slightly touched it -- and, for that matter, the Southern hemisphere--
except for precipitation levels here and there.

By the way, penguins are not all cold dependent. Do some homework-- this is really
basic zoology.

> We likely need to figure out how these species survived the last warm
> period that became worse than current conditions. More ice melted last
> time and sea levels were as high as they are predicting for this warm
> period. In order to maintain viable populations we need to make those
> regions that allowed the survival of ice age species available to these
> animals. More of their habitat was lost last warm period, but the
> existing arctic species found somewhere to survive. We need to figure
> out what those survival places were and make them available to the
> species that need them.

"We" doesn't include you and jillery, unless you do some serious
learning for the next couple of years, by the looks of it --
and that also doesn't include the t.o. regulars who could have
given you some basic lessons, but may have been at a loss as
to how to do it without offending you.

But, as you both know, I have no qualms about offending either of you.
OTOH I didn't want to go into overkill this first time around.

>
> For the penguin example, it is obvious that the last warm period the
> Adele penguins had to find some place else to nest.

Not obvious at all, because there is nothing about ice and snow
that is necessary for them to breed. There might possibly have been some
difficulty in finding sea animals to feed on, but I doubt it. Like I wrote
above, the Antarctic wasn't drastically affected by the ups and downs
of the Northern Hemisphere.

> Finding where that
> was and relocating animals is likely the best way to get a large enough
> population through this warm period.
>
> The issue with man made global warming is the prediction that was put
> out a few years ago that we might skip the next glacial period and the
> warm period might last a hundred thousand years longer than usual.

A distinct possibility, but everything depends on us humans. If we
don't survive for tens of thousands of years to come, the Milankovitch cycles
that jillery mentioned earlier today would re-assert their pre-eminence.

> The warm period is not the normal environment for temperate latitudes.
> For the last million years most of the time the temperate latitudes have
> had an arctic alpine environment. Arctic species are adapted to what
> usually exists. The current environment has them limited to the icy
> regions of the world, and their environment has been rollercoasting for
> the last couple million years.
>
> Ron Okimoto

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

[RonO]

I don't want to interact with a lying asshole like Nyikos, but I will
put up the supporting evidence for what I had claimed during discussions
on this topic, in order to demonstrate what an asshole Nyikos is. Why
wouldn't he look this stuff up for himself instead of being the asshole
that he is and making the claims that he made?

Evidence that there were at least two warm periods within the last half
million years where more ice melted than has melted at this time in the
current warm period.

https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/186/3/666/5487031?login=false

A flightless species of rail went extinct when sea levels were 20 meters
higher then they are now. This occurred 136,000 years ago, and a second
one 3 ice ages ago (340,000 years ago) are shown in Figure 3. I would
note that 20 meters more is what has been predicted to occur if we do
not curb global warming.

The wiki for ice ages has a graph on temperature and amount of ice. It
shows that it got warmer than the current warm period twice in the last
500,000 years. More ice melted 136,000 years ago, and the rail paper
claims that sea level was 20 meters higher than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32795436/
This paper is open access and notes the population decline of wooly
rhinos over the past 1 million years after the cold periods got longer
than 40,000 years. The same trend was noted in the genomes of wooly
mammoths. It wasn't just the ice age arctic and alpine species that
were affected by the extension of the cold period. Temperate species
such as peacocks, junglefowl and tigers show the same decline in
effective population size over this time period. So the extended cold
periods were hard on the temperate species (probably because their
habitat was restricted for a longer period of time. The arctic species
population decline was likely due to having a longer time to adapt to
the arctic conditions only to have that habitat greatly reduced for a
short, but devestating period of time. The rhinos, mastadon and mammoth
didn't make it through this warm period, but their decline started a
million years ago.

Popular science article on the rhino genome.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-ancient-genomes-woolly-rhinos-extinct.html

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The relevant stretch for the OP is somewhere in the middle. The time from the end
of the Mesozoic to the present gives close to the full range of possibilities.
Feast your eyes on the graph I linked below, paying special heed to
the events and trends that influenced the state of the Antarctic glaciation.
It makes Ron O's talk about penguins look naive, given the general overall
downwards trend in global temperatures over the last 15 million years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

There are other graphs where that one came from, on different time scales:

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

The first graph covers the last 5 million years. This was well after, and colder,
than when the Antarctic glaciation began to re-form. We have a good
ways to go before we get even as high as the beginning.

> Life on Earth has been adapting to it since life
> began at least 3.5bya.
>
> The challenge "global warming" causes life isn't change, but its
> rapidity.

Yes. The really big question for climatologists is whether the present trends
are likely to take us back in the next century to the high temperatures that gave the earth
the last Antarctic thaw that began ca. 25 million years ago. It's a multifaceted issue,
and the burning of fossil fuels is only one part of it.

> The irony of "global warming" is that we humans have done
> it to ourselves unnecessarily.

Getting us out of the Little Ice Age was not what I would call "unnecessary."
But I agree we have gone a bit too far in that direction.

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

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

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:03:51 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I return after a bit over two months of break

Back in December, I challenged you to back up your assertion that I am
an apostate Catholic. You said you would deal with it in your own time
- three months seems plenty of time, care to deal with it now?

[...]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:10:23 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:03:51 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I return after a bit over two months of break

> Back in December, I challenged you to back up your assertion that I am
> an apostate Catholic.

I did not assert that. Re-read what I actually wrote, and see if you
can spot the difference.


By the way, I wonder whether you approve of Ron O's response to me on this thread.
You may wish to wait until you see my reply to that post before making up your mind.
Of course, telling us one way or the other about your opinion is completely optional.


I'll reply to Ron O's post on Monday. By that time, daylight saving time will have kicked in here in the USA, and
I've been adjusting my sleep schedule in anticipation of it. So I'm starting my weekend break right now.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:19:30 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:10:23?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:03:51 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I return after a bit over two months of break
>
>> Back in December, I challenged you to back up your assertion that I am
>> an apostate Catholic.
>
>I did not assert that. Re-read what I actually wrote, and see if you
>can spot the difference.

Standard Nyikos Tactic #1 - double down by telling another lie denying
the first one:

=====================================
Message-ID: 259dc2c9-39c0-4fcc...@googlegroups.com

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/vSTo4FsJBAAJ

Glenn to me:
"Everything you say just adds supports to the fact that you are an
atheist. It is why your lame crap is tolerated here."

Your response to that:
"Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that."


------------------------------------------------------------------

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m3D7t5Ija0A/m/8PWtuFFCBQAJ

Message-ID: d6eb335d-8c35-4a0f...@googlegroups.com


Me to you:
"Identify where I have renounced my Catholic faith to become an
apostate (waiting since 16 Dec)"

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

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

>
>


>By the way, I wonder whether you approve of Ron O's response to me on this thread.

Standard Nyikos Tactic #2 - try to divert the discussion to something
else.

[匽

[erik simpson]

He'll never get to your issue here, because he has absolutely no knowledge of the
state of your faith or lack thereof. He's aware of that; he's not stupid, but he'll never
give you the satisfaction of acknowledging that.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Glenn told Ron O, "You're insane" from time to time, and Ron O's behavior in
the post to which I am replying lends credence to that assertion.

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

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

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:40:22 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 9:09 PM, RonO wrote:
> > The last episode of the documentary series Frozen Planet II was just on
> > TV. They had how bad global warming is to the Arctic environment and
> > wild life. The ending claimed that we could change this and limit
> > global warming to an additional 1.5 degrees.
> >
> > Species like penguins and polar bears are having a hard time, but it
> > should have been noted that things were worse during the last warm
> > period between glaciation. 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
> > than they are now and more ice melted. Sea levels rose to the levels
> > that they are claiming will be an issue. We know that the Indian Ocean
> > and Pacific islands that they worry about flooding did flood and
> > terrestrial life was wiped out on those low lying islands.
> >
> > It seems that what we should be working on is determining how the ice
> > age species made it through that last environmental catastrophe that has
> > been occurring around every hundred thousand years for the last million
> > years. The intervals between warm periods have been getting longer in
> > the last half million years, and life on earth hasn't been able to adapt
> > to that very effectively. Most of the ice age megafauna likely nearly
> > went extinct the last warm period,

Ron O made no attempt to support this, either in the OP or in the part he
added this time around. He didn't even name a single
species of megafauna that supposedly "nearly went extinct"
in the warm period of ca. 130,000 years ago.

And so, he has "run away" from my response to this supposition. Here is the challenge I gave:

"Where do you get this idea? The megafauna of the tropics and subtropics and places with
a temperate climate were doing just fine. For instance, Deinotherium, a proboscidean
with no tusks in the upper jaw and enigmatic tusks curving downwards from the lower jaw,
grew to record sizes far outstripping those of the modern elephant;
and there were mastodons more massive, and mammoths bigger than the woolly mammoth.

"Also, many different orders had their giants: giant ground sloths;
camels as tall as giraffes and others much heavier than modern camels;
Diprotodon, a marsupial estimated at up to 2,000 kilos, and kangaroos 9-10 feet tall;
the elephant bird of Madagascar, the heaviest bird that ever lived as far as we know."

--https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/7z8nZ0LbAgAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II . . . Mar 7, 2023, 10:05:21 PM

There were several shortcomings of the rest of this paragraph, as
can be seen from the post I linked above. Ron O did not dare to reply
directly to that post.

> > and even though their populations
> > came back, the populations were likely not healthy enough to survive
> > this warm period. No wolly rhino, mastodons, and mammoths exist
> > anywhere. The giant bears and saber toothed cats that fed on them
> > didn't make it. Species like polar bears and penguins may not survive
> > this warm period, and could go the way of the mammoth.

> > We likely need to figure out how these species survived the last warm
> > period that became worse than current conditions. More ice melted last
> > time and sea levels were as high as they are predicting for this warm
> > period. In order to maintain viable populations we need to make those
> > regions that allowed the survival of ice age species available to these
> > animals. More of their habitat was lost last warm period, but the
> > existing arctic species found somewhere to survive. We need to figure
> > out what those survival places were and make them available to the
> > species that need them.
> >
> > For the penguin example, it is obvious that the last warm period the
> > Adele penguins had to find some place else to nest.

Ron O hasn't tried to show this is true, let alone obvious, and so my
refutation of this claim stands:

"Not obvious at all, because there is nothing about ice and snow
that is necessary [for them to breed. There might possibly have been some
difficulty in finding sea animals to feed on, but I doubt it. Like I wrote
above, the Antarctic wasn't drastically affected by the ups and downs
of the Northern Hemisphere."

--*ibid*

> > Finding where that was and relocating animals is likely the best way to get a large enough
> > population through this warm period.
> >
> > The issue with man made global warming is the prediction that was put
> > out a few years ago that we might skip the next glacial period and the
> > warm period might last a hundred thousand years longer than usual.
> >
> > The warm period is not the normal environment for temperate latitudes.

Ron O's "normal" is the "new normal" that has only been in existence for less than two million years.
Before that, it WAS the normal environment except when it was a lot warmer
than in these warm periods, including this one. See:

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

> > For the last million years most of the time the temperate latitudes have
> > had an arctic alpine environment. Arctic species are adapted to what
> > usually exists. The current environment has them limited to the icy
> > regions of the world, and their environment has been rollercoasting for
> > the last couple million years.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> >
> I don't want to interact with a lying asshole like Nyikos,

This unsupported insult of me is just an excuse for his utter, complete
running away from anything I wrote.

> but I will put up the supporting evidence for what I had claimed during discussions
> on this topic, in order to demonstrate what an asshole Nyikos is. Why
> wouldn't he look this stuff up for himself instead of being the asshole
> that he is and making the claims that he made?

This rant by Ron O is an example of a common dirty debating tactic that I call
The Phantom Error Correction Scam. This consists of lecturing as though one
were correcting errors of the target person, yet without identifying a single error.
Often, as here, the rest of the lecture is mostly about brand new topics that hadn't
been mentioned on the thread before.

>
> Evidence that there were at least two warm periods within the last half
> million years where more ice melted than has melted at this time in the
> current warm period.
>
> https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/186/3/666/5487031?login=false

The above Wiki reference provides evidence of the same things and much more.
I talked about it to jillery:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/FhZcKWMqAwAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II . . . Mar 8, 2023, 10:15:23 PM

> A flightless species of rail went extinct when sea levels were 20 meters
> higher then they are now. This occurred 136,000 years ago, and a second
> one 3 ice ages ago (340,000 years ago) are shown in Figure 3.

Rails aren't megafauna; so much for Ron O's speculation above.



CONCLUDED tomorrow. Duty calls.

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

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I've left in the rest of what Ron O wrote, just so he can't
hypocritically accuse me of "running away" from it.
In fact, I'll have some things to say about it tomorrow.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Not that I think anyone reading this will mind, but I thought I'd say it anyway: some pressing obligations that
I thought I could finish early today, I can only finish just before calling it a day today. So the concluding reply
to Ron O's post which is preserved below, will only be done tomorrow some time.

As for two regulars who posted off-topic attacks while completely ignoring on-topic discussion:
on-topic science, even when mixed with off-topic comments, takes priority. But they too will get their turn.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This is my second reply to Ron O's benighted pseudo-reply to me,
where he wrote just enough insults to make it clear that he thought
he was refuting me. But he never did anything like that:
his second time around even undermined some of what he had written
the first time around.

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:40:22 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:

> On 3/4/2023 9:09 PM, RonO wrote:

[...]

> > 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
> > than they are now and more ice melted.

[...]

> > Most of the ice age megafauna likely nearly
> > went extinct the last warm period,

Not a single example of an animal has been given by Ron O
to support this assertion, either in the OP or his follow-up to it.


I've criticized it and some other things that he wrote later,
but rather than repeat my counterexamples again, I'll just point out
that the one kind of megafauna about which Ron O gave detailed
information this second time around, the woolly rhinoceros,
declined for the next 100,000 years after the last warm period.
He gave quite the opposite impression the first time around:

>> and even though their populations came back,
>>the populations were likely not healthy enough to survive this warm period.

[snip rest of first post and the hateful crap that he hurled at me in the follow-up]

> https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/186/3/666/5487031?login=false
>
> A flightless species of rail went extinct when sea levels were 20 meters
> higher then they are now. This occurred 136,000 years ago, and a second
> one 3 ice ages ago (340,000 years ago) are shown in Figure 3. I would
> note that 20 meters more is what has been predicted to occur if we do
> not curb global warming.

Ron O talks about little birds instead of megafauna, leaving his earlier
assertion high and dry.

> The wiki for ice ages has a graph on temperature and amount of ice. It
> shows that it got warmer than the current warm period twice in the last
> 500,000 years.

The woolly rhinoceros, one of the megafauna about which Ron O makes a big issue below,
did fine during the warm period 340,000 years ago [see above]
and did not do badly during the one he mentions next, known as the Eemian:

>More ice melted 136,000 years ago, and the rail paper
> claims that sea level was 20 meters higher than today.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

A cute detail here is that the one for ice is upside down, little at the top
and lots on the bottom, and the peaks and valleys of temperature
and ice thus parallel each other extremely well.

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32795436/
> This paper is open access and notes the population decline of wooly
> rhinos over the past 1 million years after the cold periods got longer
> than 40,000 years.

WRONG! The graph shows the population plummeting *before* a million years ago,
after which there was a gradual overall increase in population between 1Ma and the Eemian.
when the ice started to advance again, after the Eemian,
it suffered a big decline instead of "coming back" as Ron O had suggested above.
The only comeback was much later, about 28k years ago

>The same trend was noted in the genomes of wooly
> mammoths.

No reference was given for this "noting."

After having harped on the supposed disastrous effects of
warming on megafauna, Ron O talks about the effects of cold,
something neither of us addressed until right here:

> It wasn't just the ice age arctic and alpine species that
> were affected by the extension of the cold period. Temperate species
> such as peacocks, junglefowl and tigers show the same decline in
> effective population size over this time period.

After all the inaccuracies above, it's probably just as well that
Ron O didn't try to document this claim.

> So the extended cold
> periods were hard on the temperate species (probably because their
> habitat was restricted for a longer period of time. The arctic species
> population decline was likely due to having a longer time to adapt to
> the arctic conditions

Illogical.

> only to have that habitat greatly reduced for a
> short, but devestating period of time. The rhinos, mastadon and mammoth
> didn't make it through this warm period, but their decline started a
> million years ago.

This contradicts what the graph shows, as I remarked above.

>
> Popular science article on the rhino genome.
> https://phys.org/news/2020-08-ancient-genomes-woolly-rhinos-extinct.html

An excerpt undermines what Ron O wrote above:

""We examined changes in population size and estimated inbreeding," says co-first author Nicolas Dussex, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Palaeogenetics. "We found that after an increase in population size at the start of a cold period some 29,000 years ago, the woolly rhino population size remained constant and that at this time, inbreeding was low."

Contrast that with:

>>the populations were likely not healthy enough to survive this warm period.

This is the only place where Ron O documented a contrary opinion to the
one I gave, which was that the reason so much megafauna became extinct
during this last warm period was the arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens,
with which the megafauna had not coevolved.

Popularizations are not very reliable, and this one suggests that it is
trying to overturn a generally held opinion that I've supported above.
The one datum that it marshals is that our arrival did nothing to stop
an increase in population of the woolly rhino.

However, there is no mention of an important issue: what kinds
of weapons did the hunters have at their disposal? Flint is a rare
commodity, and it is only because there was a lot of trading
over long distances that we see it so widespread in ancient sites.

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

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

[Glenn]

Tricky word, knowledge. Apparently you think your claim here to be absolute knowledge.
But yes, it is possible to judge people's faith based on what they say and how they behave.
Personal convictions about others are no more absolute than yours.
If you had any integrity, you would realize that Peter's claim is correct. He did not "assert" that Martin was an apostate Catholic, he claimed that being one here is adequate to have such lame crap as Martin spews tolerated here.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 18:54:52 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:10:25?PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:

>> > [?

>> He'll never get to your issue here, because he has absolutely no knowledge of the
>> state of your faith or lack thereof. He's aware of that; he's not stupid, but he'll never
>> give you the satisfaction of acknowledging that.
>
>Tricky word, knowledge. Apparently you think your claim here to be absolute knowledge.
>But yes, it is possible to judge people's faith based on what they say and how they behave.
>Personal convictions about others are no more absolute than yours.
>If you had any integrity, you would realize that Peter's claim is correct. He did not "assert" that Martin was an apostate Catholic, he claimed that being one here is adequate to have such lame crap as Martin spews tolerated here.

Welcome back. I hope you and Peter enjoyed your holiday together.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 19:46:15 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>As for two regulars who posted off-topic attacks while completely ignoring on-topic discussion:
>on-topic science, even when mixed with off-topic comments, takes priority. But they too will get their turn.

Standard Nyikos Tactic #3 - prevaricate in the hope that people will
forget the issue.

[...]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I note that Martin has nothing to say about this on-target analysis by Glenn.
Perhaps he is hoping for his shill Erik to come through with some riposte.
I'll address him briefly below.

> Welcome back. I hope you and Peter enjoyed your holiday together.

I didn't even lurk to see what Glenn was doing. Has he been absent most of the time I was gone?

Did you and Erik get together while I was gone, or is this the first interaction he's had with you this year?


Peter Nyikos

PS It is only because Glenn entered this thread for the first time that I am posting here today at all.
It's sad that jillery, Ron O and I are the only people here who are showing any interest in
the solidly scientific and fascinating theme of the ice ages and their impact on biota,
including us hominini.

[RonO]

I will note that Nyikos does what he does just to harass me. He
obviously had no interest in this topic. His own projection has him
doing it because he is a sadistic hate filled maniac that thinks that he
is righting some wrong done to him in the past. Nyikos has always
brought it all onto himself. He has just added to the things that he
can't deal with in his failed attempts to lie about the past. No one
should have been subjected to the Nyikosian stupidity and harassment for
over a decade. It should be apparent that Nyikos only posted the junk
to harass me because he wasn't interested in the topic enough to read
the cited paper in order to figure out what it actually supported.

This behavior should end. I do not stalk Nyikos around TO, and Nyikos
should not be allowed to continue to do what he does.

Nyikios' last attempt at harassment that should have been his last for
any sane individual.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/Dj0vda_tAgAJ

This type of stupidity due to Nyikosian harassment should never take
place, but it just never ends.

I didn't expect Nyikos to address these two points because he was just
plain wrong about them, and his nit picking doesn't do much to change
that fact. I don't care about his issues with other posters. His first
attempted response was pathetic, and he did try again. He did nothing
to counter the fact that there were at least two warm interglacial
periods before the current one where the temperatures were higher and
more ice melted. His stupid flailing about being wrong and the fact
that he should have been able to figure it out for himself is just
stupid. He even acknowledges that the Wiki supports me, but he makes
some stupid comment about the inversion of the graph that simply doesn't
matter at all. His stupid comments about the rail extinction example is
just nonsense. I used that paper to demonstrate that during the last
interglacial sea levels were 20 meters higher then they are today, and
that more ice melted in the last interglacial. The Nyikosian denial
that rails are not megafauna was just nonsense. Nyikos was just wrong
about interglacial temperatures and how much ice melted.

For the rhino example the population decline did start more than a
million years ago, but so what? It still happened. Two interglacials
ago the temperatures did not get as warm as the current period, and the
species of rhino under discussion and some mammoths did come through
pretty well and they show an increase in effective population size
during the cold period before the last previous interglacial where
temperatures got higher than they are today and more ice melted than has
melted currently. If Nyikos had bothered to read the paper for
comprehension he would have understood that the authors admit that there
was a population crash during the last warm period that is not picked up
by their effective population size estimates. They cite a wooly mammoth
paper as an example of the population crash that they expected to
happen. They try to explain the long tail where the effective
population size estimates stay high before bottoming out to a low long
after the population had recovered during the last cold period. Their
explanation was that during the high temperature and low ice period
multiple small isolated populations survived the bottleneck, and when
they could expand out into more territory they interbred. They thought
that males moving between populations could accomplish a population
mixing that would reestablish genetic diversity that had been preserved
in the small isolated populations. In our paper that noted the decline
in genetic diversity of domestic chickens we stated the obvious
conclusion that we could recreate a population with nearly all of the
genetic diversity domestic chickens started with by crossing the extant
domestic breeds together. Each population had lost diversity over time
even as their total population increased because of how they were
propagated as small flocks in isolated villages, but each population had
retained a different bit of the original genetic variation, and if
combined would restore a lot of the genetic variation that domestic
chickens started with.

All this means is that the paper acknowledged that there had been a
severe population crash during the last interglacial that was not picked
up by their method of calculating effective population size. They also
admit that they can't explain why their estimate of effective population
size continues to decline for tens of thousands of years after the
population had likely regained a stable size of around 100,000 breeding
females. This decline is likely just a reflection of the population
crash that occurred before the population recovery because you can remix
the genetic variation, but as soon as you start crossing relatives you
are going to start loosing the genetic variation. For some reason their
methods do not pick up the population crash that they expected to
happen, and instead shows a gradual decline even after the bottle neck
was resolved and a large stable population was being maintained for 10s
of thousands of years during this period of decline. They could not
explain the long decline in effective population size and the final low
that did not reflect the larger population size estimate obtained by
other means. For some reason the population bottleneck during the
previous interglacial took a long time to manifest in the rhino genome,
and did not show a recovery until after the glacial maximum when the
population had actually recovered just a few thousand years after the
last warm period ended. They can't explain why the effective population
estimate continued to decline and bottomed out over a period when other
estimates indicated that a stable population of around 100,000 breeding
females was reestablished soon after the last warm period and this
population was relatively stable over a period of 100,000 years.

So the Nyikosian response is the usual Nyikosian null response. What
Nyikos was wrong about, he is still wrong about. Nit picking and
outright stupidity will not support the harassment.

This harassment should stop. The only reason to continue the harassment
is the insane behavior of Nyikos. For whatever reason he has never been
able to deal with the fact that he has been wrong about multiple things
like the present examples. All the craziness with the ID scam was due
to Nyikos' first mistake when he was wrong about the Discovery
Institute's involvement in the bait and switch that has been going on
for over 20 years. He blames me for his bumbling stupidity and
dishonesty since. It is just nuts because he wouldn't have as much of
his assoholic behavior to blame me for if he had never started his
harassment due to simply being shown to be wrong about something.

I maintain as little interaction with the lying asshole as is possible,
and if the baseless harassment continues Nyikos should be banned from
TO. I had enjoyed a fairly long break from the assoholic behavior
during the recent Nykosian vacation, and that break should be extended
indefinitely. If Nyikos can't control his assoholic behavior, he should
be stopped from doing it. Nyikos didn't care if he was wrong about the
junk, it was just harassment. He obviously didn't care enough about
being wrong to do what needed to be done in order to determine that he
was wrong, nor understand the paper that was used to counter his denial.
Just use the link and go back to the last such episode to determine
how tragically sad Nyikos has always been.

The last such Nykosian episode:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/Dj0vda_tAgAJ

I will likely be referring to this post to make my case in the future if
this harassment continues.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:48:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

The issue has nothing to do with Glenn, it is between you and me, and
I have made clear numerous times that I have no interest in getting
involved in his silly semantic game playing which he seems to think is
an effective method of defending the indefensible.

*Your* total failure to either back up or withdraw your claim is clear
evidence yet again that you are simply a particularly nasty person who
takes it upon himself to lecture others about morality yet has no
hesitation in making baseless accusations about people simply because
they do not conform to his way of thinking.

>Perhaps he is hoping for his shill Erik to come through with some riposte.

I will leave the shills to you as you are the one who is in need of
them.

>I'll address him briefly below.

Which you don't do.

>
>
>> Welcome back. I hope you and Peter enjoyed your holiday together.
>
>I didn't even lurk to see what Glenn was doing. Has he been absent most of the time I was gone?
>
>Did you and Erik get together while I was gone, or is this the first interaction he's had with you this year?

Yet again you try to use snideness as a defence. You really are a
miserable person.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> Tricky word, knowledge. Apparently you think your claim here to be absolute knowledge.

Erik doesn't even have knowledge of what the word "issue" means to Martin. Martin made it clear
in his reply to you already, and made it explicit in his latest reply to me, that the use that means by far the most to him
is "my issue is with [name of person]" and not what seems to be the usual usage of every normal person.

[Erik, for example, uses the word in the way that is normal for talk.origins, even though the issue
has nothing to do with the issues this thread is supposedly all about. But that too is normal for t.o.]

As a result, Martin made absolutely no attempt to counter your direct addressing of the actual issue,
in the usual sense, that Martin himself had raised:

> But yes, it is possible to judge people's faith based on what they say and how they behave.
> Personal convictions about others are no more absolute than yours.
> If you had any integrity, you would realize that Peter's claim is correct. He did not "assert" that Martin was an apostate Catholic, he claimed that being one here is adequate to have such lame crap as Martin spews tolerated here.

Indeed, and it is not even necessary to be an apostate; one need only behave in
a way that shows no respect for Jesus's admonition, "Do not bear false witness."
You can see that by the pejorative way Martin makes reckless accusations of one nonexistent
"Standard Nyikos Tactic" after another.

The majority of regulars who have issues [in Martin's favorite sense] with the two of us make
Martin feel right at home here, since Jesus's words mean almost nothing to them when they
talk to or about us. And the way Martin's behavior has changed over the years makes
it clear that feeling at home with them is something he values very highly -- more highly
than his integrity, for example.


Peter Nyikos

PS Your use of the word "fact" in the issue of which Erik wrote was unwise, and so I will
address the issue myself later this week.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:35:36 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 9:55:29?PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:10:25?PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:

>> > > [?

>> > He'll never get to your issue here, because he has absolutely no knowledge of the
>> > state of your faith or lack thereof. He's aware of that; he's not stupid, but he'll never
>> > give you the satisfaction of acknowledging that
>
>> Tricky word, knowledge. Apparently you think your claim here to be absolute knowledge.
>
>Erik doesn't even have knowledge of what the word "issue" means to Martin. Martin made it clear
>in his reply to you already, and made it explicit in his latest reply to me, that the use that means by far the most to him
>is "my issue is with [name of person]" and not what seems to be the usual usage of every normal person.
>
>[Erik, for example, uses the word in the way that is normal for talk.origins, even though the issue
>has nothing to do with the issues this thread is supposedly all about. But that too is normal for t.o.]
>
>As a result, Martin made absolutely no attempt to counter your direct addressing of the actual issue,
>in the usual sense, that Martin himself had raised:

You are the one who is making no attempt to deal with your lies,
preferring to try a feeble distraction by mutual stroking with your
shill.

>
>> But yes, it is possible to judge people's faith based on what they say and how they behave.
>> Personal convictions about others are no more absolute than yours.
>> If you had any integrity, you would realize that Peter's claim is correct. He did not "assert" that Martin was an apostate Catholic, he claimed that being one here is adequate to have such lame crap as Martin spews tolerated here.
>
>Indeed, and it is not even necessary to be an apostate;

Oh, do I hear the sound of Peter's steps as he tries to quietly walk
away from his lies in the hope that nobody will notice? Doesn't work -
you labelled me an apostate, nothing less, and that's what you have to
deal with.

>one need only behave in
>a way that shows no respect for Jesus's admonition, "Do not bear false witness."

Irony meters have just exploded all around the world.

> You can see that by the pejorative way Martin makes reckless accusations of one nonexistent
>"Standard Nyikos Tactic" after another.

Feel free to show how any of my accusations were unfounded, let alone
*reckless*.

>
>The majority of regulars who have issues [in Martin's favorite sense] with the two of us make
>Martin feel right at home here, since Jesus's words mean almost nothing to them when they
>talk to or about us. And the way Martin's behavior has changed over the years makes
>it clear that feeling at home with them is something he values very highly -- more highly
>than his integrity, for example.

Perhaps you would like to explain how my behaviour has changed. Oh,
wait a minute, I know how it has changed, in my naivety, I originally
thought you were an honest and upright guy and treated you
accordingly; then I discovered the nasty liar you really are.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Ron O continues to avoid quoting anything by me, and continues to rely
on a highly faulty memory of what I said while continuing to "talk to himself" below.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> On 3/8/2023 7:37 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 3/4/2023 9:09 PM, RonO wrote:

One good thing about Ron O's whole post is that he continues to
show interest in the topic of the OP. This is in stark contrast to the behavior
of Erik Simpson and especially the behavior of Martin Harran.
[And, in the interests of full disclosure: the behavior of Glenn.]

> >> The last episode of the documentary series Frozen Planet II was just
> >> on TV. They had how bad global warming is to the Arctic environment
> >> and wild life. The ending claimed that we could change this and limit
> >> global warming to an additional 1.5 degrees.
> >>
> >> Species like penguins and polar bears are having a hard time, but it
> >> should have been noted that things were worse during the last warm
> >> period between glaciation. 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
> >> than they are now and more ice melted. Sea levels rose to the levels
> >> that they are claiming will be an issue. We know that the Indian
> >> Ocean and Pacific islands that they worry about flooding did flood and
> >> terrestrial life was wiped out on those low lying islands.
> >>
> >> It seems that what we should be working on is determining how the ice
> >> age species made it through that last environmental catastrophe that
> >> has been occurring around every hundred thousand years for the last
> >> million years. The intervals between warm periods have been getting
> >> longer in the last half million years, and life on earth hasn't been
> >> able to adapt to that very effectively. Most of the ice age megafauna
> >> likely nearly went extinct the last warm period,

Far below, Ron O continues to divert attention from his continued failure
to give an iota of evidence for this, and his failure to acknowledge
the criticism of what I said about this. What we get below is a verbal
fruit salad that tacitly acknowledges the first failure:

Repeated from far below:

>The Nyikosian denial
> that rails are not megafauna was just nonsense. Nyikos was just wrong
> about interglacial temperatures and how much ice melted.

I never said anything about either of those two topics. Ron O is in the grip of
what is, at best, a bunch of false recollections.

Despite this, I address him below, but not in the nonstandard Harran/Okimoto
sense of "address to his satisfaction."


[huge snip of comments from the OP and from Ron O's first reply to it,
most of them addressed either directly or indirectly by me]

> I will note that Nyikos does what he does just to harass me. He
> obviously had no interest in this topic.

On the contrary, if you bothered to read everything I wrote in
direct reply to you and to jillery, you would see that I am keenly interested
in the topic. Paleontology is one of my lifetime keen interests.
I am one of the regulars of sci.bio.paleontology and have
decided to become a regular contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo also.

> His own projection has him
> doing it because he is a sadistic hate filled maniac that thinks that he
> is righting some wrong done to him in the past.

Nonsense. I am just righting factual scientific errors that you've
been making and giving examples, e.g. of megafauna that
made it quite nicely through the last warm period.

I'll even add one thing now: a common adaptation to the
changes was to grow to greater size during the cold periods
and then shrink during warm periods. One of the ten foot tall
kangaroos of the last ice age was a variety of today's species of gray kangaroo,
now shrunk to six feet tall.

> Nyikos has always
> brought it all onto himself. He has just added to the things that he
> can't deal with in his failed attempts to lie about the past. No one
> should have been subjected to the Nyikosian stupidity and harassment for
> over a decade. It should be apparent that Nyikos only posted the junk
> to harass me because he wasn't interested in the topic enough to read
> the cited paper in order to figure out what it actually supported.

You cited more than one paper. I read one all the way through,
and I corrected a mistake you made in reading a graph on another one.
More about that below.

>
> This behavior should end. I do not stalk Nyikos around TO, and Nyikos
> should not be allowed to continue to do what he does.

Is that a threat to get DIG to ban me, the way you got him to ban Dr. Dr. Kleinman?

What will you say to him? Will it be something like,

"Nyikos is harassing me by telling me I am wrong about
certain scientific facts, and by claiming to poke holes
in some of my favorite theories. Have you ever heard the
saying, "A beautiful theory was murdered by a cruel gang of cold facts."?
That is the kind of murder of which Nyikos is guilty."

> Nyikios' last attempt at harassment that should have been his last for
> any sane individual.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/Dj0vda_tAgAJ
>
> This type of stupidity due to Nyikosian harassment should never take
> place, but it just never ends.

You don't even try to explain why it is supposed to be harassment.
Did anyone on that thread say it fit either description.

>
> I didn't expect Nyikos to address these two points because he was just
> plain wrong about them, and his nit picking doesn't do much to change
> that fact. I don't care about his issues with other posters. His first
> attempted response was pathetic, and he did try again. He did nothing
> to counter the fact that there were at least two warm interglacial
> periods before the current one where the temperatures were higher and
> more ice melted.

Why should I try to counter a pair of facts on which we both agree?
Are you suggesting that I should praise you for every true fact that you point out?

> His stupid flailing about being wrong and the fact
> that he should have been able to figure it out for himself is just
> stupid. He even acknowledges that the Wiki supports me, but he makes
> some stupid comment about the inversion of the graph that simply doesn't
> matter at all.

Nothing stupid about it at all. As an educator, I thought it was so neat pedagogically
that I might even show it to one of my classes during the next two
academic years. [I am on sabbatical leave this academic year.]


Here is where you recount how you were, unwittingly, preaching to the choir:

> His stupid comments about the rail extinction example is
> just nonsense. I used that paper to demonstrate that during the last
> interglacial sea levels were 20 meters higher then they are today, and
> that more ice melted in the last interglacial.

And here comes the verbal salad I repeated above:

>The Nyikosian denial
> that rails are not megafauna was just nonsense. Nyikos was just wrong
> about interglacial temperatures and how much ice melted.

And now, without saying so explicitly, you admit that I corrected a
mistake by you about the cited research article:

> For the rhino example the population decline did start more than a
> million years ago, but so what? It still happened.


> Two interglacials
> ago the temperatures did not get as warm as the current period, and the
> species of rhino under discussion and some mammoths did come through
> pretty well and they show an increase in effective population size
> during the cold period before the last previous interglacial where
> temperatures got higher than they are today and more ice melted than has
> melted currently. If Nyikos had bothered to read the paper for
> comprehension he would have understood that the authors admit that there
> was a population crash during the last warm period that is not picked up
> by their effective population size estimates. They cite a wooly mammoth
> paper as an example of the population crash that they expected to
> happen. They try to explain the long tail where the effective
> population size estimates stay high before bottoming out to a low long
> after the population had recovered during the last cold period. Their
> explanation was that during the high temperature and low ice period
> multiple small isolated populations survived the bottleneck, and when
> they could expand out into more territory they interbred. They thought
> that males moving between populations could accomplish a population
> mixing that would reestablish genetic diversity that had been preserved
> in the small isolated populations.

Thanks for the summary. I didn't have the time to read the paper this thoroughly.


Now you suddenly switch to first person plural. What are you quoting from?

Which one? the one you've linked just now or this second reply to yourself?

> to make my case in the future if
> this harassment continues.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Your obsession with the word "harassment" borders on paranoia. But don't expect
jillery, or Harran, or Simpson to say that. They know better than to touch
that topic with a ten foot pole. [True, jillery did accuse me of "stalking" her about
a decade ago, but her mentor Paul Gans gently explained the difference to her,
and she hasn't accused me of that since.]

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

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 10:40:37 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

... lots of things, a couple of which I'd like to amend/clarify:
[...]

> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:

[...]

> > Nyikios' last attempt at harassment that should have been his last for
> > any sane individual.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/Dj0vda_tAgAJ
> >
> > This type of stupidity due to Nyikosian harassment should never take
> > place, but it just never ends.

> You don't even try to explain why it is supposed to be harassment.
> Did anyone on that thread say it fit either description.

That was a question, and "anyone" includes Ron O himself.
Nothing like that word appears in the post he linked.
[....]

> Now you suddenly switch to first person plural. What are you quoting from?

I jogged my memory after posting this, and I seem to recall Dr. Dr. Kleinman
making fun of a paper Ron O co-authored about chickens. This is what
Ron O seems to be describing below:

> > In our paper that noted the decline
> > in genetic diversity of domestic chickens we stated the obvious
> > conclusion that we could recreate a population with nearly all of the
> > genetic diversity domestic chickens started with by crossing the extant
> > domestic breeds together. Each population had lost diversity over time
> > even as their total population increased because of how they were
> > propagated as small flocks in isolated villages, but each population had
> > retained a different bit of the original genetic variation, and if
> > combined would restore a lot of the genetic variation that domestic
> > chickens started with.

All of which makes perfect sense, by the way. We even see throwbacks
in horses in which recessive genes produce little side hoofs. Almost
all horses just have splints in the place of side toes that were the norm
millions of years ago.


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 19:40:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[匽

>On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:25:33?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
>> On 3/8/2023 7:37 PM, RonO wrote:
>> > On 3/4/2023 9:09 PM, RonO wrote:
>
>One good thing about Ron O's whole post is that he continues to
>show interest in the topic of the OP. This is in stark contrast to the behavior
>of Erik Simpson and especially the behavior of Martin Harran.

I have explained to you several times why I do not engage in any
attempt at a rational discussion with you. Thank you for such a good
illustration of one of those reasons - your inability to have a
discussion without trying to throw around made-up shit about people
not even involved in the discussion.

>[And, in the interests of full disclosure: the behavior of Glenn.]

Fair enough, it's important not to neglect your shill.

[匽

>
>Your obsession with the word "harassment" borders on paranoia.

So speaks TO's undisputed king of paranoia.

[匽

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 19:40:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:

<snip for focus>

>Your obsession with the word "harassment" borders on paranoia. But don't expect
>jillery, or Harran, or Simpson to say that. They know better than to touch
>that topic with a ten foot pole. [True, jillery did accuse me of "stalking" her about
>a decade ago, but her mentor Paul Gans gently explained the difference to her,
>and she hasn't accused me of that since.]

You continue to pointlessly inject "jillery" into your posts. Quelle
surprise.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I promised Glenn that I would deal with this post by you this week, Martin,
and here I am.

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 3:00:25 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:19:30 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:10:23?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:03:51 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I return after a bit over two months of break
> >
> >> Back in December, I challenged you to back up your assertion that I am
> >> an apostate Catholic.
> >
> >I did not assert that. Re-read what I actually wrote, and see if you
> >can spot the difference.

I see you were unable to spot the difference, but that's understandable:
There is a lot of context behind the simple-sounding exchange below
between me and Glenn.

> Standard Nyikos Tactic #1 - double down by telling another lie denying
> the first one:

This use of the word "Standard" is a polemical gimmick with no secure foundation.
And your accusation of a lie has no justification provided by you.

> =====================================
> Message-ID: 259dc2c9-39c0-4fcc...@googlegroups.com

Google groups masks these message-id's because the @ makes the software
treat them like email addresses. The ellipsis hides a lot this time:
-b316-cace6095398an

I write this for the benefit of those, like jillery, who much prefer
message-Id's for posts to urls for them. And for good reason: urls have a
notorious way of becoming obsolete, while I've never seen that claimed for message-ids.

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/vSTo4FsJBAAJ


> Glenn to me:
> "Everything you say just adds supports to the fact that you are an
> atheist. It is why your lame crap is tolerated here."

Glenn's history of accusing you of being an atheist goes a long way back,
and I have never been party to it, and I have told him so long before the
December post from which you are quoting.

> Your response to that:

> "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that."

I glossed over Glenn's use of the word "fact," knowing that he was just expressing an
opinion of his which I don't share. He had earlier seen me express a *suspicion*
that you are an apostate Catholic.

Glenn has enough common sense to factor this background into
a realization that my intended message had to do with one of the
many reasons why lame crap is tolerated by the dominant clique in talk.origins,
just as being an atheist would be.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m3D7t5Ija0A/m/8PWtuFFCBQAJ

Date: December 19.

> Message-ID: d6eb335d-8c35-4a0f...@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Me to you:

... at the end of a long barrage of challenges and questions, all of which I answered except the last:

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

> Your response:
> "I don't do things on your timetable. I'm saving this one for later."
>
> ===========================================

This was to remind you of your nasty habit of calling something a lie
if one does not justify it within a time frame of your (usually private)
choosing. Your reaction illustrated that well:

######################################

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m3D7t5Ija0A/m/KjMvB-FgBQAJ

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

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

##########################################

Any blowhard could make a claim like your first sentence,
and thereby conclude a second sentence like yours
from the claim. That is a Begging The Question fallacy.

Compare: "You have absolutely nothing to keep for later to justify
that humans are descended from apes." Anyone saying this could
then proceed to the same second sentence you used, by the same logic.


Fact is, one does not have to publicly renounce one's Catholic affiliation
to be an apostate. In fact, the worst kind of apostasy is to privately
conclude that the Catholic religion is bullshit, while also asserting that
one is a Catholic. It was such people that the Spanish Inquisition targeted,
not people who admitted to a different religion (usually either Judaism or Islam) publicly.

And there is plenty of reason to think that you have no use for Jesus's
commandment against bearing false witness. And next week, I will go
through a lot of what you've posted to demonstrate your cavalier attitude
towards that commandment.

>
>
> >By the way, I wonder whether you approve of Ron O's response to me on this thread.
> Standard Nyikos Tactic #2 - try to divert the discussion to something
> else.

You haven't a leg to stand on here. I had already told you to re-read what I wrote--
you did NOT quote it back then -- and you are ignoring the words "By the way".

Also, you snipped what I wrote after that, which clearly showed you had no need
to even acknowledge what you call a "diversion":

"Of course, telling us one way or the other about your opinion is completely optional."

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/tFp2bNLHAwAJ

I still recommend that you look at all three of Ron O's dealings with me on this thread;
not only will you learn a thing or two about the fascinating ups and downs in the
ice ages, but you may discover that you and Ron O have a lot in common.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:09:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> =====================================
>> Message-ID: 259dc2c9-39c0-4fcc...@googlegroups.com
>
>Google groups masks these message-id's because the @ makes the software
>treat them like email addresses. The ellipsis hides a lot this time:
>-b316-cace6095398an

Incorrect. GG masks email addresses, and fails to distinguish them
from Usenet message-ids, for their own arbitrary reasons, which change
about as often as the weather. My impression is Google puts their
most incompetent developers to work on GG, perhaps a consequence of
some perverse HR policy. Any software which doesn't correctly process
Usenet message-ids is crap Usenet software.

[jillery]

It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
gallery.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:09:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I promised Glenn that I would deal with this post by you this week, Martin,
>and here I am.
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>gallery.
>

Just can't let it drop, can you?

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[erik simpson]

What's to say? Peter's out there bobbing and weaving; who can tell what's on- or off-topic
at this point?

[RonO]

It looks like I will have to ask for Nyikos to be banned for his
obnoxious harassing behavior. If Nyikos wants to defend himself he
should start looking for any harassing posts that had a positive outcome
for him. There may be one or two, but my guess is that 99.9 percent of
Nyikos' posts to me have contained senseless harassing material. All
his lies about the past never worked out for him, so around 80 to 90% of
his harassing posts over the last decade have been a dead loss for
Nyikos. It is apparent that it has been pretty much all harassment
because around a year after Nyikos' return; a year of his senseless
stupidity and lies about the Discovery Institute and the creationist ID
scam, Nyikos claimed that he had knocked me down 3 times. He claimed
that he would post the knockdowns within a couple weeks of his posting
his initial knockdown and claims of having two more to post. So even to
Nyikos his efforts were just harassment and trying to knock me down. The
sad thing is that Nyikos could not find anything in that years worth of
harassing posts that he could list as a win for him. He had always just
obfuscated the issue, run and or lied to his limit for lying. Nyikos
kept claiming that the knockdowns were still coming for around 3 years,
and never produced anything that could be considered positive for
Nyikos. The claims ended with the Nyikosian claim that he had delivered
the third knockdown, but Nyikos would not provide a link nor tell me
where the post was supposed to be. It had been 3 additional years of
assoholic harassing posts, and they all turned out like the current
example. Nyikos never got any better as the harassment has continued
for over a decade. If Nyikos wants to claim that it hasn't been over a
decade of assoholic harassment, he should be able to produce hundreds of
posts where he had a legitimate beef. This example and the previous
example (already linked to in previous posts) obviously do not qualify.
Someone might think that even a bumbling assoholic harasser would have
multiple examples where his harassment was justified in some legitimate
way, but Nyikos has never cared if he had any legitimate reason to
harass me, and his degenerate record demonstrates that. Over a decade
of harassment, and what does Nyikos have to show for it?

Nyikos should be required to produce any posts that Nyikos made to
harass me for over a decade that he thinks were legitimate and had a
positive outcome for the loser. If he ever had any legitimate reasons
for doing what he has done he should have hundreds of examples, but he
couldn't come up with any for the first 4 years of his harassment, and I
don't recall any examples since. Even if Nyikos could scrounge up 1 or
2 examples (I doubt it) how sad would that be for over a decade of
senseless harassment?

This post will likely be one of them that will be submitted to Grieg in
the request to ban Nyikos from TO. It doesn't look like Nyikos is able
to stop himself from doing what he has done since he came back to TO.
Over a decade of this type of stupid senseless harassment should be
enough for any sadistic asshole like Nyikos. I do not stalk Nyikos
around TO. It is Nyikos that nearly always has to post his harassing
posts to me. There is no reason for it to continue. If Nyikos can't
control his assoholic tendencies he should be made to do so. It has
been really sad that it takes putting Nyikos down like the rabid dog
that he is in no uncertain terms until he reaches his limit for lying
about the stupid junk that he posts. The harassment for over a decade
is due to Nyikos being wrong about something in, probably, the first
post he posted after his return. Nyikos had a, likely involuntary,
absence, from TO for nearly a decade, and made his return Dec. 2010.
For Nyikosian reasons he has had to lie about that post in anyway that
he can, and has had to maintain his harassment due to just being wrong
about something. It never gets any better because Nyikos just generates
more that he has to lie about in his sadistic endeavor. This incessant
harassment has never worked out well for Nyikos because there was never
any legitimate reason for the harassment to start.

The lies and nonsensical harrassment continues, and if it doesn't stop I
will be forced to formally get Grieg into this and start the process for
getting Nyikos removed from TO. I do not harass Nyikos, and there is no
sane reason for Nyikos to continue his sadistic behavior. He knows that
he is a sadistic maniac because that is what he projects onto me when I
am being the victim of his abuse. Over a decade of this type of
stupidity should be long enough for anyone. Nyikos obviously didn't
care enough about the current topic to understand what he was harassing
me about, and now just has to lie about the effort to continue his
harassment. Enough is enough, and Nyikos should be banned if he can't
restrain himself.

I have repeatedly told the asshole that I do not care about his issues
with other posters. Why would anyone? Still in his last response he
continues to whine about other posters even after being informed as to
how assoholic such behavior is. It is just insane and it should stop.
Anyone just has to look at other posters responding to the junk Nyikos
writes about them in his posts that are supposedly addressing my posts.
I do not even read most of what Nyikos posts on TO, so he has free reign
to lie about me to other posters, but by this time my guess is that
there aren't very many TO posters that do not understand what a lying
asshole Nyikos has always been. There is no sane reason for Nyikos to
harass me as he continues to do.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/SX7EUqzOAAAJ

Nyikos snips and runs from what he can't deal with, and that is obvious
in the above link. He then lies about one of the issues that he
harassed me about. It is a stupid lie, and I can't figure out why
anyone would think that, that type of response was valid.

Nyikos initial harassing claims:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/7z8nZ0LbAgAJ

QUOTE:

> 130,000 years ago temperatures got warmer
> than they are now and more ice melted. Sea levels rose to the levels
> that they are claiming will be an issue. We know that the Indian Ocean
> and Pacific islands that they worry about flooding did flood and
> terrestrial life was wiped out on those low lying islands.

If you have a source for this, did it actually cite studies done on
those islands,
or did it merely deduce these things from the average global sea level rise?
END QUOTE:

Nyikos obviously is harassing me about citations for temperature, more
ice melting and sea levels rising higher than they are now. He should
have countered with references claiming otherwise, but he would have
found collaborating evidence if he had bothered to check things out himself.

Nyikos' bogus harassing response after getting reference:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/5ykTUUo6BgAJ

QUOTE:

> A flightless species of rail went extinct when sea levels were 20 meters
> higher then they are now. This occurred 136,000 years ago, and a second
> one 3 ice ages ago (340,000 years ago) are shown in Figure 3. I would
> note that 20 meters more is what has been predicted to occur if we do
> not curb global warming.

Ron O talks about little birds instead of megafauna, leaving his earlier
assertion high and dry.

END QUOTE:

Nyikos' response to having his stupidity noted:

Nyikos obviously posted this harassement with no regard to wanting to
understand much of what he was harassing me about.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/SX7EUqzOAAAJ\

QUOTE:

> The Nyikosian denial
> that rails are not megafauna was just nonsense. Nyikos was just wrong
> about interglacial temperatures and how much ice melted.

I never said anything about either of those two topics. Ron O is in the
grip of what is, at best, a bunch of false recollections.

END QUOTE:

Nyikos just lies, and then claims that it is my false recollection that
is the issue. Nyikos obviously is not interested in this topic enough
to track his own harassing claims.

If this type of harassment continues I will ask for Nyikos to be banned
from TO. The last instance should have been enough for anyone, but not
for an assoholic poster like Nyikos.

The link below is the last example that Nyikos snipped out of his
responses. It occurred just before Nyikos took his recent 2 month
vacation. This current harassment just has fewer outright lies in it.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/Dj0vda_tAgAJ

If Nyikos can't control himself he should be banned from TO. I do not
follow Nyikos around TO and harass the asshole, and there is no reason
for him to harass anyone. Elsewhere Nyikos is comparing himself to
Kleinman. Kleinman was just about an order of magnitude worse than
Nyikos. Klienman started his harassment because he was wrong about
something stupid. He claimed that he could use the product rule
(multiply the two individual probabilities to calculate the
probabilities of both occurring in the same cell) for two mutations
occurring in the same cell lineage, but his example was that they were
occurring in different generations. He was obviously wrong and his own
reference told him that the product rule had issues when the events were
temporally separated. I gave him the Behe and Snokes reference, and how
they dealt with the issue of two mutations occurring in the same cell
lineage, but Kleinman would not accept that he was wrong, and started
lying about me, and claiming that I didn't know the math. Kleinman
would post to me and tell the same lies in multiple posts in multiple
threads nearly every day for around a year. It didn't matter what the
topic of the thread was, the same harassing claims would be made over
and over. Just a few weeks should have been enough, but Kleinman could
not stop himself, and I asked that he be banned.

Nyikos is the same way except Nyikos has been less insane about his
harassing efforts. Nyikos would post to me on any topic and lie about
the past. It was insane. I had to create "REPOSTS" that contained all
the evidence that Nyikos was lying about the past, and I reposted them
when he started to lie about the past again. That should have ended a
decade ago with his "Dirty Debating Thread" that Nyikos had started, in
order to harass me. I had already stopped reading most of what Nyikos
posted on TO and just basically dealt with what he posted to me. Nyikos
had to come to me and tell me that I had to address the stupid lies that
he was posting in the dirty debating thread. Nyikos has been lying
about the issues he lied about in that thread for over a decade. His
insane last effort made him quit harassing me about those issues (it has
been around half a year, and Nyikos could start back up at anytime, but
this has been the longest break in his harassment about those issues
since Nyikos returned in Dec 2010) but Nyikos can't give up on the
insane harassment.

This is the thread that has ended the Nyikosian harassment about the
Dirty debating thread from back in Aug 2022. Since then Nyikos stopped
incessantly lying about these issues, but he decided to create new
stupidity to harass me about.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/8VgLI1iOAAAJ

Really, it took Nyikos over a decade to stop harassing me about those
issues. He may start up again, but his previous longest break that I
recall was around 3 months. Nyikos has routinely reached his limit for
lying about the same thing and will give it up for a month or two, but
only restarts lying about the past once he thinks that it is OK to do so
again. He has no reason to keep harassing me.

The harassment about the dirty debating issues should have ended long
before the later part of last year. What consistently happens is that
Nyikos resorts to broadening the topics that he has to lie about. He
has always known that he was wrong about the involvement of the ID perps
in the bait and switch, and all of the dirty debating nonsense
accumulated due to his propensity to lie about other issues in order to
harass me about his being wrong about something as stupid as the ID
perps running the teach ID scam. He got shut down hard last August and
has been accumulating more stupidity to harass me about since. The
harassment should have never started. Kleinman may have been an order of
magnitude worse than Nyikos in terms of frequency, but Nyikos has been
at it for over a decade. Enough is enough.

Probably the saddest thing about the Nykosian harassment over the years
is that Nyikos is always shown to be the lying asshole. He has behaved
this way for over a decade (since Dec 2010) and I do not recall anything
that Nyikos has tried to harass me with ever accomplishing anything
positive for Nyikos. This is due to the fact that Nyikos can't help
himself and usually makes up the issue that he ends up lying about.
Every single one of his posts involving the teach ID scam and the ID
perp involvement have been a dead loss for Nyikos. I really can't
recall any instance where Nyikos was not shown to be the lying asshole
that he is. In his projection of the subject he has claimed that he
does it because he is a hate filled sadistic maniac that has to try to
right some imaginary wrong done to him. Nyikos should make an effort to
come up with any legitimate "knockdown" instances in order to defend his
obnoxious behavior to Grieg. Nyikos could not put up any in the first 4
years of his harassment, and I do not recall any since.

As noted above, a decade ago during the Dirty Debating thread fiasco
Nyikos started another thread to harass me claiming that he was going to
put up three instances where he had knocked me down in the boxing ring.
His first alleged knockdown blew up in his face because he made up the
issue. Things did not occur the way that he had claimed. For weeks he
ran from what he had done and even lied about me not posting a rebuttal
to the thread. Nyikos couldn't identify any other possible knockdown
events that had ever happened, and even though he claimed that he would
produce the other two knockdowns in a week or two, years passed. His
stated goal was to achieve a technical knockout, but no knockdowns
existed. His second alleged knockdown was the event where he projected
his sadistic behavior onto me. Nyikos had started a side thread and
changed the title claiming that I had done something funny. He had
obviously started the side thread to make fun of me, and he posted
multiple posts claiming that what I had done was really funny but would
not deliver the punch line. He seemed to be savoring every moment of
the extended trial, but when he finally produced what was "so funny", I
only had to point out that Google didn't work that way, so I could not
have been guilty of doing anything "funny". Nyikos went into his
sadistic hate filled rage, as if I had been the one trying to make fun
of him, and that was supposed to be his second knockdown. Around 3
years would pass before Nyikos informed me that he had posted the third
knockdown, but he wouldn't tell me where or give me a link. Nyikos
never provided any evidence that the third knockdown ever existed. The
whole 3 additional years of harassment had come to naught for Nyikos, he
could never come up with an instance where his harassment had actually
been about anything real for those 3 years and before. His harassment
has been like that for over a decade, and that is long enough.

If Nyikos wants to continue his harassment he should reflect on the fact
of how dismal his efforts have been for him. These posts are what will
be submitted to Grieg in order to support his banning from TO, so Nyikos
should reflect on the facts of the last decade of his stupid assoholic
harassment.

Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ron, just as was the case with Alan Kleinman, it is perfectly easy to ignore this guy. Just because somebody names you in a post does not mean you have to respond or pay attention in any way. Nobody thinks the worse of you because some third party says something negative about you. Anybody whose opinion is remotely worth thinking about will develop that opinion by reading your own posts, not posts that somebody else writes about you.

I'm not a fan of your own posts myself, too high a ratio of contempt to content, but I see no reason to ask for you to be banned. It's perfectly easy to ignore what I don't find interesting to read. Use killfiles if you like, or just ignore the noise. Banning is overkill.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

<snip a bunch-o-stuff>

>
>Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>

Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>>gallery.
>>
>Just can't let it drop, can you?

Don't start what you can't/won't finish.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:29:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
><snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>
>>Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>
>Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.

I know you know that doesn't work, for reasons specified.

[RonO]

This is stupid because Nyikos posts directly to me. I don't read the
vast majority of junk Nyikos posts to TO. He does it to harass me
because he never seems to have a valid point to make, and most of the
time he has been just lying about the past.

I don't post to Nyikos, and he is the one that should just leave me alone.

I doubt that you could have ignored Kleinman. He would post the same
lies to me multip[le times a day and in multiple threads. It didn't
matter what the topic of the thread was. After a year of such behavior
he just had to go. As I have stated he was just an order of magnitude
worse than Nyikos, but over a decade of doing the same stupid junk is
long enough for anyone.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 3/26/2023 6:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
> <snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>
>> Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>
> Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
> unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
> you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>

Hasn't been a viable option for eternal september, and I shouldn't have
to killfile anyone. The asshole should be able to just not post to me.
I don't follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper. It has never
been worthwhile reading the junk that he posts to other posters. Look
at this example. Nyikos was only interested in harassing me. He
obviously wasn't interested enough to even remember what he was
harassing me about, or he thinks that he can lie about it after the fact
when he understands how stupid he has been.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

What other people should do is sort of irrelevant. Other people will do what they will do. You only get to choose whether or not you will pay attention to them.

>
> I doubt that you could have ignored Kleinman. He would post the same
> lies to me multip[le times a day and in multiple threads. It didn't
> matter what the topic of the thread was. After a year of such behavior
> he just had to go. As I have stated he was just an order of magnitude
> worse than Nyikos, but over a decade of doing the same stupid junk is
> long enough for anyone.

Kleinman posted the same things to you over and over because you kept responding.

If you stop responding to annoying people they eventually get bored and go off to annoy someone else. They may mention you from time to time, but with a bit of patience, ignoring them works fine.

[RonO]

And they just shouldn't do what they do, so there should be consequences.

>>
>> I doubt that you could have ignored Kleinman. He would post the same
>> lies to me multip[le times a day and in multiple threads. It didn't
>> matter what the topic of the thread was. After a year of such behavior
>> he just had to go. As I have stated he was just an order of magnitude
>> worse than Nyikos, but over a decade of doing the same stupid junk is
>> long enough for anyone.
>
> Kleinman posted the same things to you over and over because you kept responding.

Kleinman was insane and kept posting the same thing over and over
because he was insane, and nothing that I could do would change that.

>
> If you stop responding to annoying people they eventually get bored and go off to annoy someone else. They may mention you from time to time, but with a bit of patience, ignoring them works fine.

Tell me if it ever worked for Nyikos.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

The point isn't whether it works for not for Peter, what matters is what works for you. He
used to annoy the hell out of me, but (eventually) relatized it was me lettling that happen.
Now I'm more amused than annoyed, or I just don't read it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:21 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:29:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>><snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>
>>>Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>
>>Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>>unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>>you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>
>
>I know you know that doesn't work, for reasons specified.
>

I know that you know that I know that it works just fine as
long as no one feeds the trolls.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:33 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>>>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>>>gallery.
>>>
>>Just can't let it drop, can you?
>
>
>Don't start what you can't/won't finish.
>

No need for me to "finish" anything I didn't start; it was
your decision to restart it. Everyone knows you can't let it
drop; that chip on your shoulder is just too heavy.
>
<CrapSnip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:56:04 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 3/26/2023 6:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>> <snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>
>>> Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>
>> Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>> unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>> you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>>
>
>Hasn't been a viable option for eternal september, and I shouldn't have
>to killfile anyone.
>

The server is irrelevant; I also use ES. Agent has a viable
killfile option. And "shouldn't" is also irrelevant; reality
doesn't conform to your wishes.

>
> The asshole should be able to just not post to me.
>I don't follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper. It has never
>been worthwhile reading the junk that he posts to other posters. Look
>at this example. Nyikos was only interested in harassing me. He
>obviously wasn't interested enough to even remember what he was
>harassing me about, or he thinks that he can lie about it after the fact
>when he understands how stupid he has been.
>

He's quite able to "not post" to you. The question is
whether you're able to ignore posts made by assholes,
something I've been learning to do (with mixed success).

But FWIW, no one "posts to" anyone else; all posts are
public. All anyone can do is reference others, and the
"others" have the option of ignoring the posts by idiots.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:13:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:21 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:29:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>>
>>><snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>>
>>>>Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>>
>>>Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>>>unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>>>you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>
>>
>>I know you know that doesn't work, for reasons specified.
>>
>I know that you know that I know that it works just fine as
>long as no one feeds the trolls.

I know you know that I know different people disagree on who are
trolls and what qualifies them as trolls.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:17:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:33 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>>>>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>>>>gallery.
>>>>
>>>Just can't let it drop, can you?
>>
>>
>>Don't start what you can't/won't finish.
>>
>No need for me to "finish" anything I didn't start; it was
>your decision to restart it. Everyone knows you can't let it
>drop; that chip on your shoulder is just too heavy.
>>
><CrapSnip>

Yet another willfully stupid lie. You, Bob Casanova, are the one who
regularly spams "Killfiles are your friends". Don't blame me for what
you do, you blatantly willfully stupid liar.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kleinman posted the same things to you over and over because you kept responding.

Incorrect. Kleinman posted the same thing in all of his posts, whether
or not other posters responded to them.

>If you stop responding to annoying people they eventually get bored and go off to annoy someone else. They may mention you from time to time, but with a bit of patience, ignoring them works fine.

The history of T.O. posts shows your comment above is factually
incorrect. "They" post annoying noise whether or not anybody posts in
reply to them. This shows their "inspiration" is to post what "they"
consider annoying noise regardless of feedback. Whether other posters
respond to it is secondary at best. Meanwhile, posters like you who
fail to respond to their willfully stupid noise enable them to
continue to post without challenge, allowing them to assume tacit
approval.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well this has taken a rather unpleasant turn.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I should fail to respond to your willfully stupid noise. Working on it

[Öö Tiib]

It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
than anyone else. IOW spams about it.

[broger...@gmail.com]

You're right that nothing you could do would change him, so why try? Why not just ignore him? Why give him the power to get under your skin?

> >
> > If you stop responding to annoying people they eventually get bored and go off to annoy someone else. They may mention you from time to time, but with a bit of patience, ignoring them works fine.
> Tell me if it ever worked for Nyikos.

Sure it worked for him. I don't engage with him. Since he mentions lots of irrelevant people in his posts I suspect he may mention me from time to time (or not), but so what? No need to try to get him banned.

[RonO]

So it doesn't work.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 3/26/2023 10:25 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:56:04 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> On 3/26/2023 6:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>>
>>> <snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>>
>>>> Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>>
>>> Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>>> unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>>> you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>>>
>>
>> Hasn't been a viable option for eternal september, and I shouldn't have
>> to killfile anyone.
>>
> The server is irrelevant; I also use ES. Agent has a viable
> killfile option. And "shouldn't" is also irrelevant; reality
> doesn't conform to your wishes.

Shouldn't is the best reason in this case. Nyikos has no grounds to
exist as he does on TO.

>>
>> The asshole should be able to just not post to me.
>> I don't follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper. It has never
>> been worthwhile reading the junk that he posts to other posters. Look
>> at this example. Nyikos was only interested in harassing me. He
>> obviously wasn't interested enough to even remember what he was
>> harassing me about, or he thinks that he can lie about it after the fact
>> when he understands how stupid he has been.
>>
> He's quite able to "not post" to you. The question is
> whether you're able to ignore posts made by assholes,
> something I've been learning to do (with mixed success).

Ignorance about the issue is your excuse. Do you realize that the way
that the sadistic asshole has existed on TO for the last decade is by
reaching his limit for lying (Nyikos has some weird limit for doing
assoholic things, and he has some weird rules about how many times he
can do dishonest things in a thread. He also has a weird concept about
a lie having to be "self contained".). Nyikos will leave me alone for a
month or two where neither of us are posting to the other, but he has
some recovery point where the lies can start again, and he just starts
back up. I do not read the vast majority of posts that Nyikos puts up.
It has never been worth doing that. I do not follow Nyikos around with
a pooper scooper as it seems that some others tend to do. Nyikos just
has to lie and whine about multiple posters whenever he posts. It is
nuts, but that is Nyikos. I ignore all of that because everyone should
know what an asshole Nyikos is. What I have learned is that the fastest
way to get Nyikos to take his 1 or 2 month vacation from harassing me is
to put him down hard by demonstrating what he is doing, and demonstrate
what a lying asshole that he is. I should not have to do that in order
to get the asshole to leave me alone for a month or two. The situation
is that simple.

Nyikos can leave me alone for a month or two at a time in order to
recharge his sadistic lying meter, so he should be able to do it
indefinitely or be banned.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The point is that sadistic assholes like Nyikos have no reason to exist
on TO. I was one of the posters that would not respond to Ray's posts
to me. I did that because Ray was insane, and nothing I could do would
help the guy out. With Nyikos it is different because he is a sadistic
lying asshole and does what he does to harass people. Assholes
shouldn't be tolerated especially sadistic harassing assholes. With
Nyikos his harassment has just about never been about anything real. He
will literally make up the junk to harass me with like his last effort
with the Top Six. That is why it always turns out bad for the loser,
and he has never been able to produce his three knockdowns to achieve
his technical knockout. 4 years of harasssing posts and he could never
produce a knockdown, and likely hasn't been able to do it since that
failure. Nyikos should not be allowed to keep trying for a knockdown
with that sorry record. It has just been over a decade of vile harassment.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

He only has as much power over you as you give him.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:09:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[匽

>Glenn's history of accusing you of being an atheist goes a long way back,
>and I have never been party to it, and I have told him so long before the
> December post from which you are quoting.
>
>> Your response to that:
>
>> "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that."
>
>I glossed over Glenn's use of the word "fact," knowing that he was just expressing an
>opinion of his which I don't share. He had earlier seen me express a *suspicion*
>that you are an apostate Catholic.

You still have given nothing to justify any suspicion of me being an
*apostate* Catholic. That's because there is nothing to support it,
your "suspicion" is just a typical bullshit reaction from you to
someone who has the temerity to think differently from you.

>
>Glenn has enough common sense to factor this background into
>a realization that my intended message had to do with one of the
>many reasons why lame crap is tolerated by the dominant clique in talk.origins,
>just as being an atheist would be.
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m3D7t5Ija0A/m/8PWtuFFCBQAJ
>
>Date: December 19.
>
>> Message-ID: d6eb335d-8c35-4a0f...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> Me to you:
>
>
>... at the end of a long barrage of challenges and questions, all of which I answered except the last:
>
>
>> "Identify where I have renounced my Catholic faith to become an
>> apostate (waiting since 16 Dec)"
>
>> Your response:
>> "I don't do things on your timetable. I'm saving this one for later."
>>
>> ===========================================
>
>This was to remind you of your nasty habit of calling something a lie
>if one does not justify it within a time frame of your (usually private)
>choosing. Your reaction illustrated that well:

You called me an apostate on 16 Dec and I challenged you about it on
the same date. I left it for 3 days during which you were active both
in that thread and in a "spinoff" thread that you created as a
diversion but made no attempt to deal with my challenge. That was when
I repeated it and you came out with your own timetable excuse.

I am like most rational people - when someone calls me a liar, I make
dealing with it a priority. I accept that it is different for you -you
are so far up your own arsehole that you can't admit you were wrong
even though you have nothing to support it so you just stick with your
claims, hoping you can handwave it away. That's what makes you a such
a pernicious liar.

>
>######################################
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m3D7t5Ija0A/m/KjMvB-FgBQAJ
>
>>I don't do things on your timetable. I'm saving this one for later.
>
>Bullshit, you have absolutely nothing to keep for later to justify you
>calling me an apostate Catholic. That response is an epitomic
>demosnstration that you are just a lying blowhard.
>
>##########################################
>
>Any blowhard could make a claim like your first sentence,
>and thereby conclude a second sentence like yours
>from the claim. That is a Begging The Question fallacy.

No it isn't fallacious because it is not a "blowhard" claim, it is
clear fact.

>
>Compare: "You have absolutely nothing to keep for later to justify
>that humans are descended from apes." Anyone saying this could
>then proceed to the same second sentence you used, by the same logic.
>
>
>Fact is, one does not have to publicly renounce one's Catholic affiliation
>to be an apostate. In fact, the worst kind of apostasy is to privately
>conclude that the Catholic religion is bullshit, while also asserting that
>one is a Catholic. It was such people that the Spanish Inquisition targeted,
>not people who admitted to a different religion (usually either Judaism or Islam) publicly.
>
>And there is plenty of reason to think that you have no use for Jesus's
>commandment against bearing false witness.

"Plenty of reason" but you can't give a single example.

> And next week,

Ah, here comes the feeble long finger again. I will remind you.

> I will go
>through a lot of what you've posted to demonstrate your cavalier attitude
>towards that commandment.
>
>>
>>
>> >By the way, I wonder whether you approve of Ron O's response to me on this thread.
>> Standard Nyikos Tactic #2 - try to divert the discussion to something
>> else.
>
>You haven't a leg to stand on here. I had already told you to re-read what I wrote--
>you did NOT quote it back then -- and you are ignoring the words "By the way".

That didn't change it from being a diversion.

>
>Also, you snipped what I wrote after that, which clearly showed you had no need
>to even acknowledge what you call a "diversion":

I snipped it because as I have told you ad nauseum, I have no interest
in trying to have a rational discussion with you. - dealing with your
bullshit lies is more than enough for me.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 7:05:40 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
[ mercy snip ]

> He only has as much power over you as you give him.

The XKCD comic, https://xkcd.com/386/
"ARE YOU COMING TO BED?"
"I CAN'T. THIS IS IMPORTANT!"
"WHAT?"
"SOMEONE IS _WRONG_ ON THE INTERNET."

This medium, the history of talk.origins and its focus, they
do tend to cultivate that modality. Of course it goes deeper.

Somebody is wrong and a poster might start at the child
level and write back "your post is wrong and you're a
poopy-head." Luckily, most move beyond that phase.

Slightly more mature is "you're wrong and here's why."
This class of responses can vary widely depending on
the skill and temperament of the author. This dials in
levels of politeness, anger, condescension, arrogance,
erudition, and myriad more features. Some apply skills
to control those aspects to better serve their private
purposes in posting. That is predicated on developing
a coherent purpose and developing the skills to know
how your posts are likely to be received --- not the same
thing as your raw intent.

(For example, my intent is not to come across as some
self-important pompous ass, but I'll be making some
readers twitch a bit. )

Whatever people's original purposes, they evolve.
In particular, after you've composed your brilliant and
compelling rebuttal to that post full of errors, inevitably
your partner in correspondence will be unmoved. You
may try again, likely more than once, and that's when
the fever sets in.

How the hell can they continue to be wrong?
I EXPLAINED it to them, 3 times. I even used small
words. How is that even possible many people think.

Eventually, people develop private theories to explain
how and why people are not converted. But those
theories, as far as I've heard them, are all over the
map with many contradictions between them. It's rather
fascinating to watch.

As fallout from a different thread, I happened upon this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

A fascinating aspect of it is how some people leverage
people telling them that they are wrong as a mechanism
to further convince themselves that they are right,
especially if they 'know' something that makes them
think their antagonists are wrong in some transcendent
way (wrong political party, wrong religion, ...).

It seems like a good thing to ponder when deciding what
is one's purpose in posting, and in how to engineer the
style in which a post is delivered.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>>gallery.
>>
>Just can't let it drop, can you?

This sub-thread has been specifically and exclusively about Peter's
lies about me. Jillery, who regularly complains about others diverting
discussions, jumps in and tries to divert into a discussion about the
behaviour of people not even involved in the wider thread, never mind
just this sub-thread. As I've noted before, her behaviour is becoming
ever less distinguishable from that of Nyikos.

[...]

[broger...@gmail.com]

I agree with what you say here. The issue at hand, though, is the question of banning someone because they are annoying. I'm not really in favor of that. It's easy enough to ignore annoying posters. There are extreme cases that should be banned, say, someone faking their way into a rape survivors group and then blasting it with a lot of violent misogyny. But just being annoying is not a good enough reason, in my view, to ban someone. Particularly from a group, one of whose purposes is, in theory, to distract the most repetitive and annoying posters away from other more scientifically serious groups.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 02:37:27 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
>than anyone else. IOW spams about it.

Clearly Öö Tiib enjoys posting like an idiot.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 05:36:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

You conveniently forgot to mention the case that happens most often on
T.O., where someone replies intelligently and responsibly, and others
reply in poopy-head mode. Quelle surprise.

[jillery]

Mindless crap like Casanova's "CrapSnip" and "everyone knows" don't
turn unpleasant, they start from unpleasant. As usual, you are blind
to that.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:36:28 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>This sub-thread has been specifically and exclusively about Peter's
>lies about me. Jillery, who regularly complains about others diverting
>discussions, jumps in and tries to divert into a discussion about the
>behaviour of people not even involved in the wider thread, never mind
>just this sub-thread. As I've noted before, her behaviour is becoming
>ever less distinguishable from that of Nyikos.

"This sub-thread" is off-topic, burns with irony, and checks all the
boxes for killfiling. Yet not a peep is raised.

Meanwhile the intellectual coward that is Martin Harran pretends he
can read my mind.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:06:50 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:


>I should fail to respond to your willfully stupid noise. Working on it

Pretty please with sugar on it, stop replying to me with your
willfully stupid noise.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:36:28 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Look at all the posts spamming mindless noise about jillery. That's a
willfully stupid way to ignore jillery.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:10:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:40:39?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

Exactly. Apparently T.O. posters lack self-control.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I guess I failed to sneak up on that in an effective way.
Just offering up my opinion directly would have predictable
consequences, and they wouldn't be making converts.
But as you say, people annoying and/or irritating me is
no reason to ban them. And embellishing on annoying/
irritating with specific accusations of lies, deceit, or
defamation doesn't change a thing. Luckily, it's up to DIG
and I'm almost certain he'll ignore any such requests.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:15:38 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:09:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >> =====================================
> >> Message-ID: 259dc2c9-39c0-4fcc...@googlegroups.com
> >
> >Google groups masks these message-id's because the @ makes the software
> >treat them like email addresses. The ellipsis hides a lot this time:
> >-b316-cace6095398an

> Incorrect.

Not at all: I was emphasizing the software angle, you are emphasizing the
angle of the people behind the software, but we are in agreement on the main point.

> GG masks email addresses, and fails to distinguish them
> from Usenet message-ids, for their own arbitrary reasons, which change
> about as often as the weather.

Here is a relevant way in which it distinguishes them: when I try to post this,
I first get a little box that says,

Email addresses detected in message
Found the following email addresses:
peter2...@gmail.com
259dc2c9-39c0-4fcc...@googlegroups.com
These email addresses may be viewable by everyone who visits this group or is subscribed to receive email notifications of posts in this group. Are you sure you want to continue?


The reason I emphasized the software is that even the most commonsense-deficient
computer nerd wouldn't express himself this way, unless he has no clue about
what a Message-ID is. So I conclude that they gave inadequate commands for
this automatic response to identify email addresses.

By the way, note how the second "email address" omits the prefix "Message-ID:"

> My impression is Google puts their
> most incompetent developers to work on GG, perhaps a consequence of
> some perverse HR policy. Any software which doesn't correctly process
> Usenet message-ids is crap Usenet software.

On this, we are in full agreement. The earlier "New Google Groups" provided us
with a huge list of headers if one knew which url to use. One of the 20 or so among them
was the message-ID. Now we get no headers at all, just a way of finding a url
(but nothing more about the post itself) if we click on three vertical dots and get a couple of commands,
one of which is "Link".


Peter Nyikos

PS This time I will "continue" to post this after getting the same box.

[Mark Isaak]

> Ron, just as was the case with Alan Kleinman, it is perfectly easy to ignore this guy. Just because somebody names you in a post does not mean you have to respond or pay attention in any way. Nobody thinks the worse of you because some third party says something negative about you. Anybody whose opinion is remotely worth thinking about will develop that opinion by reading your own posts, not posts that somebody else writes about you.

>
> I'm not a fan of your own posts myself, too high a ratio of contempt to content, but I see no reason to ask for you to be banned. It's perfectly easy to ignore what I don't find interesting to read. Use killfiles if you like, or just ignore the noise. Banning is overkill.

I agree.

Probably more than half the posts in this group come from posters with a
persistent negative attitude that clearly comes through in their posts.
I don't much like such posts, but I can ignore them. Even those aimed
at me I often ignore, and my life is better for it. Sometimes I
respond, but I try to include on-topic stuff when I do.

Two bits of advice for RonO and others in his position:

1. When you respond to harassment, make sure your response is less than
half as long as the post you are responding to. (This does not apply to
disagreements over substantive, on-topic issues.)

2. When you find yourself wrestling with a pig in the mud, remember that
the pig likes it.

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

[Don Cates]

On 2023-03-26 10:25 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:56:04 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> On 3/26/2023 6:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>>
>>> <snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>>

>>>> Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>>

>>> Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>>> unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>>> you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>>>
>>
>> Hasn't been a viable option for eternal september, and I shouldn't have
>> to killfile anyone.
>>
> The server is irrelevant; I also use ES. Agent has a viable
> killfile option.

As does Thunderbird (apparently used by Ron).

And "shouldn't" is also irrelevant; reality
> doesn't conform to your wishes.
>>

>> The asshole should be able to just not post to me.
>> I don't follow Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper. It has never
>> been worthwhile reading the junk that he posts to other posters. Look
>> at this example. Nyikos was only interested in harassing me. He
>> obviously wasn't interested enough to even remember what he was
>> harassing me about, or he thinks that he can lie about it after the fact
>> when he understands how stupid he has been.
>>
> He's quite able to "not post" to you. The question is
> whether you're able to ignore posts made by assholes,
> something I've been learning to do (with mixed success).
>

> But FWIW, no one "posts to" anyone else; all posts are
> public. All anyone can do is reference others, and the
> "others" have the option of ignoring the posts by idiots.
>>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/23 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
>
> [...] I do not harass Nyikos, and there is no

> sane reason for Nyikos to continue his sadistic behavior.  He knows that

> he is a sadistic maniac [...]

You may want to consider that the second sentence quoted above
contradicts the opening clause of the first sentence.

(FWIW, Nyikos has his faults, but I personally don't think either
"sadistic" or "maniac" apply to him.)

And in another post, you said that Nyikos does not belong here. I
disagree. His views on panspermia and cladistics are just the sort of
thing this group was created for.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:03:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

...as I expected, given recent history.
>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:19:23 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:17:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:33 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
>>>>>"killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
>>>>>gallery.
>>>>>
>>>>Just can't let it drop, can you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't start what you can't/won't finish.
>>>
>>No need for me to "finish" anything I didn't start; it was
>>your decision to restart it. Everyone knows you can't let it
>>drop; that chip on your shoulder is just too heavy.
>>>
>><CrapSnip>
>
>
>Yet another willfully stupid lie. You, Bob Casanova, are the one who
>regularly spams "Killfiles are your friends". Don't blame me for what
>you do, you blatantly willfully stupid liar.
>

So you can't even remember your own posts, such as the one
just above in which *you* restarted the crap about killfiles
(from over a week ago) and "off-topic (from *months* ago)"?
OK. It was over until *you* brought it up with your usual
snark.

And FYI, referencing killfiles in response to a post about
idiots who (IMHO; YMMV) should be ignored is not spam except
in jilleryWorld.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 05:37:09 -0500, the following appeared

Your misinterpretation of my statement was probably
inadvertent. At least I hope it was, given the clear
context; it was *your* evaluation of him I was going by (and
mine from previous history with him, FWIW; note the final
clause in my statement above).

>
> Do you realize that the way
>that the sadistic asshole has existed on TO for the last decade is by
>reaching his limit for lying (Nyikos has some weird limit for doing
>assoholic things, and he has some weird rules about how many times he
>can do dishonest things in a thread. He also has a weird concept about
>a lie having to be "self contained".). Nyikos will leave me alone for a
>month or two where neither of us are posting to the other, but he has
>some recovery point where the lies can start again, and he just starts
>back up. I do not read the vast majority of posts that Nyikos puts up.
>It has never been worth doing that. I do not follow Nyikos around with
>a pooper scooper as it seems that some others tend to do. Nyikos just
>has to lie and whine about multiple posters whenever he posts. It is
>nuts, but that is Nyikos. I ignore all of that because everyone should
>know what an asshole Nyikos is. What I have learned is that the fastest
>way to get Nyikos to take his 1 or 2 month vacation from harassing me is
>to put him down hard by demonstrating what he is doing, and demonstrate
>what a lying asshole that he is. I should not have to do that in order
>to get the asshole to leave me alone for a month or two. The situation
>is that simple.
>
>Nyikos can leave me alone for a month or two at a time in order to
>recharge his sadistic lying meter, so he should be able to do it
>indefinitely or be banned.
>

It's your choice whether to read his garbage. But be aware
that there's an old adage: "Never wrestle with a pig. You
just get dirty and the pig enjoys it". And another: "If you
lie down with dogs you get up with fleas".

But as noted, it's your choice.

>
>>
>> But FWIW, no one "posts to" anyone else; all posts are
>> public. All anyone can do is reference others, and the
>> "others" have the option of ignoring the posts by idiots.
>>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:36:28 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

I've noticed the trend, but I hope I'm wrong. At one time
she was a regular contributor of interesting information.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:30:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

>On 2023-03-26 10:25 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:56:04 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2023 6:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:47:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>>>
>>>> <snip a bunch-o-stuff>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nyikos can stop his harassment or he should be made to do so.
>>>>>
>>>> Why not just ignore him, or (risking ire from parties
>>>> unknown for "reasons"), killfile him? Then he can't "harass"
>>>> you. Ignoring (or killfiling) assholes works just fine.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Hasn't been a viable option for eternal september, and I shouldn't have
>>> to killfile anyone.
>>>
>> The server is irrelevant; I also use ES. Agent has a viable
>> killfile option.
>
>As does Thunderbird (apparently used by Ron).
>

Not surprising; I use TBird for email, at least until the
next version of Pegasus, which will handle the
gmail-required "OAUTH2" <spit!>, is released. But my comment
was regarding linking the idea of a killfile with the server
rather than the client. AFAIK that's never been the case (I
could be mistaken).

[RonO]

On 3/27/2023 12:05 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/26/23 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> [...] I do not harass Nyikos, and there is no sane reason for Nyikos
>> to continue his sadistic behavior.  He knows that he is a sadistic
>> maniac [...]

>
> You may want to consider that the second sentence quoted above
> contradicts the opening clause of the first sentence.

If you think that the truth is harassment when it is in an explanation
for why things are the way that they are, you are wrong.

>
> (FWIW, Nyikos has his faults, but I personally don't think either
> "sadistic" or "maniac" apply to him.)

My take is that you are obviously wrong. It is what he projected when
he was trying to abuse me and it turned out that the joke was on him.
Really, projection is a way of life for Nyikos. Nyikos made that claim
after he was the one that started a side thread to make fun of me, he
really played it out for multiple posts and wouldn't give the punch
line. He seemed to be savoring every moment, and when he did state what
was so funny, it turned out that Google didn't work that way, and I
could not have done anything funny. His behavior since has just
confirmed his own projection. There is no reason why Nyikos should post
his junk to me. He is just a sadistic maniac.

>
> And in another post, you said that Nyikos does not belong here.  I
> disagree.  His views on panspermia and cladistics are just the sort of
> thing this group was created for.
>

Assholes like Nyikos do not belong anywhere that anything rational is
being discussed. Nyikos has admitted years ago that all that he has
been trying to do is knock me down. Do you recall the three knockdowns
that he kept claiming he was going to produce in order to claim a
technical knockout? You should. That episode lasted for around 3
years, and no knockdowns ever appeared. For three years Nyikos would
routinely post to Hemi that his knockdowns were still coming. Not a
single harassing Nyikosian post to me in those first 4 years after his
return to TO could be counted as any type of success by Nyikos. The two
that he put up were bogus. The first one was just made up, and Nyikos
ran from putting it up and the second one was his "sadistic" projection
after his failed attempt to make fun of me. I have never seen the third
attempt because Nyikos only claimed to have delivered it, but wouldn't
tell me where or give me a link. He hasn't done any better since and it
has been over a decade of his stupid harassment.

If you don't think that Nyikos has been a sadistic maniac for over a
decade, just try to get him to produce any post to me that reflected
positively on Nyikos. He had no knockdowns in his first 4 years, and I
do not recall any since. It has all just been senseless harassment.
The reason is because the sadistic maniac doesn't care if he is
harassing me about anything real, so like this instance it ends up that
he has to start lying or running.

In what you snipped out did you notice that Nyikos has already had to
resort to lying about what he was harassing me about in this thread?
This is how it has always been. He obviously did not care enough about
the issue to track his own harassing claims.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

He doesn't need any power over anyone. That is why he should be banned
if he can't quit doing what he does. I ignore the asshole until he
starts posting to me, and what I have found out over the years is that
the only way to make him stop is to demonstrate that he is just a lying
asshole, and he will quit for a month or two. That should not have to
happen.

Just look at this thread. Nyikos has already been caught lying about
the issues. In the past he would continue to lie or snip out the
material and pretend that it never happened for a while in order to
continue the harassment, but he will eventually reach some limit for
lying and quit. He will quit for a while until his liar meter is
recharged and start up again. That is how it has always been, and it
should end. The last dirty debating fiasco should have ended his
harassment because just about everything he has lied about for over a
decade was shown to be Nyikosian lies and stupidity. Instead Nyikos has
broadened his horizons and started looking for new things to lie about.
Whenever he has done this, it just turns into more that he has to keep
lying about for years, and it should stop.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

This doesn't work for Nyikos. What works is something like the Holy
Water Reposts that I resorted to whenever Nyikos started lying about the
same thing. Nyikos demands evidence, but Nyikos will snip out (usually
without attribution) what he can't deal with and pretend that it never
existed or flat out lie about what he just snipped out. He has some
weird notion of a self contained lie, and if the material he is lying
about is no longer in the post that he is telling the lie in, it is not
a self contained lie, so he isn't a liar. He also has a limit for
snipping and running from the same material. Doing the same dishonest
and stupid thing is OK, but he tried not to do it three times. There
have been times when he has messed up and done the same stupid and
dishonest snipping 3 times, and he will go back to the post and put the
material back in and then try to obfuscate about the reason he snipped
it out in the first place. It all adds up to making him reach those
limits as quickly as possible so that he will quit his harassment for a
while. That is how it has been for over a decade, and why the holy
water reposts have been the most effective control over the Nyikosian
harassment. The only problem has been is that Nyikos will just start
lying about something else from the past, and I end up making up another
holy water repost.

Ron Okimoto

>
> 2. When you find yourself wrestling with a pig in the mud, remember that
> the pig likes it.
>

There should be no pigs to wrestle with.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

Then you need to ignore him even when he posts to you. Otherwise, you're giving him the power to make you feel upset enough to want to ban him. And honestly if the argument to ban him succeeds, an equally good argument could be made for banning you - you in essence, spam the group with repetitive posts about "rubes", "perps", scams, bait-and-switch, in a tone that is thoroughly contemptuous of those you disagree with. If being hostile and rude is enough to get someone banned, you would be on the list, too. Of course you'll disagree, but then nobody thinks that they themselves are so offensive that they should be banned. So my vote is to ban neither of you and to eliminate or minimize engagement with people I find irritating.

>
> Just look at this thread. Nyikos has already been caught lying about
> the issues. In the past he would continue to lie or snip out the
> material and pretend that it never happened for a while in order to
> continue the harassment, but he will eventually reach some limit for
> lying and quit. He will quit for a while until his liar meter is
> recharged and start up again. That is how it has always been, and it
> should end. The last dirty debating fiasco should have ended his
> harassment because just about everything he has lied about for over a
> decade was shown to be Nyikosian lies and stupidity. Instead Nyikos has
> broadened his horizons and started looking for new things to lie about.
> Whenever he has done this, it just turns into more that he has to keep
> lying about for years, and it should stop.

The only thing you can control is how you react.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> It's your choice whether to read his garbage. But be aware
> that there's an old adage: "Never wrestle with a pig. You
> just get dirty and the pig enjoys it". And another: "If you
> lie down with dogs you get up with fleas".
>
> But as noted, it's your choice.
>

Maybe Ron could start charging him rent instead of letting him get away
with squatting inside his head all these years.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:20:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Hey, whatever Ron wants to do is fine with me; it's his
time. He's not the only one who has someone living rent-free
in his head, although most of the others seem to be
political; both ODS and TDS are real. And pathetic.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:20:40 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> It's your choice whether to read his garbage. But be aware
>>> that there's an old adage: "Never wrestle with a pig. You
>>> just get dirty and the pig enjoys it". And another: "If you
>>> lie down with dogs you get up with fleas".
>>>
>>> But as noted, it's your choice.
>>>
>> Maybe Ron could start charging him rent instead of letting him get away
>> with squatting inside his head all these years.
>>
> Hey, whatever Ron wants to do is fine with me; it's his
> time. He's not the only one who has someone living rent-free
> in his head, although most of the others seem to be
> political; both ODS and TDS are real. And pathetic.
>

Nyikos has Airbnb’ed or couch-surfed into my head quite a few times.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 1:05:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/26/23 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
> >
> > [...] I do not harass Nyikos, and there is no
> > sane reason for Nyikos to continue his sadistic behavior. He knows that
> > he is a sadistic maniac [...]
>
> You may want to consider that the second sentence quoted above
> contradicts the opening clause of the first sentence.
>
> (FWIW, Nyikos has his faults, but I personally don't think either
> "sadistic" or "maniac" apply to him.)
>
> And in another post, you said that Nyikos does not belong here. I
> disagree. His views on panspermia and cladistics are just the sort of
> thing this group was created for.

Also, I posted quite a lot of information this past week right here about the ice ages and
the various effects of the ups and downs of the temperature on the evolution of
the animals. I also touched on the issue of whether the demise of so much amazing megafauna
might never have happened if our subspecies had not come on the scene.

I can't help it that a lot of what I was seeing from Ron O was dubious
or demonstrably inaccurate. As an educator, I do not want the readers here to get
the relevant science wrong.

I also can't help it if my compliment about something Ron O wrote
about the world's pool of chicken genes was taken as more harassment.
I meant it sincerely.

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

Thanks for bringing a little perspective into an off-topic devolution.
With it, you are acting in the spirit of this .sig of yours.


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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 5:40:39 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 27 March 2023 at 12:05:40 UTC+3, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:17:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 19:39:33 -0400, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

> > >>
> > >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 09:13:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:33:54 -0400, the following appeared
> > >>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> It's curious the following inspires no cries of "off-topic" or
> > >>>>> "killfiles are your friend" or "burning irony" from the peanut
> > >>>>> gallery.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Just can't let it drop, can you?
> > >>>
> > >>>

> > >>> Don't start what you can't/won't finish.
> > >>>
> > >> No need for me to "finish" anything I didn't start; it was
> > >> your decision to restart it. Everyone knows you can't let it
> > >> drop; that chip on your shoulder is just too heavy.
> > >>>
> > >> <CrapSnip>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yet another willfully stupid lie. You, Bob Casanova, are the one who
> > > regularly spams "Killfiles are your friends". Don't blame me for what
> > > you do, you blatantly willfully stupid liar.
> > >

> > Well this has taken a rather unpleasant turn

> It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
> than anyone else. IOW spams about it.

FTR, the word "spams" is inappropriate in this kind of context. Strictly speaking, "spam" is
unwanted advertising. It almost destroyed sci.bio.paleontology as an ungodly number
of solution manuals (mostly on engineering, and none having anything
to do with paleontology) swamped the tables of contents. This had been going
on for some time before I returned to sci.bio.paleontology in December 2010 after
almost a full decade of absence, and continued until about 2013, if memory serves.

It did destroy sci.bio.systematics over a decade ago, and if you click here,
you will see what I am talking about:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.systematics

Except for a post I did there just now, it shows a solid mass of spamming,
the last 20+ of which were by one Abner Newman (after mid-2020).


Peter Nyikos

PS in case you are wondering: the Subject of my post is:

"Is a revival of discussion of systematics possible here?"

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:17:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

The following is a good example of Casanova failing to follow his own
advice to ignore posts and posters he find annoying. This is good
evidence of his lack of self-discipline.

The above is a good example of Casanova ignoring what I posted while
ignoring to what "the following" refers. "the following" is similar
to a Nazi and a pedophile in a knife fight over how best to abuse
Jewish children. It's arguably not on-topic to T.O., and definitely
not something which Casanova should support. Apparently his mileage
varies.

>And FYI, referencing killfiles in response to a post about
>idiots who (IMHO; YMMV) should be ignored is not spam except
>in jilleryWorld.

The above is a good example of Casanova pretending to know the
etymology of "spam", yet another typical example of Casanova claiming
facts about which he has no idea what he's talking about:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZyZn5nVks>

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:14:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 5:40:39?AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:

[...]

>> It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
>> than anyone else. IOW spams about it.
>
>FTR, the word "spams" is inappropriate in this kind of context. Strictly speaking, "spam" is
>unwanted advertising.

So speaks the person who regularly tries to redefine words to suit
himself as in your feeble attempt to redefine "agnostic" to
accommodate your lies about me.

[...]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

From ignoring me to the same extent as he ignores jillery, Martin has metamorphosed
first into someone who attacks me whenever I respond to him, and now to someone
who takes pot shots at me when I reply to others in posts that do not even mention him.

Ron O has undergone an even more drastic metamorphosis since December. One stage
of it is mentioned in the second reply I did to him on the original thread.

[I have changed the Subject for this thread, which Google Groups treats as part of the original.
GG has metamorphosed by no longer informing readers about changes in subject line.]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:30:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:14:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 5:40:39?AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
> >> than anyone else. IOW spams about it.
> >
> >FTR, the word "spams" is inappropriate in this kind of context. Strictly speaking, "spam" is
> >unwanted advertising.

> So speaks the person who regularly tries to redefine words

Rash judgment ("regularly") noted. You only give a false example below.

I gave the definition of "spam" with which I was familiar, from over a decade ago,
from posts by others on talk.abortion and talk.origins.
I have understood it to be the formal definition until now.

I wasn't aware of other definitions, but your taunt motivated me to look up the definition
in the of Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Unfortuately, it is too ambiguous to
be suitable for Usenet groups.

Do YOU have a definition of "spam" in the context of jillery's and Öö Tiib's
use of the word?

> to suit himself as in your feeble attempt to redefine "agnostic"

I am one in every accepted definition of the word. Can you dispute this
in a reasoned way?

I should add that I am only agnostic in the intellectual sense. I wish very
much for the Christian image of God given by C.S. Lewis to be true.
It's just that the evidence for it is slim, as there is evidence in the
opposite direction.

> to accommodate your lies about me.

You are accusing me of a motivation for my use of the word "agnostic" which is nonexistent.
You are thereby guilty of rash judgment.

If your teachers in Catholic school didn't explain how rash judgment
violates the commandment against bearing false witness, they were
substandard in their teaching of one of the most important parts of morality.

>
> [...]

You don't seem to care about the damage that spam in the sense
has wrought in two science newsgroups. You could have left in what
I wrote, uncommented on.

Since this is a new thread for some newsreaders, here is the data for
the rest of the post to which you are replying.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/bFuMxKkvAgAJ
Re: Frozen Planet II
Mar 27, 2023, 10:15:40 PM


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/27/23 3:58 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 3/27/2023 12:05 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/26/23 3:47 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] I do not harass Nyikos, and there is no sane reason for Nyikos
>>> to continue his sadistic behavior.  He knows that he is a sadistic
>>> maniac [...]
>
>>
>> You may want to consider that the second sentence quoted above
>> contradicts the opening clause of the first sentence.
>
> If you think that the truth is harassment when it is in an explanation
> for why things are the way that they are, you are wrong.
>
>>
>> (FWIW, Nyikos has his faults, but I personally don't think either
>> "sadistic" or "maniac" apply to him.)
>
> My take is that you are obviously wrong.  It is what he projected when
> he was trying to abuse me and it turned out that the joke was on him.

> Really, projection is a way of life for Nyikos. [...]

Projection is not a sign of sadism. I'd expect it to be prevalent with
narcissism. My take on Nyikos (and note that, never having met him in
person much less known him for a length of time, it is likely off) is
that he combines narcissism with social myopia. His narcissism makes it
important to him that he come out on top in any exchange, and his social
myopia prevents him from seeing the damage he does to others (not to
mention to his own reputation) in the process. And I repeat the
disclaimer that I have neither the expertise nor data to make that
diagnosis more than a guess. Nor do you.

You, like a great many people he has crossed paths with, have been
victimized by him. It is natural, but nonetheless groundless, to assume
he inflicted pain on purpose.

Also, I do not think "maniac" means what you think it means.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/27/23 4:29 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 3/27/2023 11:10 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:

[...]

>> Two bits of advice for RonO and others in his position:
>>
>> 1. When you respond to harassment, make sure your response is less
>> than half as long as the post you are responding to.  (This does not
>> apply to disagreements over substantive, on-topic issues.)
>
> This doesn't work for Nyikos.  What works is something like the Holy
> Water Reposts that I resorted to whenever Nyikos started lying about the
> same thing.  Nyikos demands evidence, but Nyikos will snip out (usually
> without attribution) what he can't deal with and pretend that it never
> existed or flat out lie about what he just snipped out.  He has some
> weird notion of a self contained lie, and if the material he is lying
> about is no longer in the post that he is telling the lie in, it is not
> a self contained lie, so he isn't a liar.  He also has a limit for
> snipping and running from the same material.  Doing the same dishonest
> and stupid thing is OK, but he tried not to do it three times.  There
> have been times when he has messed up and done the same stupid and
> dishonest snipping 3 times, and he will go back to the post and put the
> material back in and then try to obfuscate about the reason he snipped
> it out in the first place.  It all adds up to making him reach those
> limits as quickly as possible so that he will quit his harassment for a
> while.  That is how it has been for over a decade, and why the holy
> water reposts have been the most effective control over the Nyikosian
> harassment.  The only problem has been is that Nyikos will just start
> lying about something else from the past, and I end up making up another
> holy water repost.

Judging by your own comments, including your desire for a ban, what you
describe above as "what works" doesn't work.

What works is responding to Nyikos by clipping out all his personal and
off-topic remarks. Of course, that only works if your idea of "works"
includes not getting caught up in such comments. If you *want* to react
and respond to them, then reacting and responding to them is what works,
and banning him would not work at all.

>> 2. When you find yourself wrestling with a pig in the mud, remember
>> that the pig likes it.
>
> There should be no pigs to wrestle with.

People who want to force utopias into existence end up building dystopias.

[Martin Harran]

Apologies, that was a typo, should have been [his] feeble attempt to
redefine "apostate".

>
>[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>From ignoring me to the same extent as he ignores jillery, Martin has metamorphosed
>first into someone who attacks me whenever I respond to him, and now to someone
>who takes pot shots at me when I reply to others in posts that do not even mention him.

Withdraw your existing lies about me and don't post any more lies -
then you'll never hear from me again.

>
>Ron O has undergone an even more drastic metamorphosis since December. One stage
>of it is mentioned in the second reply I did to him on the original thread.
>
>[I have changed the Subject for this thread, which Google Groups treats as part of the original.
>GG has metamorphosed by no longer informing readers about changes in subject line.]
>

>On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:30:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:14:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 5:40:39?AM UTC-4, ? Tiib wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >> It is clearly jillery who mentions phrase "Killfiles are your friends" more
>> >> than anyone else. IOW spams about it.
>> >
>> >FTR, the word "spams" is inappropriate in this kind of context. Strictly speaking, "spam" is
>> >unwanted advertising.
>
>> So speaks the person who regularly tries to redefine words
>
>Rash judgment ("regularly") noted. You only give a false example below.
>
>I gave the definition of "spam" with which I was familiar, from over a decade ago,
>from posts by others on talk.abortion and talk.origins.
>I have understood it to be the formal definition until now.
>
>I wasn't aware of other definitions, but your taunt motivated me to look up the definition
>in the of Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Unfortuately, it is too ambiguous to
>be suitable for Usenet groups.
>

>Do YOU have a definition of "spam" in the context of jillery's and 嘱 Tiib's

>use of the word?
>
>
>> to suit himself as in your feeble attempt to redefine "agnostic"
>

Apologies, that was a typo, should have been your feeble attempt to
redefine "apostate".

>I am one in every accepted definition of the word. Can you dispute this
>in a reasoned way?
>
>I should add that I am only agnostic in the intellectual sense. I wish very
>much for the Christian image of God given by C.S. Lewis to be true.
>It's just that the evidence for it is slim, as there is evidence in the
>opposite direction.
>
>
>> to accommodate your lies about me.
>
>You are accusing me of a motivation for my use of the word "agnostic" which is nonexistent.
>You are thereby guilty of rash judgment.
>
>If your teachers in Catholic school didn't explain how rash judgment
>violates the commandment against bearing false witness, they were
>substandard in their teaching of one of the most important parts of morality.
>
>>
>> [...]
>
>You don't seem to care about the damage that spam in the sense
> has wrought in two science newsgroups. You could have left in what
>I wrote, uncommented on.

>
>Since this is a new thread for some newsreaders, here is the data for
>the rest of the post to which you are replying.
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/bFuMxKkvAgAJ
>Re: Frozen Planet II

>Mar 27, 2023, 10:15:40?PM
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:02:18 -0400, the following appeared

And all of the above is a prime example of straining at
gnats while swallowing camels. Typical lately, though.

And now I'm through with this. She's right about one thing
(sacre bleu!); I do tend to respond to foolish posts from
the perpetually offended and argumentative when they
reference me. I'll try to avoid that; I might even be
successful.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From ignoring me to the same extent as he ignores jillery, Martin has metamorphosed
> >first into someone who attacks me whenever I respond to him, and now to someone
> >who takes pot shots at me when I reply to others in posts that do not even mention him.

The first clause of your two-liner that follows is baseless and in the same spirit
as Ron O's false claims about me on the original subject line.

> Withdraw your existing lies about me and don't post any more lies -
> then you'll never hear from me again.

I couldn't care less whether I hear from you again or not.

I am more resilient than most people here, especially that crybaby Ron O.


I left in everything below, since you might want to comment on it now,
with the failure of your two-line gambit. Evidently you didn't realize that
the lines to which you were responding were not a complaint, but a FTR & FYO
description to t.o. participants and lurkers of your changing *modus* *operandi*.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:35:41 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:00:41 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From ignoring me to the same extent as he ignores jillery, Martin has metamorphosed
> > >first into someone who attacks me whenever I respond to him, and now to someone
> > >who takes pot shots at me when I reply to others in posts that do not even mention him.
> The first clause of your two-liner that follows is baseless and in the same spirit
> as Ron O's false claims about me on the original subject line.
> > Withdraw your existing lies about me and don't post any more lies -
> > then you'll never hear from me again.

> I couldn't care less whether I hear from you again or not.

> I am more resilient than most people here, especially that crybaby Ron O.

And more humble.

It's a humility all should aspire to that allows a person to not over-react
to the idle slings and arrows of people whose opinions you don't find
to be especially credible. It's a humility that is not so desperate for
praise that it warps into an obsession over those superfluous sleights.
Your example is one that all should consider in moderating their own
behavior.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Leaving aside the implication that Casanova's statement has something to
do with etymology, I will talk further about the etymology AND the
meaning of "spam" below.

> yet another typical example of Casanova claiming
> facts about which he has no idea what he's talking about:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZyZn5nVks>

The etymology that this Monty Python skit provides does
not inform me whether Casanova is correct or not in his use of "spam" above.

OTOH the following is a fascinating piece of later etymology that seems to
shed a lot of light on this issue.

"Over on Usenet, a precursor to the Internet that functions much like today’s Internet forums, “spam” was used to refer to excessive multiple posting across multiple forums and threads. The earliest Usenet spam included a fundamentalist religious tract, a political rant about the Armenian Genocide, and an advertisement for green card legal services."
-- https://www.malwarebytes.com/spam

Note the "and" [as opposed to "or"] between "multiple forums" and "threads." Unless Casanova
crossposted his FYI statement to other groups, he is on solid ground here.

I was sufficiently bothered by the impression that Usenet is not an ongoing forum that
I sent the following message to https://my.malwarebytes.com/help:

"There is an inaccuracy in your history of spam. Usenet is still around, and I am involved in three active newsgroups. Your paragraph on Usenet makes it seem like a thing of the past, and a correct description might help attract new users."


Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:00:41?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:32:59 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From ignoring me to the same extent as he ignores jillery, Martin has metamorphosed
>> >first into someone who attacks me whenever I respond to him, and now to someone
>> >who takes pot shots at me when I reply to others in posts that do not even mention him.
>
>
>The first clause of your two-liner that follows is baseless and in the same spirit
>as Ron O's false claims about me on the original subject line.
>
>> Withdraw your existing lies about me and don't post any more lies -
>> then you'll never hear from me again.
>
>I couldn't care less whether I hear from you again or not.

For something you don't care about, you do an inordinate amount of
whining about it.

>
>I am more resilient than most people here, especially that crybaby Ron O.

You're certainly a legend in your own mind.

>
>
>I left in everything below, since you might want to comment on it now,
>with the failure of your two-line gambit. Evidently you didn't realize that
>the lines to which you were responding were not a complaint, but a FTR & FYO
>description to t.o. participants and lurkers of your changing *modus* *operandi*.
>

[...]

And still no attempt to back up or withdraw your lies about me. Don't
worry, I will remind you next week about all this evidence you said
you would produce.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:30:44 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> I was sufficiently bothered by the impression that Usenet is not an ongoing forum that
> I sent the following message to https://my.malwarebytes.com/help:
>
> "There is an inaccuracy in your history of spam. Usenet is still around, and I am involved in three active newsgroups. Your paragraph on Usenet makes it seem like a thing of the past, and a correct description might help attract new users."
>

!!

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
— Gene Spafford, 1992