Horses Mouth

[Glenn]

"From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/

Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?

Science:

https://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/human-species-still-evolving-study-05012012/

Here's a real eye popper;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/06/24/the-future-is-flexible-lets-not-be-afraid-of-it/?sh=695b1a4c6c91

Nice tits, though:

https://scroll.in/article/955059/human-evolution-weve-got-the-famous-march-of-progress-image-all-wrong

Aw, just label them:

https://www.carnisostenibili.it/en/the-role-of-processing-food-in-human-evolution/

[RonO]

I see that you haven't managed to find any denial stupidity worse than
what IDiocy/creationism has going for it.

Demonstrate otherwise.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Balaam's ass speaks again!

[Glenn]

You sure do. Let me guess. You're white.

[John Harshman]

I'm going to speculate about Glenn's point: The classic "ascent of Man"
meme is racist, because in the picture the dudes (or dudettes) get paler
from left to right. And therefore evolutionists are racist and evolution
itself is racist. What do you think?

[*Hemidactylus*]

In Glenn’s case it emanates from the posterior. Speaking usually comes with
more processing and cogency. These are mere droppings from a rectum.

[Glenn]

Maybe evolutionists didn't make those pictures. Did black people in Africa not evolve as fast? Why don't you speculate on what you think?

[Glenn]

You said it, I didn't.

https://scitechdaily.com/understanding-to-human-evolution-neanderthal-dna-contributes-to-genetic-diversity/

[Glenn]

https://www.lumenchristi.org/event/2020/06/webinar-becoming-human-evolution-science-soul-chris-baglow

[John Harshman]

Did I get your point right?

[erik simpson]

I'll speculate that Glenn doesn't realize (or maybe just accept) that black people in/from Africa share
an African ancestor with white people from Europe (and elsewhere), not to mention other colors not
terribly long ago. Or that that ancestor was also Homo sap, and probably had dark skin. Whether Glenn
is proud or ashamed of whatever color most accurately describes him is a subject I'll not touch.

[Glenn]

You're touched, all right.

[Glenn]

Why do you nuts always expect others to have a point? It's an observation.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I believe that yesterday Glenn expressed his distress at recent news. Perhaps he
is again distressed that certain people were convicted of chasing down and
executing a jogger. Furthermore, it seems like the local prosecutor who refused
to prosecute has been brought up on charges for obstructing justice by withholding
videos of the crime. This may be a very trying time for him. Elsewhere, others have
been held responsible for systematic racism. Kyle got off, admittedly because of a
radically inept prosecutor and a bizarre judge, but that's been of little solace to
a certain subset of the populace.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

If your speculation is correct I fear that this is a rare case in which
I agree with Glenn.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

To review, there are two separate issues which make the classic
"ascent of Man" misleading.

The first is a scientific argument, that it implies a direct descent
between stages. To the best of my recollection, I didn't interpret it
that way until I read where someone else did. Perhaps it's just me.

The second is a cultural argument, that it implies the acme of human
evolution is a white dude. Although each stage is getting lighter,
that is partly because they are also becoming less hairy, which is a
presumption not based on evidence. An irony here is, European
haplotypes are typically far hairier than others, a point conveniently
ignored by Aryan racists.

Many white people are insulted by the suggestion they evolved from
apes or monkeys or any nonhuman animal. Also, it's a common racial
slur to call other ethnic groups "monkeys". Given that, my impression
is, if that white dude was replaced by an ethnic African, many people
would consider it even more racist than the original.

This topic raises a larger question, why skin color triggers so much
xenophobia among so many, especially when skin color has only a weak
correlation to ethnic groups.

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

[RonO]

This doesn't demonstrate anything except more denial of reality. They
acknowledge fossils of human ancestry, but what is it that they are
going to do with that information. More denial stupidity isn't better
than what you have put up above.

Why is it that IDiocy has nothing better supporting it than what you
consider to be not good enough? How does such denial stupidity work for
you? Why is not good enough, enough for you when it comes to IDiocy?

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

You agree that evolution is racist?

[John Harshman]

OK, so you have no point. Got it. But did I get your observation right?

[erik simpson]

I apologize for the gratuitous insult. It's Thanksgiving, and I have much be to thankful about. I
hope the same for you as well. Conversations here (and elsewhere?) would be more productive
with less provocative exchanges. I intend to try it, and I suggest you also give it a shot.

[Glenn]

How would I know that?

[Glenn]

Don't put me in your category. You're touched, all right.

[John Harshman]

OK, you win.

[Glenn]

So you think it is a game.

[John Harshman]

What's "it"? But you do seem to be trying to win some kind of competition.

[Glenn]

It is whatever you think I won.

[Lawyer Daggett]

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

[John Harshman]

I will once again speculate that it's a contest to prove yourself a
person of superior knowledge and/or character. If you alone know what
you're talking about, well, that does prove your superior knowledge. Was
I right?

[Glenn]

You can't lose if you don't play.

Not losing is not winning.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No. Of course not, but I agree that illustrations that show a
progression from hairy black apes to smooth white Europeans have racist
implications.

[Glenn]

What is "it"?

> person of superior knowledge and/or character. If you alone know what
> you're talking about, well, that does prove your superior knowledge. Was
> I right?

Apparently you need to be right. That seems to get in the way of your understanding of the word observation.

[Glenn]

Did that suddenly dawn on you?

[John Harshman]

Superior cleverness too. Forgot that part. We are not worthy! We are not
worthy!

[Glenn]

Seems I hit a rotten nerve.

[John Harshman]

It's the gradual whitening that's the main problem there. Whiteness is
of course a recent response to life in a low-sun north, so everyone
except the rightmost one should be uniformly darkish. Whether they ought
to be hairy is another question. I see no problem with representing
modern humans by a person who presumably resembles the illustrator. Got
to pick somebody. Of course the whole linear progression is
scientifically wrong, but I don't see it as racist per se.

Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.

[John Harshman]

You are the winner.

[GlennS]

You don't get to decide. Best you can do is say you feel like a loser. Say it.

[GlennS]

I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point. You clearly had a point, and now are being disingenuous by claiming that your speculation was "clearly" incorrect, and that you don't "know" why I posted "all that".

But thanks for making your point. I'll leave it to others to judge.

[John Harshman]

So essentially, you are agreeing with Conan the Barbarian about what is
best in life: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to
hear the lamentation of their women". Or perhaps Oscar Wilde: "It is not
enough that I succeed; my friends also must fail".

[John Harshman]

Can anyone follow that?

[GlennS]

I didn't say you were the loser, you said I was the winner. Was that disingenuous?

[Lawyer Daggett]

Near as I can make out, Glenn is admitting that he has not succeeded in
making his point. OMG, I agree with Glenn! Quick, to the bottle!

[GlennS]

That may be your problem, as well as others here. I don't usually rush to assumptions and conclusions.

[*Hemidactylus*]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>

It’s pretty simple really:

https://youtu.be/efHCdKb5UWc

“Bruce Wayne : [while in the underground bat cave] Targeting me won't get
their money back. I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this
is different. They crossed the line.

Alfred Pennyworth : You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you
hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they
turned to a man they didn't fully understand.

Bruce Wayne : Criminals aren't complicated, Alfred. Just have to figure out
what he's after.

Alfred Pennyworth : With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that
*you* don't fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My
friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to
buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But
their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit.
So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody
who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of
a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.

Bruce Wayne : So why steal them?

Alfred Pennyworth : Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because
some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be
bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch
the world burn.”

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/characters/nm0000323

So why continue the back and forth with him? Why waste a good chunk of
Thanksgiving that could be used doing something more worthwhile than
engaging a malicious troll? Why promote endless vicious cycles (hi Ron O
and Jillery)? Opportunity costs? By merely wasting your time on paying
direct attention to him he wins.

At least Peter has the sense to take the day off with family. I doubt he
fully knows what he’s dealing with in Glenn either.

[Glenn]

You're doing a pretty good job of ignoring me, Hemi. Apparently you got a bone stuck in your craw.

[John Harshman]

If I agree you are much cleverer than I am, which seems your purpose,
will you go away?

[Glenn]

Seems?

You said I am the winner. If you agree that those that do not win, lose, will you go away?

[jillery]

Even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference.

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

[jillery]

How nice of you to mention these things.

>Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

There was a programme last night on France 5 about excavations (led by
José Braga, of Toulouse) at Kromdraai (South Africa) intended to fill
the fossil gap between Australopithecus (3 million years BP) and the
first hominims (2 million years BP). The scientific content was good,
though it suffered the usual (from my point of view) problem of
palaeontological studies of drawing wide-ranging conclusions from
extremely sparse data.

It was illustrated with National-Geographic style videos of what the
early chaps were like -- black and hairy, or course, but that's
probably realistic, and not much in the way of breasts for the ladies.
What struck me in particular was the total absence of sexual organs,
and I wondered how they managed to leave descendants. That wouldn't be
too surprising in an American programme, of course, but this was
French, and the French are not usually so uptight about such things.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> [snip original topic]

> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.

Glenn posts in order to get people to respond. I speculate that his
greatest need is for a sense of belonging. He certainly is not working
on esteem.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Glenn]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:55:20 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > [snip original topic]
> > Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> > my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> Glenn posts in order to get people to respond. I speculate that his
> greatest need is for a sense of belonging. He certainly is not working
> on esteem.
>

Racism? Biden likes the Chinese...
From the horse's mouth:

""This morning I was briefed by my chief medical advisor, Dr. Tony Fauci, and the members of our COVID response team, about the Omicron variant, which is spreading through Southern Africa," he said. "As a precautionary measure until we have more information, I am ordering additional air travel restrictions from South Africa and seven other countries.""

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-travel-ban-south-africa-fauci-white-house

Fauci seems to disagree.

""We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus," Biden tweeted as a presidential candidate last year the day after Trump imposed travel restrictions from China into the United States in response to the spread of the coronavirus. "We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.""

"Biden also referred to Trump's temporary immigration ban from certain African countries as a "disgrace.""

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-biden-suggested-trumps-coronavirus-travel-ban-xenophobic

Didn't Fauci also criticize Trump's decision?

Is Fauci following the science? Is Biden? Is restricting travel from Africa no longer a "disgrace"?

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:43:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>"From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"
>
>https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/
>
>Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?

Can you offer any suggestions as to why an Intelligent Designer would
have gone about things in a way that would have led to those
outcomes?

[Burkhard]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-11-25 01:55:22 +0000, John Harshman said:
>
>> On 11/24/21 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:45:20 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind
>>>> some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?
>>>>

>>>> Science:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/human-species-still-evolving-study-05012012/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's a real eye popper;
>>>>
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/06/24/the-future-is-flexible-lets-not-be-afraid-of-it/?sh=695b1a4c6c91
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice tits, though:
>>>>
>>>> https://scroll.in/article/955059/human-evolution-weve-got-the-famous-march-of-progress-image-all-wrong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aw, just label them:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.carnisostenibili.it/en/the-role-of-processing-food-in-human-evolution/
>>>>
>>>

>>> Balaam's ass speaks again!
>>>
>> I'm going to speculate about Glenn's point: The classic "ascent of
>> Man" meme is racist, because in the picture the dudes (or dudettes)
>> get paler from left to right. And therefore evolutionists are racist
>> and evolution itself is racist. What do you think?
>
> If your speculation is correct I fear that this is a rare case in which
> I agree with Glenn.
>
>

I'm glad you do, because this way I can simply agree with you :o)

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:22:04 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:43:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"
>>
>>https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/
>>
>>Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?
>
>Can you offer any suggestions as to why an Intelligent Designer would
>have gone about things in a way that would have led to those
>outcomes?

Apparently not.

[...]

[Glenn]

Apparently you do. Why should I?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:43:28 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:30:21 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:22:04 +0000, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:43:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>"From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"
>> >>
>> >>https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/
>> >>
>> >>Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?
>> >
>> >Can you offer any suggestions as to why an Intelligent Designer would
>> >have gone about things in a way that would have led to those
>> >outcomes?
>> Apparently not.
>>
>Apparently you do.

No I don't have any suggestions - that's why I asked you for them.

>Why should I?

Because I asked you.

[Glenn]

So you're also a thief. I'm not surprised.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Why do you say it is wrong? Just the idea of what is "further advanced in an evolutionary sense"?

>but I don't see it as racist per se.

After a highly nuanced presentation, you revert to polemical form:

> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> my speculation was clearly incorrect.

I'm glad to see that you accept that much from Glenn after the concerted
piece of character assassination that your "guesses" represented.
They say a lot more about you than they do about Glenn.

> Why did he post all that? Don't know.

Maybe so, but you could make an *educated* guess with a little introspection.

Your great strength is your command of an impressive body of facts,
especially where phylogenetic literature and methods; paleontology, ornithology,
and evolution are concerned. Which of your uses of this body make a point is,
a hefty part of the time, a difficult issue to resolve.

So you shouldn't be hard on Glenn when he exhibits facts that he has at his command.


On the other hand, you are lousy at thinking outside the box.
More generally, I've said many times that you are a polemicist first,
a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third.

I haven't interacted with Glenn as much as I've interacted with you
in each of the almost 11 years that we've interacted since I returned
to talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology after close to a decade of absence.
So I don't feel confident making such sweeping generalizations about Glenn.


Peter Nyikos

PS I'm reminded of the time Dick Gregory was at a demonstration
and a cop called him "a monkey." His retort was, "Who you calling a monkey?
Monkeys got thin lips. Monkeys got blue eyes and straight hair."

[John Harshman]

Partly yes, but primarily because it's shown as linear. You know, like
the "horse sequence".

>> but I don't see it as racist per se.
>
> After a highly nuanced presentation, you revert to polemical form:
>
>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>> my speculation was clearly incorrect.
>
> I'm glad to see that you accept that much from Glenn after the concerted
> piece of character assassination that your "guesses" represented.
> They say a lot more about you than they do about Glenn.

Do you think Glenn had a point in his OP? What, if so, do you think it was?

>> Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>
> Maybe so, but you could make an *educated* guess with a little introspection.

I did make an educated guess. It was apparently wrong. What's yours?

> Your great strength is your command of an impressive body of facts,
> especially where phylogenetic literature and methods; paleontology, ornithology,
> and evolution are concerned. Which of your uses of this body make a point is,
> a hefty part of the time, a difficult issue to resolve.
>
> So you shouldn't be hard on Glenn when he exhibits facts that he has at his command.

He didn't actually exhibit facts. He posted some links that he had
googled. Why? As for facts, do you know who said “How odd it is that
anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some
view if it is to be of any service!”

> On the other hand, you are lousy at thinking outside the box.
> More generally, I've said many times that you are a polemicist first,
> a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third.

You say this because you don't like my positions. Who said this: "“It
pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

> I haven't interacted with Glenn as much as I've interacted with you
> in each of the almost 11 years that we've interacted since I returned
> to talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology after close to a decade of absence.
> So I don't feel confident making such sweeping generalizations about Glenn.

And yet you feel confident in denying the generalizations of those who
actually have interacted with him. Go figure.

[Glenn]

Then how do you know your speculation was "clearly incorrect"?

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 10:40:22 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

Makes one wonder what you consider facts to be. It is a fact that a website exists on the Internet represented as a science article from the Smithsonian, and includes a picture. Or is that not a fact in your world?

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:32:36 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

That's an extremely serious accusation - what have I stolen?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > [snip original topic]

Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?

> > Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> > my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.

Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
may be many more rounds to come.

> Glenn posts in order to get people to respond.

Is there anyone here who posts and does NOT want anyone to respond?
Do you consider it best if nobody responds to YOU?

> I speculate that his greatest need is for a sense of belonging.

I suspect you are projecting. What would you do in a forum
where you are NOT in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with about 90% of the regulars, and where you are NOT
in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with at least half a dozen of them?
[You bask in both of those advantages here in t.o.]

I suspect you wouldn't dare step into a forum where you are in the
minority wrt the first kind of relationship and have, say, five times as
many people denigrating you as the ones in the second category.

And yet, Glenn faces much greater odds than even those, including
one denigrator who perennially calls him "the village idiot," and several others
who perennially come close to dehumanizing and demonizing him.

> He certainly is not working on esteem.

Not the esteem of the likes of you, who are here playing "good cop"
to the "bad cops" to whom I have referred, but who might start playing "bad cop"
any time, like the time you claimed that the Dr. Dr. needed to stop practicing
medicine right away on account of something he said where he turned out to be closer to the truth than you.

OTOH, he seems to have no more trouble working on SELF-esteem,
just as you claim that it is an honor to be judged by me to be a scoundrel.
Multiply that by the huge number of people denigrating Glenn WITHOUT
giving evidence for their insults at the same time (just like you are not giving any above),
and figure his probable level of self-esteem accordingly.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> [snip original topic]
>
> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>
>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>
> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> may be many more rounds to come.

You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
point.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:19:46 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:


The peter's post below is an apologia for willful stupidity and
pseudoskepticism. If the "odds" are as stacked against some posters
as the peter claims, it is because they choose to spam willfully
stupid pseudoskeptical noise, while simultaneously posting asinine ad
hominems and nonsense non-sequiturs and Big Lies. Even as I
acknowledge those posters have a right to make that choice, those who
exercise that right necessarily have a responsibility to acknowledge
other posters' right to criticize their willful stupidity and
pseudoskepticism and mindless insults.

When the peter blames the critics for their criticisms, while at the
same time ignores and enables other posters' willful stupidity and
pseudoskepticism and mindless insults, as he does below, he argues
against that necessary relationship between those rights and
responsibilities, and by so doing, argues for turning T.O. into a
Hellhole.

<the remaining left unaltered for documentation purposes>

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> may be many more rounds to come.
>

I’m waiting for the movie based on the
counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-attack.
Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Mickey Rourke are slated to star. Soundtrack
by Moby.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> [snip original topic]
> >
> > Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
> >
> >>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> >>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> >
> > Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> > He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> > a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> > may be many more rounds to come.
> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
> attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
> point.

I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 1:50:22 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>> [snip original topic]
> > >
> > > Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
> > >
> > >>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> > >>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> > >
> > > Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> > > He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> > > a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> > > may be many more rounds to come.
> > You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
> > attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
> > point.
> I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."

At least you agree your posts are pointless? That's a relief.

[Glenn]

I agree to no such thing. You need relief. Try exlax.

[John Harshman]

On 12/1/21 1:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> [snip original topic]
>>>
>>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>>>
>>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>>>
>>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
>>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
>>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
>>> may be many more rounds to come.
>> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
>> attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
>> point.
>
> I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."

The distinction escapes me at the moment. And if you did indeed have a
point, what was it?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> [snip original topic]
> >
> > Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
> >

Are you waiting for Mark to answer the question? The attribution marks in the left
margin make it a default assumption that you were the one who was flouting, etc.

> >>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> >>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> >
> > Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> > He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> > a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> > may be many more rounds to come.

> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning.

I did explain some of it, but evidently not to your satisfaction. Which segues nicely with
what I wrote about "counterattacks," although it would have been better to say, "counter-arguments".

After making a good start, I wait to see what I am challenged on, and what I am not challenged on.

Otherwise, I would be like someone who is eager to have a sense of belonging
[see what Mark speculated about Glenn below ]
and takes jillery seriously when 'e says "Right here would have been a good place for you to..."
and soon winds up doing 1000+ line posts in anticipation of everything others might criticize about the wording.

> Nor was it an
> attack, just an observation of fact.

You wrote quite a few things, and one was you doing "the dark side of Humpty Dumpty"
bit about something only an insane person would think of as "an observation of fact."

> Glenn did explicitly deny having a point.

Right, but your reaction to this, viz. "Why did he post all that? Don't know." was at best
disingenuous, and at worst, a travesty of logic because it was based on
hidden assumptions that are needed to make it NOT sound disingenuous.

I did explain why my reaction was negative. Here is another reason:

Back in the late 1990's there was a dirty debating tactic that was very
popular: when someone made a devastating argument, the opponent
would ask "Your point?" and the someone would often be at a loss for words,
because, as you put it up there, the someone was just making "an observation of fact."

I left in what you did not comment on. IF you try to deny that you are
in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with Mark Isaak, expect
revelations that will justify what I say below.

> >> Glenn posts in order to get people to respond.
> >
> > Is there anyone here who posts and does NOT want anyone to respond?
> > Do you consider it best if nobody responds to YOU?
> >
> >
> >> I speculate that his greatest need is for a sense of belonging.
> >
> > I suspect you are projecting. What would you do in a forum
> > where you are NOT in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
> > relationship with about 90% of the regulars, and where you are NOT
> > in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with at least half a dozen of them?
> > [You bask in both of those advantages here in t.o.]

In the 11 years (barring a couple of days) since I returned to talk.origins after almost a decade of absence,
you have had an attitude of "Seeing only those posts you want to see and those parts of posts
that you want to see." And whenever I told you about some misbehavior of someone
who were in good with, your reaction each time was what earned you the nickname, "DontWanna HearAboutIt."

And I expect you to avoid reading what I left in below.

> > I suspect you wouldn't dare step into a forum where you are in the
> > minority wrt the first kind of relationship and have, say, five times as
> > many people denigrating you as the ones in the second category.
> >
> > And yet, Glenn faces much greater odds than even those, including
> > one denigrator who perennially calls him "the village idiot," and several others
> > who perennially come close to dehumanizing and demonizing him.

And so, having earned that nickname many times over, you remained blissfully unaware of things that would allow everyone to
JUSTIFIABLY denigrate and demonize and nearly dehumanize Glenn the way they are doing it now.

> >
> >> He certainly is not working on esteem.
> >
> > Not the esteem of the likes of you, who are here playing "good cop"
> > to the "bad cops" to whom I have referred, but who might start playing "bad cop"
> > any time, like the time you claimed that the Dr. Dr. needed to stop practicing
> > medicine right away on account of something he said where he turned out to be closer to the truth than you.
> >
> > OTOH, he seems to have no more trouble working on SELF-esteem,
> > just as you claim that it is an honor to be judged by me to be a scoundrel.
> > Multiply that by the huge number of people denigrating Glenn WITHOUT
> > giving evidence for their insults at the same time (just like you are not giving any above),
> > and figure his probable level of self-esteem accordingly.

As I wrote, that was Mark playing "good cop." Despite your perennial attitude of "Only seeing those posts...
you did see him playing "bad cop" at least once, but he only rose in your esteem on account of it.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

You've certainly got Glenn's back. Could you provide an example of where Glenn's made an actual
contribution to a conversation? Much of the time a bot could perform his function.

[John Harshman]

On 12/1/21 3:34 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> [snip original topic]
>>>
>>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>>>
>
> Are you waiting for Mark to answer the question? The attribution marks in the left
> margin make it a default assumption that you were the one who was flouting, etc.
>
>
>>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>>>
>>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
>>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
>>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
>>> may be many more rounds to come.
>
>> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning.
>
> I did explain some of it, but evidently not to your satisfaction. Which segues nicely with
> what I wrote about "counterattacks," although it would have been better to say, "counter-arguments".
>
> After making a good start, I wait to see what I am challenged on, and what I am not challenged on.

What was that good start? Missed it.

> Otherwise, I would be like someone who is eager to have a sense of belonging
> [see what Mark speculated about Glenn below ]
> and takes jillery seriously when 'e says "Right here would have been a good place for you to..."
> and soon winds up doing 1000+ line posts in anticipation of everything others might criticize about the wording.
>
>> Nor was it an
>> attack, just an observation of fact.
>
> You wrote quite a few things, and one was you doing "the dark side of Humpty Dumpty"
> bit about something only an insane person would think of as "an observation of fact."

I don't know what that bit would be or what your characterization means.

>> Glenn did explicitly deny having a point.
>
> Right, but your reaction to this, viz. "Why did he post all that? Don't know." was at best
> disingenuous, and at worst, a travesty of logic because it was based on
> hidden assumptions that are needed to make it NOT sound disingenuous.

Please explain what was disingenuous. Do you know why he posted it?

> I did explain why my reaction was negative. Here is another reason:
>
> Back in the late 1990's there was a dirty debating tactic that was very
> popular: when someone made a devastating argument, the opponent
> would ask "Your point?" and the someone would often be at a loss for words,
> because, as you put it up there, the someone was just making "an observation of fact."
>
> I left in what you did not comment on. IF you try to deny that you are
> in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with Mark Isaak, expect
> revelations that will justify what I say below.

Yes, I deny it. And what I said was no debating tactic. As I said, Glenn
explicitly denied having a point (though his words were "making a
point", I don't see the intended distinction. Do you?)

>>>> Glenn posts in order to get people to respond.
>>>
>>> Is there anyone here who posts and does NOT want anyone to respond?
>>> Do you consider it best if nobody responds to YOU?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I speculate that his greatest need is for a sense of belonging.
>>>
>>> I suspect you are projecting. What would you do in a forum
>>> where you are NOT in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
>>> relationship with about 90% of the regulars, and where you are NOT
>>> in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with at least half a dozen of them?
>>> [You bask in both of those advantages here in t.o.]
>
> In the 11 years (barring a couple of days) since I returned to talk.origins after almost a decade of absence,
> you have had an attitude of "Seeing only those posts you want to see and those parts of posts
> that you want to see." And whenever I told you about some misbehavior of someone
> who were in good with, your reaction each time was what earned you the nickname, "DontWanna HearAboutIt."

You respond to yourself here, and to yourself responding to someone else
who isn't me. What am I to make of that?

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:10:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/21 1:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> [snip original topic]
> >>>
> >>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
> >>>
> >>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> >>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> >>>
> >>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> >>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> >>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> >>> may be many more rounds to come.
> >> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
> >> attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
> >> point.
> >
> > I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."
> The distinction escapes me at the moment. And if you did indeed have a
> point, what was it?

What's your point?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> > [whom you were] in good with, your reaction each time was what earned you the nickname, "DontWanna HearAboutIt."

> >
> > And I expect you to avoid reading what I left in below.

> > > > I suspect you wouldn't dare step into a forum where you are in the
> > > > minority wrt the first kind of relationship and have, say, five times as
> > > > many people denigrating you as the ones in the second category.
> > > >
> > > > And yet, Glenn faces much greater odds than even those, including
> > > > one denigrator who perennially calls him "the village idiot," and several others
> > > > who perennially come close to dehumanizing and demonizing him.

> > And so, having earned that nickname many times over, you remained blissfully unaware of things that would allow everyone to
> > JUSTIFIABLY denigrate and demonize and nearly dehumanize Glenn the way they are doing it now.
> > > >
> > > >> He certainly is not working on esteem.
> > > >
> > > > Not the esteem of the likes of you, who are here playing "good cop"
> > > > to the "bad cops" to whom I have referred, but who might start playing "bad cop"
> > > > any time, like the time you claimed that the Dr. Dr. needed to stop practicing
> > > > medicine right away on account of something he said where he turned out to be closer to the truth than you.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, he seems to have no more trouble working on SELF-esteem,
> > > > just as you claim that it is an honor to be judged by me to be a scoundrel.
> > > > Multiply that by the huge number of people denigrating Glenn WITHOUT
> > > > giving evidence for their insults at the same time (just like you are not giving any above),
> > > > and figure his probable level of self-esteem accordingly.

> > As I wrote, that was Mark playing "good cop." Despite your perennial attitude of "Only seeing those posts...
> > you did see him playing "bad cop" at least once, but he only rose in your esteem on account of it.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos


> You've certainly got Glenn's back.

Only when I think he is doing the right thing. It's an attitude I'd like to see
you take sometime, "if only for the novelty of it," as someone who has
a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with you loves to put it, almost always dishonestly.

There are quite a few other people in that relationship with you,
and one would have to be incredibly naive not to see, from how "oblivious" you are
to the content of the post to which you are replying, that you've got both Harshman's back and Mark Isaak's back.

Which makes it all the more striking that you seemed to have demoted Oxyaena
to a mere mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship recently, here:

Re: Dinos with feathers
November 18, 2021 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5

> Could you provide an example of where Glenn's made an actual
> contribution to a conversation?

Yes. Your perennial role model, John Harshman, was pretty sure he
had NOT claimed that the Higgs field was the same thing as the Higgs boson.
Glenn provided documentation that he essentially HAD claimed it.

Glenn has embarrassed people innumerable times by posting
links that rebut what they claimed. Sometimes he is mistaken,
but I think his track record is pretty good on that score.

You, on the other hand, keep providing shallow "information"
that I've gone way beyond [glaring example: pterosaur diet]
and then whine when I tell you that you are being counterproductive.

> Much of the time a bot could perform his function.

The same is true of quite a few other people, including Harshman on one memorable
occasion in s.b.p. when he and JTEM were playing a game of "chicken."


But no bot could perform the function you performed in attacking me
for being hospitable to people from talk.origins in sci.bio.paleontology
when Beagle went down for several days.
On the previous such occasions, you had no problems with me being that way.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice the big difference: the time
you ripped into me, there was one visitor to s.b.p. who hadn't been there
on previous occasions: Glenn.


One might think that you are secretly terrified of Glenn.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

They think they're related to turkeys. It's no wonder.

[John Harshman]

On 12/1/21 6:00 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:10:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 1:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip original topic]
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>>>>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
>>>>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
>>>>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
>>>>> may be many more rounds to come.
>>>> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
>>>> attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."
>> The distinction escapes me at the moment. And if you did indeed have a
>> point, what was it?
>
> What's your point?

I have no point here, just a goal. My goal is to discover whether you
had a point and if so what it was. If I discover that, it's possible I
will then have a point of my own.

Are you unwilling to say whether you have a point, or what it is?

[John Harshman]

But Peter also thinks he's related to turkeys. Did you not know that?
He's an evilutionist.

[Glenn]

Well that may depend on what your point is.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/21 3:34 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> [snip original topic]
> >>>
> >>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
> >>>
> >
> > Are you waiting for Mark to answer the question?

<crickets>

>> The attribution marks in the left margin make it a default assumption that you,
>> John Harshman, were the one who was flouting, etc.

> >
> >>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
> >>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
> >>>
> >>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
> >>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
> >>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
> >>> may be many more rounds to come.
> >
> >> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning.
> >
> > I did explain some of it, but evidently not to your satisfaction. Which segues nicely with
> > what I wrote about "counterattacks," although it would have been better to say, "counter-arguments".
> >
> > After making a good start, I wait to see what I am challenged on, and what I am not challenged on.

> What was that good start? Missed it.

Smart-alecky reply to a general statement about my perennial ways, noted.

> > Otherwise, I would be like someone who is eager to have a sense of belonging
> > [see what Mark speculated about Glenn below ]
> > and takes jillery seriously when 'e says "Right here would have been a good place for you to..."
> > and soon winds up doing 1000+ line posts in anticipation of everything others might criticize about the wording.
> >
> >> Nor was it an
> >> attack, just an observation of fact.
> >
> > You wrote quite a few things, and one was you doing "the dark side of Humpty Dumpty"
> > bit about something only an insane person would think of as "an observation of fact."

> I don't know what that bit would be or what your characterization means.

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty seeing yourself the way a responsible adult
would see you. Either that, or you want to be spoon-fed everything to save you the trouble
of re-reading your post.

> >> Glenn did explicitly deny having a point.
> >
> > Right, but your reaction to this, viz. "Why did he post all that? Don't know." was at best
> > disingenuous, and at worst, a travesty of logic because it was based on
> > hidden assumptions that are needed to make it NOT sound disingenuous.

> Please explain what was disingenuous.

I don't cater to people who make disingenuous-looking requests like the one
you are making here.

> Do you know why he posted it?

Yet another example. If this is the way you behave in job interviews,
it's no wonder you never got a tenure track job at an institution of higher learning.

It might even explain why the only recent teaching job you've told us about
(in s.b.p., if memory serves) was teaching kiddies things like "birds are dinosaurs"
and getting the reaction that this was "way cool."


Concluded in next reply, to be done tomorrow. I've spent more time on you today
than you deserve.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

So you say. But you say a lot of things.

[erik simpson]

Your "analysis" of what I must think of others and how that must relate to what I say is
so thoroughly wrong I'm not even going to go through it misconception by misconception. I
have no obligation to "back up" anybody, or to agree or disagree with anybody. Your
imaginary world stacked up against you is one of your disagreeable features, of
which you have several. Somewhere recently I saw Hemidactylus say something like
"why can't you be this friendly more?". Indeed.

[Glenn]

I got a feeling that the reaction would have been way, way cooler had he told the kiddies that humans are turkeys.

[Glenn]

You had no obligation to post this meaningless gobbledygook either.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:00:00 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:10:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 1:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:40:22 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> >>>>> [snip original topic]
>> >>>
>> >>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>> >>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>> >>>
>> >>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
>> >>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
>> >>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
>> >>> may be many more rounds to come.
>> >> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning. Nor was it an
>> >> attack, just an observation of fact. Glenn did explicitly deny having a
>> >> point.
>> >
>> > I did no such thing. I said I didn't make a point. "I don't recall denying having a "point". I said I hadn't made a point."
>> The distinction escapes me at the moment. And if you did indeed have a
>> point, what was it?
>
>What's your point?

Not sure how anybody thinks comments like the above qualify as "doing
the right thing", even as a self-parody.

[Glenn]

Tu quoque., back atcha and gobble gobble.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> [snip original topic]
>
> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?

You just made the flouting yours. I don't consider it a big deal; I
enjoy most off-topic posts.

>> Glenn posts in order to get people to respond.
>
> Is there anyone here who posts and does NOT want anyone to respond?
> Do you consider it best if nobody responds to YOU?

I post to communicate, and with most of my posts (this one, for
example), I am quite satisfied if nobody responds. Glenn posts (with
rare exceptions) to troll. Have you noted that his only contribution to
this subthread (as of now) was a snide comment on the belief that one is
related to a turkey? That's out of six posts he made.

>> I speculate that his greatest need is for a sense of belonging.
>
> I suspect you are projecting. What would you do in a forum
> where you are NOT in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
> relationship with about 90% of the regulars, and where you are NOT
> in a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with at least half a dozen of them?
> [You bask in both of those advantages here in t.o.]
>
> I suspect you wouldn't dare step into a forum where you are in the
> minority wrt the first kind of relationship and have, say, five times as
> many people denigrating you as the ones in the second category.

As usual, you are wrong. I have done just that in the past.

I have noted in the past that you are invariably wrong when you talk
about what (you think) I think, and I have seen others say the same
thing. Has it occurred to you that that means you are probably wrong
almost all the time when you *think* about what others are thinking?

> And yet, Glenn faces much greater odds than even those, including
> one denigrator who perennially calls him "the village idiot," and several others
> who perennially come close to dehumanizing and demonizing him.

That's Glenn's choice. I don't think he's an idiot, but he often goes
out of his way to act like one.

> OTOH, he seems to have no more trouble working on SELF-esteem, [...]

I hope for Glenn's sake you are correct.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Glenn]

No you don't, and you are acting like an idiot.

[John Harshman]

And they're all true. You could ask him if you don't believe me. If you
care.

[John Harshman]

On 12/1/21 7:00 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 3:34 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/21 11:19 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/25/21 10:58 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip original topic]
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that you or Harshman who is flouting the fact that he is posting off topic?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you waiting for Mark to answer the question?
>
> <crickets>

Sorry. Your posts are hard to read, especially since you ask me to reply
to things that weren't addressed to me. No, I'm not waiting for
anything. I'm not flouting anything either.

>>> The attribution marks in the left margin make it a default assumption that you,
>>> John Harshman, were the one who was flouting, etc.
>
>>>
>>>>>>> Glenn, on the other hand, explicitly denied having a point to make, so
>>>>>>> my speculation was clearly incorrect. Why did he post all that? Don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman is indulging in a mockery of logic above, as I've commented.
>>>>> He counterattacked, but his is not the last word in this dispute; I have
>>>>> a counter-counter attack which I hope to find time for today. And there
>>>>> may be many more rounds to come.
>>>
>>>> You commented, but you didn't explain any reasoning.
>>>
>>> I did explain some of it, but evidently not to your satisfaction. Which segues nicely with
>>> what I wrote about "counterattacks," although it would have been better to say, "counter-arguments".
>>>
>>> After making a good start, I wait to see what I am challenged on, and what I am not challenged on.
>
>> What was that good start? Missed it.
>
> Smart-alecky reply to a general statement about my perennial ways, noted.

I didn't know it was a general statement. I thought you were referring
to this supposed particular good start.

>>> Otherwise, I would be like someone who is eager to have a sense of belonging
>>> [see what Mark speculated about Glenn below ]
>>> and takes jillery seriously when 'e says "Right here would have been a good place for you to..."
>>> and soon winds up doing 1000+ line posts in anticipation of everything others might criticize about the wording.
>>>
>>>> Nor was it an
>>>> attack, just an observation of fact.
>>>
>>> You wrote quite a few things, and one was you doing "the dark side of Humpty Dumpty"
>>> bit about something only an insane person would think of as "an observation of fact."
>
>> I don't know what that bit would be or what your characterization means.
>
> You seem to have a great deal of difficulty seeing yourself the way a responsible adult
> would see you. Either that, or you want to be spoon-fed everything to save you the trouble
> of re-reading your post.

Insult instead of answer. Is that how a responsible adult works?

>>>> Glenn did explicitly deny having a point.
>>>
>>> Right, but your reaction to this, viz. "Why did he post all that? Don't know." was at best
>>> disingenuous, and at worst, a travesty of logic because it was based on
>>> hidden assumptions that are needed to make it NOT sound disingenuous.
>
>> Please explain what was disingenuous.
>
> I don't cater to people who make disingenuous-looking requests like the one
> you are making here.

I have to say that this post is even less useful than usual, consisting
of almost nothing but refusals to respond.

>> Do you know why he posted it?
>
> Yet another example. If this is the way you behave in job interviews,
> it's no wonder you never got a tenure track job at an institution of higher learning.
>
> It might even explain why the only recent teaching job you've told us about
> (in s.b.p., if memory serves) was teaching kiddies things like "birds are dinosaurs"
> and getting the reaction that this was "way cool."
>
>
> Concluded in next reply, to be done tomorrow. I've spent more time on you today
> than you deserve.

Continuing with the nothing-but-insult format? If so, I will not respond.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:55:25 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:32:36 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:35:22 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:43:28 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:30:21 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:22:04 +0000, Martin Harran
>>> >> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:43:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>"From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of man has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections"
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Or, from monkey to white, innately human perfection?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Can you offer any suggestions as to why an Intelligent Designer would
>>> >> >have gone about things in a way that would have led to those
>>> >> >outcomes?
>>> >> Apparently not.
>>> >>
>>> >Apparently you do.
>>> No I don't have any suggestions - that's why I asked you for them.
>>>
>>> >Why should I?
>>>
>>> Because I asked you.
>>
>>So you're also a thief. I'm not surprised.
>
>That's an extremely serious accusation - what have I stolen?

You call me a thief without identifying anything I have stolen. That
speaks volumes about your character.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Glenn is hardly a Terminator bot, unless he was sent by Skynet to be an
offputting dingbat to some undecipherable in our timeline end.

>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Your "analysis" of what I must think of others and how that must relate to what I say is
> so thoroughly wrong I'm not even going to go through it misconception by misconception. I
> have no obligation to "back up" anybody, or to agree or disagree with anybody. Your
> imaginary world stacked up against you is one of your disagreeable features, of
> which you have several. Somewhere recently I saw Hemidactylus say something like
> "why can't you be this friendly more?". Indeed.
>

That could be influenced by whether we are getting variant Dr Jekyll or Mr
Hyde versions of Peter at any given time or if the switch occurs within the
course of a post. A strange case indeed. He seems quite Hyde-bound in his
interpersonal digressions. Sometimes Jekyll breaks through, but the
struggle reflecting an inner turmoil is palpable. His quite amicable reply
to Ron O was startling.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 20:31:54 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Not sure how even the peter thinks comments like the above qualify as

"doing the right thing", even as a self-parody.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my body is related to the body of turkeys. Don't you?

However, I do nurture a faint hope that I have an immortal soul.
And, on the off chance that this is true, I believe it is different
from the souls, if any, of turkeys.

How about you? I think you believe and hope for the next best
thing to a heaven of never ending delights: oblivion when you die.
Am I wrong?

If I am right, you are just as guilty of wishful thinking as
the "pie in the sky, by and by" crowd.

So was Epicurus, who sang the praises of oblivion when death comes.
That, I suspect, is one reason he was one of the rare "atoms and void" materialists
whose first known member was Democritus.

I'm going to do something horrible in the next two lines. :-) :-)
I'm naming someone not involved in this sub-thread
by wondering whether Hemidactylus has something to add to this theme.

>Did you not know that?

Did you not know about my faint hope? I gave plenty of hints over the years.


> He's an evilutionist.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode on

Me not evilutionist. YOU evilutionist.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode off


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Of course I do. The point was that Glenn thinks you don't. Glenn has
ridiculed the notion and is presumably a creationist. Everything that
follows here is a wild digression. Do you not understand that Glenn
consistently ridicules everything associated with evolution and common
descent?

> However, I do nurture a faint hope that I have an immortal soul.
> And, on the off chance that this is true, I believe it is different
> from the souls, if any, of turkeys.
>
> How about you? I think you believe and hope for the next best
> thing to a heaven of never ending delights: oblivion when you die.
> Am I wrong?

Yes, to a degree. I don't have any hope in particular, though I expect
that death is just that, an end. There is no soul separate from the
body, and dualism is a fantasy. All evidence, such as there is, points
that way. And you seem to realize that, since your hope is faint.

> If I am right, you are just as guilty of wishful thinking as
> the "pie in the sky, by and by" crowd.

But you are wrong.

> So was Epicurus, who sang the praises of oblivion when death comes.
> That, I suspect, is one reason he was one of the rare "atoms and void" materialists
> whose first known member was Democritus.
>
> I'm going to do something horrible in the next two lines. :-) :-)
> I'm naming someone not involved in this sub-thread
> by wondering whether Hemidactylus has something to add to this theme.
>
>
>> Did you not know that?
>
> Did you not know about my faint hope? I gave plenty of hints over the years.

Of course I know. But it's not relevant to the point, and it isn't clear
why you brought it up.

>> He's an evilutionist.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode on
>
> Me not evilutionist. YOU evilutionist.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode off

Whatever does that mean? Are you preparing to reject common descent?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Not sure why you want people to think that this is the way I think:

> comments like the above qualify as
> "doing the right thing", even as a self-parody.

Why, do you think Glenn was doing the wrong thing? If so, why?


Now for a far tougher question: do you think Mark Isaak was
doing the right thing? If so, why?

My guess is that you do, but only because Mark Isaak has the
same totalitarian-mentality concept of "democracy" that you do:
deciding matters of fact by the majority of those voting. Here is where he indicated that:

"I have noted in the past that you are invariably wrong when you talk
about what (you think) I think, and I have seen others say the same
thing. Has it occurred to you that that means you are probably wrong
almost all the time when you *think* about what others are thinking?"

[repeated from above, sans attribution marks]

Judging by this remark and a great deal of his prior behavior,
Mark Isaak is of the same mentality as some activist Democrats
arguing for an end to the filibuster.

Note the capitalization, indicating political party. I think it is highly fitting that it was the
WaPo, whose stellar motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness," that consented
to publish a hard-hitting statement by Senator Kyrsten Sinema:

Opinion: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-for-the-people-act/

However, I'm not happy about the wording of the url, which cherry-picked a certain item
in Sinema's superb message which wasn't typical of the whole thing.

Her message is even more hard-hitting now, with all the setbacks the Democratic
party, of which she is one of the most independent-thinking members,
has suffered in gubernatorial elections (defeated in Virginia, close call in New Jersey)
and at least one mayoral election (right here in Columbia, SC, ending a 63-year monopoly of Democrat mayors)

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

But Mark Isaak is entitled to having his "own facts" become part of talk.origins' "own facts"
due to the "democratic" vote of the majority of those voting on the "facts", eh?

I'd like to see a denial of this by you, but I am not holding my breath.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

You've answered your own question.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/2/21 5:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 9:45:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/1/21 6:35 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:25:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:

> >>>>> You've certainly got Glenn's back.

> >>>> Only when I think he is doing the right thing. It's an attitude I'd like to see
> >>>> you take sometime, "if only for the novelty of it," as someone who has
> >>>> a mutual "I've got your back" relationship with you loves to put it, almost always dishonestly.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are quite a few other people in that relationship with you,
> >>>> and one would have to be incredibly naive not to see, from how "oblivious" you are
> >>>> to the content of the post to which you are replying, that you've got both Harshman's back and Mark Isaak's back.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which makes it all the more striking that you seemed to have demoted Oxyaena
> >>>> to a mere mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship recently, here:
> >>>>
> >>>> Re: Dinos with feathers
> >>>> November 18, 2021 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5

> >>>>> Could you provide an example of where Glenn's made an actual
> >>>>> contribution to a conversation?
> >>>> Yes. Your perennial role model, John Harshman, was pretty sure he
> >>>> had NOT claimed that the Higgs field was the same thing as the Higgs boson.
> >>>> Glenn provided documentation that he essentially HAD claimed it.

<snip for focus>

> >>>> One might think that you are secretly terrified of Glenn.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> They think they're related to turkeys. It's no wonder.
> >>>
> >> But Peter also thinks he's related to turkeys.
> >
> > I know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my body is related to the body of turkeys. Don't you?

> Of course I do. The point was that Glenn thinks you don't.

Document, or retract, or be in the position of guessing wrong about what people think.

> Glenn has ridiculed the notion and is presumably a creationist. Everything that
> follows here is a wild digression. Do you not understand that Glenn
> consistently ridicules everything associated with evolution and common
> descent?

Of course not. Nobody has shown me evidence that Glenn has shown
contempt for the attitude displayed in the following quote:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_

Eiseley was an agnostic, and his excellent book was devoted to common descent.
Yet, in spite of that, he was open to such possibilities.

The belief that "the careful finger of God" intervened occasionally in evolution
has been characterized by some people as "creationist." Do you subscribe to that
broadening of the concept of "creationist"?

> > However, I do nurture a faint hope that I have an immortal soul.
> > And, on the off chance that this is true, I believe it is different
> > from the souls, if any, of turkeys.
> >
> > How about you? I think you believe and hope for the next best
> > thing to a heaven of never ending delights: oblivion when you die.
> > Am I wrong?

> Yes, to a degree. I don't have any hope in particular, though I expect
> that death is just that, an end. There is no soul separate from the
> body, and dualism is a fantasy.

This categorical comment is at least as strong as what I was suggesting.
Thanks for being so candid about your closed-mindedness.

> All evidence, such as there is, points that way.

This only speaks to your superficial understanding of the Philosophy of Mind.

>And you seem to realize that, since your hope is faint.

I realize no such thing. In fact, my recognition of oblivion as the
second best thing, and to be a form of wishful thinking, plus my own agnosticism,
are what keeps my hope fainter than it would be otherwise.

You may not be guilty of failed mind-reading, due to your nuanced "seem to", but you are guilty
of inability to "put two and two together" before jumping to unwarranted opinions.

> > If I am right, you are just as guilty of wishful thinking as
> > the "pie in the sky, by and by" crowd.

> But you are wrong.

I'm glad I was wrong in the direction of giving you the benefit of the doubt,
by not assuming that you are closed-minded on the existence of souls.

> > So was Epicurus, who sang the praises of oblivion when death comes.
> > That, I suspect, is one reason he was one of the rare "atoms and void" materialists
> > whose first known member was Democritus.
> >
> > I'm going to do something horrible in the next two lines. :-) :-)
> > I'm naming someone not involved in this sub-thread
> > by wondering whether Hemidactylus has something to add to this theme.

Funny you didn't comment on this, Johnny. You are one of the prime denigrators of me
for daring to bring in names of t.o. regulars not involved in the conversation.

> >> Did you not know that?
> >
> > Did you not know about my faint hope? I gave plenty of hints over the years.

> Of course I know. But it's not relevant to the point, and it isn't clear
> why you brought it up.

Translation: "I wish you hadn't brought it up."

Either that, or you are even more of a "distant third" reasoner than I thought you are,
being firmly established as "polemicist first, propagandist second..."

> >> He's an evilutionist.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode on
> >
> > Me not evilutionist. YOU evilutionist.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode off

> Whatever does that mean?

Note the spelling. I take it to refer to anyone who has a closed mind against the existence of
supernatural beings who had any influence on biological evolution.

If Glenn says that I am mistaken about this, I will respectfully examine his evidence.

> Are you preparing to reject common descent?

This is either paranoia or a sign of wishful thinking. Which is it?

Lest you duck this question, consider this: two of your dirtiest debating tactics are to claim
that you have suspicions of me being a creationist, and to claim that I am paranoid.

Both tactics are utterly baseless.


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

PS I consider talk about the very definition of creationism
to be at "the exact resonant center" of what talk.origins was set up for,
hence the 4-line virtual .sig.

[John Harshman]

This should be obvious. Glenn, with a smirk, tells you that some people
think they're related to turkeys. This would make no sense if he thought
you were one of those people. Then I told Glenn you were an
evolutionist, and he asked me for proof, which you provided.

>> Glenn has ridiculed the notion and is presumably a creationist. Everything that
>> follows here is a wild digression. Do you not understand that Glenn
>> consistently ridicules everything associated with evolution and common
>> descent?
>
> Of course not. Nobody has shown me evidence that Glenn has shown
> contempt for the attitude displayed in the following quote:
>
> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
> had appeared.''
> --Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_
>
> Eiseley was an agnostic, and his excellent book was devoted to common descent.
> Yet, in spite of that, he was open to such possibilities.

Have you not noticed that Glenn has ridiculed the idea that humans are
related to turkeys, just as he has ridiculed everything else associated
with common descent? This is not a question of God intervening in
evolution, but of evolution not happening at all. You aren't paying
attention.

> The belief that "the careful finger of God" intervened occasionally in evolution
> has been characterized by some people as "creationist." Do you subscribe to that
> broadening of the concept of "creationist"?

No. And this is another digression from you. Are you perhaps avoiding
the subject?

>>> However, I do nurture a faint hope that I have an immortal soul.
>>> And, on the off chance that this is true, I believe it is different
>>> from the souls, if any, of turkeys.
>>>
>>> How about you? I think you believe and hope for the next best
>>> thing to a heaven of never ending delights: oblivion when you die.
>>> Am I wrong?
>
>> Yes, to a degree. I don't have any hope in particular, though I expect
>> that death is just that, an end. There is no soul separate from the
>> body, and dualism is a fantasy.
>
> This categorical comment is at least as strong as what I was suggesting.
> Thanks for being so candid about your closed-mindedness.

Nonsense. You used "hope", which I reject. It would in fact be nice if
we didn't die. But the evidence suggest otherwise. Remember what Carl
Sagan said about being open-minded.

>> All evidence, such as there is, points that way.
>
> This only speaks to your superficial understanding of the Philosophy of Mind.

Philosophy is not evidence. Mind is not soul.

>> And you seem to realize that, since your hope is faint.
>
> I realize no such thing. In fact, my recognition of oblivion as the
> second best thing, and to be a form of wishful thinking, plus my own agnosticism,
> are what keeps my hope fainter than it would be otherwise.
>
> You may not be guilty of failed mind-reading, due to your nuanced "seem to", but you are guilty
> of inability to "put two and two together" before jumping to unwarranted opinions.

What would be best or second best should be irrelevant to your
evaluation of evidence and to your beliefs. So why is your hope faint?

>>> If I am right, you are just as guilty of wishful thinking as
>>> the "pie in the sky, by and by" crowd.
>
>> But you are wrong.
>
> I'm glad I was wrong in the direction of giving you the benefit of the doubt,
> by not assuming that you are closed-minded on the existence of souls.

You enjoy putting the worst possible interpretation on everything I say.
Don't.

>>> So was Epicurus, who sang the praises of oblivion when death comes.
>>> That, I suspect, is one reason he was one of the rare "atoms and void" materialists
>>> whose first known member was Democritus.
>>>
>>> I'm going to do something horrible in the next two lines. :-) :-)
>>> I'm naming someone not involved in this sub-thread
>>> by wondering whether Hemidactylus has something to add to this theme.
>
> Funny you didn't comment on this, Johnny. You are one of the prime denigrators of me
> for daring to bring in names of t.o. regulars not involved in the conversation.

I would like to discourage the practice. Failing to comment should count
as discouragement, but it seems only to encourage you to continue.
Nothing seems to work.

>>>> Did you not know that?
>>>
>>> Did you not know about my faint hope? I gave plenty of hints over the years.
>
>> Of course I know. But it's not relevant to the point, and it isn't clear
>> why you brought it up.
>
> Translation: "I wish you hadn't brought it up."

Stop trying to translate. I mean what I say, not your distortion.

> Either that, or you are even more of a "distant third" reasoner than I thought you are,
> being firmly established as "polemicist first, propagandist second..."
>
>
>
>>>> He's an evilutionist.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode on
>>>
>>> Me not evilutionist. YOU evilutionist.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Night at the Museum" watchman mode off
>
>> Whatever does that mean?
>
> Note the spelling. I take it to refer to anyone who has a closed mind against the existence of
> supernatural beings who had any influence on biological evolution.

No, it's a spelling used by creationists as a pejorative. Are you really
unaware of that?

> If Glenn says that I am mistaken about this, I will respectfully examine his evidence.
>
>
>> Are you preparing to reject common descent?
>
> This is either paranoia or a sign of wishful thinking. Which is it?

Neither. It's a question. Now of course it wasn't meant seriously, as I
know you aren't going to reject common descent. It was an invitation to
think about where your embrace of Glenn would naturally lead.

> Lest you duck this question, consider this: two of your dirtiest debating tactics are to claim
> that you have suspicions of me being a creationist, and to claim that I am paranoid.
>
> Both tactics are utterly baseless.

Sure they are.