email sent to David Greig

[RonO]

I sent in the request. I can post it if anyone wants to see it. It
isn't a personal letter, but a formal request.

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'd like to see it.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

You should just be straight with Greig. I've never kept track, but you
might have thousands of harassing posts that were just senseless
harassment. What ever came out of any of them except you having to run
away once you had reached your limit for lying? You likely had hundreds
of harassing posts in those first 4 years and what did you end up with.

The entire email request:

David Greig

I apologize for having to get you involved in the current mess, but due
to factors that currently exist on TO something needs to be done about a
poster that just can’t help himself. Peter Nyikos has essentially
requested that he be banned from TO. A couple months ago Nyikos was
enjoying his usual harassment fix, and as usual the harassment turned
out to be nothing worth harassing anyone about, and Nyikos had to start
lying about what he was doing. This was all what normally occurs, but
what was upsetting was that he had resorted to lying about something
new. You have to understand that when Nyikos is wrong about something
and has to start lying about it, those lies turns into junk that he has
to come back and harass you about for years. Resorting to new lies has
happened in the last two Nyikosian harassment episodes. For over a
decade Nyikos has been using a batch of old lies, but he has been
starting to accumulate a batch of new lies for the last few months.
This is something that I could not allow to happen. I had been able to
shut down a series of lies that Nyikos had been telling for over a
decade with what I call a holy water repost due to their effect on
Nyikos. Holy water reposts contain counters to the series of lies that
Nyikos usually strings together in order to harass me. They cut the
amount of harassment from months to just a week or two.

Nyikos engages in this type of senseless harassment to feed his sadistic
nature. There is no other reason to do what he does. I know that
Nyikos understands that he is lying in order to harass someone because
Nyikos counts the lies, and will try not to exceed some stupid limit for
lying that he has. I know this because Nyikos has been harassing me
with the same series of lies for so long, that what he does becomes
evident. Nyikos literally keeps a count of how many times he tells the
same lie or does the same dishonest deed in a series of posts. If he
wants to continue using the same lie he can jump to another thread, but
he usually just switches to another lie and uses it up before moving on
to another. For some insane reason Nyikos has some limit for lying, and
he adheres to it. If he violates that limit it is a terrible thing.
Nyikos will try to undo what he has done. So Nyikos is aware of what he
is doing when he does it. Once he reaches his limit Nyikos has to leave
me alone for a month or two before his lying meter gets recharged, and
he can start lying about the same things again.

I do not want to try to get you to understand what Nyikos does by
posting multiple examples that you have to wade through. Instead, it is
much easier to understand what Nyikos does not do. You should be able
to determine if Nyikos should be banned or not by simply asking Nyikos
for examples of any productive discourse that he has initiated with me.
Nyikos will not be able to provide any posts. If his harassment had
been legitimate and sensible he should have hundreds of productive
examples, but he likely has none. Try to get him to estimate how many
senseless harassing posts that he has made to me to produce that record.
I really do not recall any instances that resulted in productive
discussion. Nyikos even claimed that he could produce such posts at one
time, but lied about the effort for over 3 years before giving up on
trying to produce anything that had resulted in anything positive for
him. This is mainly due to the fact that probably over 90% of what
Nyikos has harassed me about has been the same lies over and over. Just
like Kleinmann, Nyikos has had to lie about stupid things that he was
wrong about, and he acquired quite a list to lie about in the first year
after his return to TO. All those recycled lies are a dead loss for
Nyikos. He understands, when he uses them, that they were a dead loss
for him, but that is how he gets his sadistic jollies. Nyikos has only
survived on TO for this long because he is sane enough to have some
weird limit for lying. That isn’t a good thing, it means that Nyikos
understands that what he is doing is wrong, but he does it anyway. So
if you can get Nyikos to provide you with an honest answer you should
have what you need to make your decision.

I assume that after getting Nyikos’ side of the issue that if you agree
that Nyikos is a candidate to be banned that you will offer him a second
chance as you did for Kleinmann. I am not trying to be funny or make
light of the situation, but if you give Nyikos a second chance you
should give him multiple second chances. Nyikos is just like Kleinmann
and you can expect him to blow his second chance. Nyikos has already
demonstrated that he can’t help himself. He can moderate his sadistic
tendencies for a short time, but he doesn’t have the self control to
keep doing the right thing. The need to feed his sadistic nature seems
to be too much for him to deal with at this time. In order to trigger
this request Nyikos did exactly what he needed to do. He did not try to
skirt the issue by trying some civil discourse, he just started lying
about my religious beliefs that he has been lying about for over a
decade. If Nyikos is going to have any chance at all of reforming he is
going to need at least 3 second chances. Nyikos can self limit for a
month or two before he is able to start lying about the same things, so
3 second chances might get him through around half a year, and if he
hasn’t established enough self control after that, there may not be any
hope for him.

I apologize for getting you involved in this situation, but it is time
to end what Nyikos has been doing for far too long.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Honest to God, and I mean this sincerely, you sound like a child.

"I'm telling mom!"

Grow up. Ignore people you want to ignore. Talk about the things
that interest you. Accept reality when your all-too-common errors
are pointed out.

This is a discussion group, not a lecture hall. By participating you
are as much inviting questions and criticisms as you are offering
them.

Why is this so hard to understand?

We don't have answers. Much of human origins -- much of the
history of like on this planet -- is unknown and unknowable. Groups
like this exist to share information and discuss ideas, NOT bestow
truths upon the unwashed masses.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719055696694542336

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 10:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:10:39 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> >> I sent in the request. I can post it if anyone wants to see it. It
> >> isn't a personal letter, but a formal request.
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > I'd like to see it.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> You should just be straight with Greig. I've never kept track, but you
> might have thousands of harassing posts that were just senseless
> harassment.

Not a single one was senseless; they all were designed to show you the
error of your ways, but when I realized how incorrigible you were,
it was done first to let the t.o. readership see the error of your ways
and more recently to defend Glenn and others against your unfair attacks
based on what you call "the top six."

> What ever came out of any of them except you having to run
> away once you had reached your limit for lying?

You never were able to prove that anything you called a lie
really was a lie. When I pointed out to you, you whined,
"Do I have to do it in a single post?" as though you needed
my permission to use two, or a dozen posts, as long
as you did it! You never did it.

> You likely had hundreds
> of harassing posts in those first 4 years and what did you end up with.

I wound up with victory in the Scottish verdict thread,
but you keep deluding yourself that I had lost it simply because yours
was the last post in the thread.

Funny how you don't apply the same logic to Kleinman having won the debate that angered you
enough to get DIG to ban him --- you let him have the last post in the thread
where you said you would ban him!


You had dozens of opportunities on the Scottish verdict thread to show that you hadn't been running
a bait and switch scam of YOURS about what YOU keep calling a bait and switch scam.
You put up one statement by the DI that teachers have a legal RIGHT to talk about
a scientific case for intelligent design, but you deluded yourself into thinking that this was
the BAIT that said that they HAD a scientific case that could be taught to secondary school
students as an alternative to evolution.

Not even Robert Camp's statement near the beginning of the Scottish verdict thread,
that the evidence for this BAIT was very weak could sway you. In your perverse
logic that dominates your thinking, you thought that because Camp had his own
reasons for disliking the DI, what he had said DESPITE this could be disregarded!

You never tried to add to that miserable evidence for that bait, but kept hitting me
with details about the "switch" part. How many times over the years have I said
that without bait there can be no switch? there must have been several dozen
times by now.



> The entire email request:

I need to start my usual weekend posting break now. I only post on weekends
in the most extraordinary circumstances -- on the average of once every three
years I estimate.

But if DIG shows up on this weekend and gives any sign of believing
the deluded travesty you sent him, that will outdo every extraordinary
circumstance to date, and then I will start telling him the TRUTH about
what happened, just as I have been telling it now.


Peter Nyikos

PS I've left the thoroughly dishonest request intact below, uncut.

[David Greig]

I am responding to Peter here because his is the most recent post, not because
I'm addressing this to him. It would be the same if I responded to Ron.
----

I would like everyone to stop posting in such a way that I need to be involved.
This place has been running on autopilot, and I'm a horrible moderator, but
if posters can't be reasonably civil to each other I will.

I haven't dug into the substance (or lack thereof) of the recent complaints
(and I have had more than one email on the subject, which may be a first
in two decades where multiple complaints came in), *yet*.

This is still a talk.* group, but we are all older than we were in the 1990s
and hopefully wiser with more of a modicum of self-control.

For starters, I would like posters to reflect if everything they say is
contributing to the group, even if they're just being funny, that's still
a contribution. Consistent negative posting that veers into repetitive
accusations of lying or dishonesty that drowns out positive contributions
should be perhaps tapered off.

Obviously personal attacks can cross lines, I expect that none of that
sort of thing has been going on here - oddly the netcases get slack
on this, more than regulars. Some hit-and-run poster calling evolutionists
a bunch of pedos or the like isn't worth editing the filters unless
they stick around.

I will (sigh) now have to catch up on the group. The line is now being
drawn. Whatever has been posted, to date, will not be actioned unless
I feel (in my unfettered discretion) it has crossed a line. However,
staring now, all of you kindly stop that shit or I'll get mad.

sigh

--D.

--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 07:26:06 -0000 (UTC), David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:

>On 2023-06-02, peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:10:39?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
>>> I sent in the request. I can post it if anyone wants to see it. It
>>> isn't a personal letter, but a formal request.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> I'd like to see it.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>
>I am responding to Peter here because his is the most recent post, not because
>I'm addressing this to him. It would be the same if I responded to Ron.
>----
>
>I would like everyone to stop posting in such a way that I need to be involved.
>This place has been running on autopilot, and I'm a horrible moderator, but
>if posters can't be reasonably civil to each other I will.
>
>I haven't dug into the substance (or lack thereof) of the recent complaints
>(and I have had more than one email on the subject, which may be a first
>in two decades where multiple complaints came in), *yet*.
>
>This is still a talk.* group, but we are all older than we were in the 1990s
>and hopefully wiser with more of a modicum of self-control.
>
>For starters, I would like posters to reflect if everything they say is
>contributing to the group, even if they're just being funny, that's still
>a contribution. Consistent negative posting that veers into repetitive
>accusations of lying or dishonesty that drowns out positive contributions
>should be perhaps tapered off.
>
>Obviously personal attacks can cross lines, I expect that none of that
>sort of thing has been going on here -

Prepare to have your expectations disappointed.

>oddly the netcases get slack
>on this, more than regulars. Some hit-and-run poster calling evolutionists
>a bunch of pedos or the like isn't worth editing the filters unless
>they stick around.
>
>I will (sigh) now have to catch up on the group. The line is now being
>drawn. Whatever has been posted, to date, will not be actioned unless
>I feel (in my unfettered discretion) it has crossed a line. However,
>staring now, all of you kindly stop that shit or I'll get mad.
>
>sigh
>
>--D.

--

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:30:46 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:

> I am responding to Peter here because his is the most recent post, not because
> I'm addressing this to him. It would be the same if I responded to Ron.
> ----
>
> I would like everyone to stop posting in such a way that I need to be involved.

That applies to me in this case, although you would not know that unless
you were to involve yourself in the role of a judge, and I am quite OK
with the tack you have taken here.

Your role hasn't been that of a judge since you banned Dr. Dr. Kleinman.
I believe there was a miscarriage of justice there, but let that pass.

What counts *now* is that I ask that you consider reinstating him.
Two (or is it three?) years of absence may have sobered him up
enough for you to reinstate him on a trial basis. We are devoid
of creationists who are even half as committed as he was,
and we need to sharpen our on-topic skills.

You set an amazing precedent back when you learned that
Oxyaena was the same poster whom you banned so completely
that a post which just *used* the old name would automatically
be rejected by the robo-moderator.

It was enough for you that Harshman and I said that Oxyaena had behaved very well
*up* *to* *that* *point*. There is a story behind those "italics"
(asterisks), but Oxyaena has been gone for about a year and a half,
so there is no point in dwelling on that now.

> This place has been running on autopilot, and I'm a horrible moderator, but
> if posters can't be reasonably civil to each other I will.
>
> I haven't dug into the substance (or lack thereof) of the recent complaints
> (and I have had more than one email on the subject, which may be a first
> in two decades where multiple complaints came in), *yet*.

If any of them are about JTEM, please look at his relatively
short post on this thread. It is in stunning contrast to
95% of his posts, and shows a level of maturity that
I thought to be beyond him. His comments about what
kind of a group t.o. is should be taken to heart by everyone.

> This is still a talk.* group, but we are all older than we were in the 1990s
> and hopefully wiser with more of a modicum of self-control.

There have been many changes over the years, as I saw on my
return in December 2010 after nine and a half years of being
away from talk.origins. There were many changes, some
for the worse and some for the better. I even noticed some significant changes
when I returned in March of this year: a real paucity of on-topic posts
[many quite civil, granted].

> For starters, I would like posters to reflect if everything they say is
> contributing to the group, even if they're just being funny, that's still
> a contribution. Consistent negative posting that veers into repetitive
> accusations of lying or dishonesty that drowns out positive contributions
> should be perhaps tapered off.
>
> Obviously personal attacks can cross lines, I expect that none of that
> sort of thing has been going on here - oddly the netcases get slack
> on this, more than regulars. Some hit-and-run poster calling evolutionists
> a bunch of pedos or the like isn't worth editing the filters unless
> they stick around.
>
> I will (sigh) now have to catch up on the group. The line is now being
> drawn. Whatever has been posted, to date, will not be actioned unless
> I feel (in my unfettered discretion) it has crossed a line. However,
> staring now, all of you kindly stop that shit or I'll get mad.

I hope that carefully supported defenses against unfair shit throwing
do not count. This includes measured counterattacks against
persistent, escalating shit-throwing. I think you know the principle:
"if you throw enough shit, some of it is bound to stick."
One needs at times to get tough with the shit-thrower if that is not to happen.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:05:45 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:30:46 AM UTC-4, David Greig wrote:

> > I haven't dug into the substance (or lack thereof) of the recent complaints
> > (and I have had more than one email on the subject, which may be a first
> > in two decades where multiple complaints came in), *yet*.

> If any of them are about JTEM, please look at his relatively
> short post on this thread. It is in stunning contrast to
> 95% of his posts, and shows a level of maturity that
> I thought to be beyond him. His comments about what
> kind of a group t.o. is should be taken to heart by everyone.

> > This is still a talk.* group, but we are all older than we were in the 1990s
> > and hopefully wiser with more of a modicum of self-control.

> There have been many changes over the years, as I saw on my
> return in December 2010 after nine and a half years of being
> away from talk.origins. There were many changes, some
> for the worse and some for the better. I even noticed some significant changes
> when I returned in March of this year: a real paucity of on-topic posts
> [many quite civil, granted].

FTR, I had been gone for a relatively short time: from just before Christmas
of last year. The number of on-topic posts has picked up markedly since the
beginning of March. I have started three on-topic threads myself.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 07:26:06 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org>:

>On 2023-06-02, peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Clear, relatively concise, and IMHO fully warranted.

Thanks for continuing to (sorta) moderate the Monkey House.
>
--

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]

J...s Peter. Read what DIG says again. To paraphrases it most succinctly: ENOUGH!

[peter2...@gmail.com]

JTEM, I wrote some complimentary words about you to our moderator, DIG,
in my reply to him this morning. I hope you try to live up to them.

Below, I reinforce some things you say at the end. They apply
not just to talk.origins, but (in the case of your last paragraph)
to a much wider context, including biology textbooks.

This is also true of textbooks, and here is a fine statement on that score
by Bentley Glass, of SUNY at Stonybrook, in an Editor's Introduction
to an excellent second edition of Gairdner B. Moment's textbook,
_General Zoology_. [Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co, 1967.]

"If there is anything that perverts the true nature of science, it is a book that seems to say to the reader,
``Take this as truth. Here are the latest facts and the most-up-to-date information, vouched for on the authority of the great scientist, Professor So-and-so. ' ' If seekers after scientific truth are in some measure to attain it, they must learn the nature of scientific methods and must absorb the dedicated spirit of a Darwin and a Huxley. They must come to see the importance of suspended judgment and of the open mind. They must perceive how our present concepts grew into being and the evidence on which they rest.

"This spirit pervades the present book and renders it unique among zoological texts. Fortunate the student who can thereby be helped to achieve an insight into what science truly is. Whether he becomes a zoologist or not, he will certainly be an informed citizen and a liberally educated man."

This goes into my file of quotations that are specially appropriate
to talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology, and sci.anthropology.paleo.


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

[*Hemidactylus*]

There are some chronic cumulative interpersonal downward spirals here, from
stuff over a decade old. Biblical jubilee or credit ratings have no more
than seven years of baggage.

On another thread I mentioned the dynamic of acute vicious spirals (tiffs).
Rereading Soros got me interested in reflexivity. One partly constructs
ones surroundings via perception and projection. Others respond, often
enough in kind, but human nature seems bent well beyond 1:1 reciprocity of
eye for eye, resulting in noxious bubbles of toxicity.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 2:15:45 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > JTEM, I wrote some complimentary words about you to our moderator, DIG,
> > in my reply to him this morning. I hope you try to live up to them.
> >
> > Below, I reinforce some things you say at the end. They apply
> > not just to talk.origins, but (in the case of your last paragraph)
> > to a much wider context, including biology textbooks.
> >
> >
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:25:40 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:

This was in response to the OP to this thread.

Your response puzzles me, Hemi. Did you perhaps intend to put it
after a different post to this thread?

> There are some chronic cumulative interpersonal downward spirals here, from
> stuff over a decade old. Biblical jubilee or credit ratings have no more
> than seven years of baggage.

Also, most felonies have a statute of limitations that takes effect after seven years.

> On another thread I mentioned the dynamic of acute vicious spirals (tiffs).

I use a different vocabulary. I reserve the word "tiff" for minor
spats where "lie" and "hypocrite" and their derivatives are either very sparingly used,
or not at all, and AFAIK most tiffs here are individual spirals that don't influence
later ones between the same protagonists.

I told you a bit about one tiff earlier today:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Wg7raeNyH40/m/8BH2WtzwAwAJ
Re: What happened to TO

If you take the trouble to look at the three earlier posts I linked, you will
see that I was unfailingly polite in the interventions I did there. One of the protagonists
subsequently required a drastic response, but the tiff seems to be over.
My tough response of yesterday morning is still the last one to the thread
I was telling you about, and the other protagonist had quit the tiff three days earlier.

> Rereading Soros got me interested in reflexivity. One partly constructs
> ones surroundings via perception and projection. Others respond, often
> enough in kind, but human nature seems bent well beyond 1:1 reciprocity of
> eye for eye, resulting in noxious bubbles of toxicity.

Yes, it can get MUCH worse than 1:1. WWII gave the example of an escalating bombing.
It began when one stray German bomber dropped its load on a civilian target instead the
strictly enforced Luftwaffe policy of only bombing military targets.

The RAF responded with a many-bomber raid on Berlin. Hitler then screamed
that for every bomb dropped on Berlin, a hundred would be dropped on London.

And so it was, for a while, although 100 might have been an exaggeration.
But then as the RAF (together with the USAAF later on) gained the
upper hand, the ratio was reversed. Part of that reversal was contributed
when the city of Dresden was extensively fire-bombed February 13-15, 1945,
when it was fairly obvious that Germany had been defeated.

The incident might have lingered in the minds of only a handful of Americans,
were it not for Kurt Vonnegut's historical novel and film, "Slaughterhouse Five."
After all, the RAF was the main culprit in that raid.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

"ENOUGH" of what exactly?

I get the impression that you are referring to my last paragraph, but if so,
you have completely misunderstood my intent. Difficult though it may be for you to believe,
I meant it to apply to everyone, equally.

Take a look at my reply to Hemidactylus yesterday,
the part where I wrote about a tiff between two very well known regulars which seems
to have been satisfactorily settled by a getting-tough post to one of them.
The other had already quit around the time of a highly diplomatic post to him.

If that doesn't convince you, a couple of reminders to Mark Isaak about a run-in he
had with Dr. Dr. Kleinman might. It was no mere tiff but a bruising back and forth
that seemed to be endless. It was finally resolved in a thread I set up for
the purpose of finding out the truth. The end result was like the last two lines
in the 1873 poem, "The blind men and the elephant":

"Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!"
--https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant

'nuff said?


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:18:23 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:30:46?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:05:45?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

What we have here is failure to communicate. And since you asked,
ENOUGH of your shit. You're welcome. 'nuff said.

>I get the impression that you are referring to my last paragraph, but if so,
>you have completely misunderstood my intent. Difficult though it may be for you to believe,
>I meant it to apply to everyone, equally.
>
>Take a look at my reply to Hemidactylus yesterday,
>the part where I wrote about a tiff between two very well known regulars which seems
>to have been satisfactorily settled by a getting-tough post to one of them.
>The other had already quit around the time of a highly diplomatic post to him.
>
>If that doesn't convince you, a couple of reminders to Mark Isaak about a run-in he
>had with Dr. Dr. Kleinman might. It was no mere tiff but a bruising back and forth
>that seemed to be endless. It was finally resolved in a thread I set up for
>the purpose of finding out the truth. The end result was like the last two lines
>in the 1873 poem, "The blind men and the elephant":
>
>"Though each was partly in the right,
>They all were in the wrong!"
>--https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant
>
>'nuff said?
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The following comment by Erik may have been done to create an illusion of parity
and fairness vis-a-vis what Erik said to Ron O on the other thread where
I've seen DIG participate.

> >> J...s Peter. Read what DIG says again. To paraphrases it most succinctly: ENOUGH!

Here is what Erik said to Ron O:

"J...s Ron, read what DIG said again. KILLFILES are your friend."

-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Wg7raeNyH40/m/8ExFt07eAwAJ

Re: What happened to TO

Jun 7, 2023, 11:10:46 AM

However, an astute reader can see a lack of parity between recommending Ron O to
ignore my posts [even those having nothing to do with Ron O]
and demanding that I stop doing ...what? saying anything remotely
like ANYTHING you see from me above?

[Neither Erik nor jillery snipped anything above from my reply to DIG.]

In fact, one might even get the impression that Erik is playing "good cop" to Ron O's "bad cop"
against me. Erik has played that game blatantly on at least one occasion.

When one reads the post I linked, the impression becomes overwhelming.
Erik left in all of Ron O's long, typically ranting, toxic reply to DIG.
This includes the hateful sentence,
"Nyikos should not be allowed to continue to do what he does."
This is in reply to DIG's post, which says he will take no action against
anyone at the present time, just like DIG did on this thread.

That hateful comment is "explained" with a torrent of demonstrable libels against me,
and a complete rewriting of the history of what actually transpired between us on
the "Frozen II" thread in March.

Now came my reaction, beginning with:
> >
> >"ENOUGH" of what exactly?

And then came jillery's failure to shed meaningful light on the question:

> What we have here is failure to communicate.

... by Erik, and now jillery. The following counterfeit of communication
should fool no one:

>And since you asked,
> ENOUGH of your shit.

Failure to delineate what constitutes "shit" in The World According to Jillery, noted.
I am left with the impression that jillery considers everything I wrote to
DIG, including what I wrote about Dr. Dr. Kleinman and Oxyaena [1], to be "shit".

> You're welcome. 'nuff said.

Poison-pen first sentence, followed by a bogus-parity second sentence, noted.
I had put a question mark after " 'nuff said"; jillery's use of the same two
words as a declarative sentence is an outright lie.


[1] Oxyaena was, arguably, the only true friend jillery has had in talk.origins
after Paul Gans stopped mentoring jillery. More information about Oxyaena
can be found in my reply to DIG, preserved above.


Peter Nyikos

PS I've left in everything below, so that people may compare how my
interrogative " 'nuff said?" at the very end works in context. The context of jillery's
declarative sentence puts it in stunning contrast, and is indicative
of a difference in character between us.

[erik simpson]

How about this quote from DIG himself:

"For starters, I would like posters to reflect if everything they say is
contributing to the group, even if they're just being funny, that's still
a contribution. Consistent negative posting that veers into repetitive
accusations of lying or dishonesty that drowns out positive contributions
should be perhaps tapered off."

See particularly " Consistent negative posting that veers into repetitive
accusations of lying or dishonesty".

Ring any bells yet?

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:50:48?PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Jun 7, 2023, 11:10:46?AM

I am reminded of a poem I learned in primary bschool, over 60 years
ago:

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not,
he can be taught; teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows,
he is asleep; wake him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows,
he is a wise man; seek him.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not,
he is a fool; shun him.

[erik simpson]

Excellent advice. Sometimes I slip, as above.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Nothing repetitive from me here. One accusation of jillery lying [do you deny that it was a lie?]
one statement about a torrent of libels by Ron O in the text of your post that I linked
[can you find a single accusation by Ron O of a lie by me there that holds water?],
one statement of a rewriting of a history of what transpired between us in "Frozen II."

And I see no reason to repeat any of it, unless someone outright denies the existence
of any of it.


As for what I said about the bruising back-and-forth between Mark and Dr. Dr. Alan Kleinman:
I wrote the following about it to Mark:

"PS I chalk the whole raging dispute up to faulty memory by both of you."

And, at our age, faulty memory is an embarrassment at times,
but there is no moral stigma attached to it as long as one accepts
documented correction gracefully. IIRC both Mark and Alan did that quite well.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:53:16 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 4:30:48?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:50:48?PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > Jun 7, 2023, 11:10:46?AM

>> >
>> > However, an astute reader can see a lack of parity between recommending Ron O to
>> > ignore my posts [even those having nothing to do with Ron O]
>> > and demanding that I stop doing ...what? saying anything remotely
>> > like ANYTHING you see from me above?
>> >
>> > [Neither Erik nor jillery snipped anything above from my reply to DIG.]
>> >
>> > In fact, one might even get the impression that Erik is playing "good cop" to Ron O's "bad cop"
>> > against me. Erik has played that game blatantly on at least one occasion.
>> >
>> > When one reads the post I linked, the impression becomes overwhelming.
>> > Erik left in all of Ron O's long, typically ranting, toxic reply to DIG.
>> > This includes the hateful sentence,
>> > "Nyikos should not be allowed to continue to do what he does."
>> > This is in reply to DIG's post, which says he will take no action against
>> > anyone at the present time, just like DIG did on this thread.
>
>> > That hateful comment is "explained" with a torrent of demonstrable libels against me,
>> > and a complete rewriting of the history of what actually transpired between us on
>> > the "Frozen II" thread in March.
>> >
>> > Now came my reaction, beginning with:
>> > > >
>> > > >"ENOUGH" of what exactly?
>> >
>> > And then came jillery's failure to shed meaningful light on the question:
>> > > What we have here is failure to communicate.
>> > ... by Erik,

No, not by Erik, but by YOU, peter2 aka Nyikos aka PeeWee Peter.

>> > and now jillery. The following counterfeit of communication
>> > should fool no one:
>> > >And since you asked, ENOUGH of your shit.

YOUR failure to delineate what constitutes "counterfeit of
communication" noted.

>> > Failure to delineate what constitutes "shit" in The World According to Jillery, noted.

And since you mention it, "shit" is the word DIG uses to identify what
you should stop.

And since you continue to post your shit, you demonstrate DIG's
failure to communicate to you, and YOUR failure to comprehend what DIG
posted.

>> > I am left with the impression that jillery considers everything I wrote to
>> > DIG, including what I wrote about Dr. Dr. Kleinman and Oxyaena [1], to be "shit".
>> > > You're welcome. 'nuff said.
>
>> > Poison-pen first sentence, followed by a bogus-parity second sentence, noted.
>> > I had put a question mark after " 'nuff said"; jillery's use of the same two
>> > words as a declarative sentence is an outright lie.

The above is a classic example of your shit, which DIG specifically
identified. There is utterly no reasonable meaning of "lie" which
applies to any of my comments. And the above is only the most recent.
Here's another recent example of your shit:
********************************************
From: "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ape has warmed the oceans up
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 11:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4dad666c-f7e9-438b...@googlegroups.com>
********************************************

It's as if you're determined to do everything DIG said to stop doing,
as if you're daring him to ban you, just as Kleinman did.

>> > [1] Oxyaena was, arguably, the only true friend jillery has had in talk.origins
>> > after Paul Gans stopped mentoring jillery. More information about Oxyaena
>> > can be found in my reply to DIG, preserved above.

The above is another classic example of your obfuscating noise aka
shit. I acknowledge your peanut gallery is larger than mine. Too bad
for you this isn't a popularity contest.

[jillery]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:08:00 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 2:00:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:

<snip for focus>

>> I am reminded of a poem I learned in primary bschool, over 60 years
>> ago:
>>
>> He who knows not, and knows that he knows not,
>> he can be taught; teach him.
>>
>> He who knows, and knows not that he knows,
>> he is asleep; wake him.
>>
>> He who knows, and knows that he knows,
>> he is a wise man; seek him.
>>
>> He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not,
>> he is a fool; shun him.
>
>Excellent advice. Sometimes I slip, as above.

Harran is yet another poster who should follow his own advice.