Relax. i don't take it serious either.
But, it is an entertaining thought exercise:
How would YOU go about testing the Silurian
hypothesis?
I mean, they do call it a hypothesis, do they not?
And in science lingo that requires that it not only
explain the evidence/observations but serve as
the basis for predictions i.e.experimental
falsification.
Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
what is that data?
What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
explains?
I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
THAT comes before testing, else we really have no reason
to test. We technically don't even have anything to test.
I mean, without specific claims, no matter what test WE
come up with the adherents can simply dismiss as not
applying here... because we have no idea what anything
is supposed to apply to.
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either.
But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.
I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One
would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record
should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule
out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.
John Harshman wrote:
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
Silurian hypothesis is, and they were the least bit curious, they'd just Google it.
Or I was wrong to assume you had internet access?
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either.
I kind of covered that but, by all means, do go on...
But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.
It's not exactly 50-50 here. Or, in your case, 33-33-33.
I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One
would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record
should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The
first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule
out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.
The problem is that unless upholders make specific, testable claims, there
is nothing to test.
...if you search mid to late Cretaceous deposits and find nothing, they can
just claim it was earlier. Or much later. Wrong continent. Or that their culture
preferred habitats very unlike the ones that formed the deposits you've dug through.
Hmm. I many ways it's just as much "Science" as is abiogenesis!
Are there actually any upholders?
Is anyone actually trying to claim
that there is evidence of non-human civilization?
John Harshman wrote:
Are there actually any upholders?
Could be a conspiracy. Why would the 1% want us to believe there are
people who uphold this idea is there are not?
Is anyone actually trying to claim
that there is evidence of non-human civilization?
Did you Google it?
757,000 hits on Google, 782,000 on Bing.
And it's no more "Science" than is abiogenesis!
Google THAT ONE and see how many you get...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280
Can you find anyone making this claim?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
reason is... ????
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
You didn't answer.
On 4/8/23 7:19 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:THe "new JTEM" is the same as the old one. He knows some words. That's about it.
John Harshman wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
You didn't answer.
I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated it. This is what you're saying.That's not a conspiracy. It's a thought experiment.
Let me ask again: can you in fact find anyone who says they believe it?
That, or you're insisting that people do hold the opinion that the idea is correct.I'm saying that I have not so far found anyone who says that. Have you? Where?
"Know thyself."
Well. Or ask me: You're a troll.So much for "new JTEM".
John Harshman wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
You didn't answer.
I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a
conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated
it. This is what you're saying.
That, or you're insisting that people do hold the opinion that the idea is correct.
"Know thyself."
Well. Or ask me: You're a troll.
I just did. Again. You didn't like the answer but that is the answer: You reject the notion that anyone advances the idea so that leaves a conspiracy. People who do not believe it came up with it and propagated
it. This is what you're saying.
That's not a conspiracy. It's a thought experiment.
Let me ask again:
THe "new JTEM" is the same as
On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did. Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
On 4/7/23 8:36 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Are there actually any upholders?
Could be a conspiracy. Why would the 1% want us to believe there are people who uphold this idea is there are not?Can you find anyone making this claim?
Is anyone actually trying to claim
that there is evidence of non-human civilization?
Did you Google it?Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
757,000 hits on Google, 782,000 on Bing.
And it's no more "Science" than is abiogenesis!
Google THAT ONE and see how many you get...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280
A more plausible
jillery wrote...
You're an idiot. You wouldn't know "Plausible" if it were humping
your leg.
I'm not going to suggest you simply Google it and read some
of the hits, you don't do research, not even the most rudimentary
kind, so instead I'll just laugh at you... as usual.
Mentally unhinged, jillery lied:
[... nothing]
Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
of the idea.
You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
person with a disagreement.
Beloved JTEM, bringer of truths said:
Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
of the idea.
You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
person with a disagreement.
Emotionally castrated, jillery wrote...
Beloved JTEM, bringer of truths said:
Currently you are pretending that you're so interested in this
topic that you couldn't Google it, or at least that you're so
smart that you couldn't find a single cite discussing the origins
of the idea.
You're a narcissist trying to disrupt, not a reasonably intelligent
person with a disagreement.
Like I sad, hit the Google. Or Bing. I'm the first to admit that Google
slid down hill on a toboggan so if that's what's holding you back,
give Bing a shot.
Emotionally castrated jillery wrote:
[...]
Your "Argument" is that you don't know who believes in the Silurian "hypothesis"
and you're too fucked up to just Google it. But I knew that already. Everybody
knew it. You didn't have to post anything.
Your "Argument" is that you don't know who believes in the Silurian "hypothesis"
and you're too fucked up to just Google it. But I knew that already. Everybody >knew it. You didn't have to post anything.
On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and theDid you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who? >>>
reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
John Harshman wrote:
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about
No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
Silurian hypothesis is
, and they were the least bit curious, they'd just
Google it.
Or I was wrong to assume you had internet access?
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either.
I kind of covered that but, by all means, do go on...
But there are no observations it supposedly explains. Either there was
no such civilization (most likely) or it wouldn't have left any
preserved evidence, or there's some evidence we haven't looked at.
It's not exactly 50-50 here. Or, in your case, 33-33-33.
I do think that the fossil record can put some constraints on it. One would suppose that a civilization would require large-brained animals,
and the species wouldn't exist in a vacuum: it would have a large group
of moderately large-brained relatives, as humans do. The fossil record should be complete enough that such a clade would not escape notice. The first such group would seem to be maniraptoran theropods, so we can rule out a civilization before the Late Cretaceous at the earliest.
The problem is that unless upholders make specific, testable claims, there is nothing to test.
...if you search mid to late Cretaceous deposits and find nothing, they can just claim it was earlier.
Or much later. Wrong continent. Or that their culture
preferred habitats very unlike the ones that formed the deposits you've dug through.
Hmm. I many ways it's just as much "Science" as is abiogenesis!
On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits" is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that >> the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting >> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the >>> reason is... ????Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who? >>>
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999, and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
Silurian hypothesis is
I would estimate that no more than 1% of all talk.origins
participants and lurkers have ever heard of it *under* *that* *name.*
It's nice to see you agreeing with Harshman on some science-related topic.
I googled it. I didn't find anyone who believed the hypothesis to be
true
That's not my "argument."
John Harshman wrote:
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
No. I figured if anyone is isolated enough to not know what the
Silurian hypothesis is
I would estimate that no more than 1% of all talk.origins
participants and lurkers have ever heard of it *under* *that* *name.*
That's because 100 of them are you using different sock puppets,
and your ignorance is boundless. I mean, when was the last time you haven't demanded some sort of explanation or cite for well known and well established information.. such as in this very thread?
It's nice to see you agreeing with Harshman on some science-related topic.
Really? What is your position as Harfmen? What is it you think my position is?
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical
John Harshman wrote:
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
As if he knew.
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical
The Silurian *Period* is what first comes to mind in the
scientific arena. What dumdum is pushing is something you'd
see on a schlock Discovery channel filler.
On 4/14/23 9:06 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
It would probably be better to first explain what you're talking about.
As if he knew.
To my surprise, the Silurian hypothesis has nothing to do with the
Silurian, and it isn't a hypothesis either. It's more of a hypothetical
The Silurian *Period* is what first comes to mind in the
scientific arena. What dumdum is pushing is something you'd
see on a schlock Discovery channel filler.
I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned "Dr. Who and the Silurians". According to the highly credible BBC, the Silurians are a (now)
underground reptilian race whose first conflict with humanity occurred
in 1970. I believe they were originally from Mars.
John Harshman wrote:
I googled it. I didn't find anyone who believed the hypothesis to be
true
Well you're an idiot who stole the handle of another idiot.
Try "Proposed" is your autism is unsatisfied with any cite lacking the
words "Believes it's true."
One problem here, besides your issues, is that this is a media issue
not a scientific one. "The Silurian hypothesis" is a misnomer itself
as the name traces itself back only recently, and the idea is not new
at all. Which is probably why real science has the rule of precedents,
so usenet trolls won't get as confused as you regularly do...
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said
Outside of sock puppets on the Autism spectrum, describing one is enough. It's exactly equal to labelling something "Conspiracy theory."
What your condition caused you to propose is that this "Hypothesis" has achieved the legs a rudimentary Google search reveals NOT because
anyone takes it serious, but because of some conspiracy to propagate it.
"Here's an idea that nobody thinks!"
So Autism explains you this far but what of your inability to admit any error,
no matter how slight?
Not that you don't come out with some WHOPPERS of stupid mistakes...
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits" >>> is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or >>> not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that >>>> the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting >>>> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the >>>>> reason is... ????Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who? >>>>>
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>>>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played >>> by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999, >>> and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
On 4/14/23 4:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said
Outside of sock puppets on the Autism spectrum, describing one is enough.
It's exactly equal to labelling something "Conspiracy theory."
What your condition caused you to propose is that this "Hypothesis" has
achieved the legs a rudimentary Google search reveals NOT because
anyone takes it serious, but because of some conspiracy to propagate it.
"Here's an idea that nobody thinks!"
So Autism explains you this far but what of your inability to admit any error,
no matter how slight?
Not that you don't come out with some WHOPPERS of stupid mistakes...
You are under a number of misapprehensions. First, a google search
returns anything that uses either of the words "Silurian" or
"hypothesis".
Only the first few hits are likely to refer to the
Silurian hypothesis. Second, it was proposed as a thought experiment, a
pure hypothetical. There was no attempt at looking for evidence that it
was true, merely at imagining what sort of evidence might remain if,
again hypothetically, it were true. The popular press amplified it
because it was an interesting conceit.
I'm really curious to see if you can find anyone who supports the
hypothesis as anything else. Can you?
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so
go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm >>>> asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting >>>> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the >>>>> reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>>>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," >>> because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on meSorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show youI'm not.
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so >>>>>>> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits" >>>>> is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or >>>>> not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm >>>>>> asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that >>>>>> the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting >>>>>> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the >>>>>>> reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>>>>>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played >>>>> by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999, >>>>> and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," >>>>> because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was >>> based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
I'm not.PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. >>>>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you >>> the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs. This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
As if he knew.
Wow, you
I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned "Dr. Who and the Silurians".
Again, please find me someone who seriously proposes this hypothesis as anything other than a thought experiment. That's all I ask.
John Harshman wrote:
Again, please find me someone who seriously proposes this hypothesis as
anything other than a thought experiment. That's all I ask.
Reading my post, exactly as you never did, what precisely would that refute or change or alter in the slightest?
There's a reason why you decided that you're incapable of performing rudimentary searches on your own, and fixating on the irrelevant, and it's not because you're so gosh darn intelligent, or mentally healthy.
Again; what changes in my post? You need an answer, and have decided
that you're incapable of finding one, because I said... what?
What point is riding on this?
On 4/15/23 8:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'd say that the false positives are about as common as the false negatives.
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so >>>>>>>> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the >>>>>>>> result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm >>>>>>> asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting >>>>>>> that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the >>>>>>>> reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>>>>>>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," >>>>>> because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was >>>> based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to >>>>>> me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
I'm not.PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. >>>>>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs. This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:48:33 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:and trolls with great accuracy.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'd say that the false positives are about as common as the false negatives. To the contrary, PeeWee Peter detects and encourages habitual cranks
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so >>>>>>>> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the >>>>>>>> result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before. >>>>>>
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but >>>>>> that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip. >>>>>>
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling, >>>>>> because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post. >>>>
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was
based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level. >>>>
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to >>>>>> me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would >>> say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell >>> the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed >>> things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
I'm not.PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs. This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:15:23?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:48:33 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'd say that the false positives are about as common as the false negatives.
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >> >>>>> On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Can you find anyone making this claim?
I just answered your question. You want to claim "Conspiracy" so >> >>>>>>>> go ahead. The 782,000 hits on the subject, on Bing, are all the
result of a conspiracy because... ???
I think almost everyone here knows that the vast majority of those "hits"
is due the two words, "Silurian" and "hypothesis", being either absent or
not in the proper juxtaposition with each other.
You didn't answer. A hit doesn't of itself translate to advocacy. I'm
asking for you to provide an example of someone who actually claims that
the Silurian hypothesis is true -- that there was a previous
technological species on earth -- and that there is evidence supporting
that claim. So far I haven't found any such.
Have you? Where?
Did you Google it?
Yes. I didn't find anyone claiming that it's true. Did you? Where? Who?
So it's a conspiracy. It was invented and is propagated by... and the
reason is... ????
I have no idea where you got the conspiracy idea from.
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy"
and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper,"
because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post. >> >>>>
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was
based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level. >> >>>>
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to >> >>>>>> me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would >> >>> say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell >> >>> the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed >> >>> things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
I'm not.PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs. This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
To the contrary, PeeWee Peter detects and encourages habitual cranks
and trolls with great accuracy.
He notices them, for sure, he just doesn't recognize them for what they are. He
takes them seriously.
"Hi, Mr. right hand. I sure do like you."
"Thank you, Mr. left hand. Lets be best friends."
"That's a great idea, Mr. right hand. We can be
best friends and hide together in my special
place where mommy doesn't drink and sleep
with strange men, and nobody beats me and I
get plenty to eat. Say, can I call you 'erik'?"
"Yes you can, Mr. left hand. 'erik" is a fine
name, and it rhymes with 'Dick,' which is what
mommy calls me when she's sober enough to
not slur her speech."
"Say, 'erik', we can go to each others birthday
parties and tell each other secrets and hold
sleep overs and, and. and be best friends forever
and ever!"
"Yes, Mr. Left Hand. We can do that. Plus reply
to each others posts because we're totally
different people, Mr. Left hand, who just happen
to display all the exact same symptoms."
Relax. i don't take it serious either.
But, it is an entertaining thought exercise:
How would YOU go about testing the Silurian
hypothesis?
I mean, they do call it a hypothesis, do they not?
And in science lingo that requires that it not only
explain the evidence/observations but serve as
the basis for predictions i.e.experimental
falsification.
Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
what is that data?
What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
explains?
I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
THAT comes before testing, else we really have no reason
to test. We technically don't even have anything to test.
I mean, without specific claims, no matter what test WE
come up with the adherents can simply dismiss as not
applying here... because we have no idea what anything
is supposed to apply to.
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/13/23 6:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/7/23 9:53 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
You can't seem to close the loop on anything. You scream "Conspiracy" >>>>> and then refuse to discuss who & why.
Never mentioned a conspiracy. You're the only one who did.
I could have said almost the same thing hundreds of times since the beginning of 2011,
but with me taking your role here, while JTEM's role was variously played
by you, Erik Simpson, and assorted other people in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with the two of you.
The latest example came a few days after I went on my long posting break in December,
with you repeating a tall tale about me that went viral back around 1999,
and old-timer Don Cates adding a detail I had never seen before.
I've considered telling the truth about what really went on, but
that's running the risk of y'all accusing me of being a "party pooper," >>> because the truth is so boring compared to y'all's juicy gossip.
Don would only join in after one of you starts the ball rolling,
because he has buried his head in the sand about everything I post.
I almost feel like asking what this is all about.
Stop playing dumb. After someone mentioned Howard Hershey, you revived a tall tale from ca. 1999
with me as the butt of the tall tale. Don Cates claimed that there was an outpouring
of posts in the "I am Spartakus" tradition which I don't recall, but was based on the tall tale you recounted about it.
But apparently everything is about you, even when it doesn't start that way.
There you go, gaslighting again, though on a relatively modest level.
Is this the
end of your experimentation in a kinder, gentler JTEM?
He's still much kinder and gentler than he was in his last reply to
me in sci.bio.paleontology. He hit me with the most intensely
dishonest piece of gaslighting that I have ever seen.
And that's saying a lot, what with your numerous gaslightings
in the past -- and I hope they are things of the past.
Must everything be turned into an attack?
You might ask yourself whether your negative comment about JTEM was necessary.
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
Sorry,
but this is a fine example of your paranoia.
All that is exclusively in your head.
Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say.
How would you tell the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close. >>> So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
I'm not.
The above shows
I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
you advance here, may have been misapplied.
Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
what is that data?
What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
explains?
Again, there are none.
I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
For the third time, there are none.
jillery wrote:
The above shows
You couldn't find anything wrong
Only because
John Harshman wrote:
I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
you advance here, may have been misapplied.
Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.
Wait. Let's back up some. If the Silurian hypothesis
explains data -- observations/measurements -- then
what is that data?
What are the observations that the Silurian hypothesis
explains?
Again, there are none.
When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?
I think we need to start there. Well. I *Know* we need
to start there but I'm trying to be the softer, more
approachable JTEM and I figured I might try avoiding
more definitive terms... even if it really is definitive:
We need to start at WHAT observations (measurements,
data) the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
For the third time, there are none.
Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
I'm not.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs.
This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
Erik Simpson announced on another thread, in response to a thoroughly >on-topic reply of me to Marc Verhaegen, that he would ignore any posts I make, >in lieu of killfiling me, which is impossible on Google Groups.
His unjustifiable slur on me below thus invokes a cartoon of an ostrich with its head buried
deep in the sand, while kicking furiously with both feet.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:05:21?AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
Simpson may have sensed that Harshman's raving below would get a long counterattack
from me, which it did:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27?PM
Here comes Harshman's raving, ending in a surreal sentence referring to
a mysterious "the conspiracy against you" without any tangible referent:
Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would
say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell
the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed
things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
In the post I linked above, I quoted from a thread where I laid bare this >kind of nonsense about "paranoia" and "conspiracy":
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/8U9I0cmSLQAJ
Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"
Apr 15, 2016, 4:17:00?PM
Opening paragraph: >_____________________________________________________________
In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy, >irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc. >==============================================================
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
I'm not.
Here comes Erik now, head in sand and kicking all the way:
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs.
This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
truth behind Erik's trolling here.
This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
Erik Simpson is forgetting that JTEM has his non-troll interludes, just as Erik himself does.
But here, Erik is trolling all the way. He doesn't even dare to name any people he would
like for people to think of as cranks or trolls.
If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with me that Marc Verhaegen
is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.
If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with
me that Marc Verhaegen is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >sufficient to hint they are sock puppets. A difference is their
choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
of JTEM's posts are hard-R.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition
you advance here, may have been misapplied.
Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.
Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on?
So it
isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?
When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?
I answered your question, twice.
Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.
We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly explains.
I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell
I suppose, for bizarre and self-serving meanings of "troll". Who
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution
Crackpots
John Harshman wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition >>>> you advance here, may have been misapplied.
Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.
Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on?
It was the point: THINKING!
Everything I said about this " Silurian hypothesis" applies to abiogenesis. it even applies to SETI.
So it
isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?
It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.
When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?
I answered your question, twice.
That's kind of retarded, if you repeated back what I said, pretending I didn't say it, MORE THAN ONCE. Really, really retarded.
Here. I explained it already, again..
Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.
We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly
explains.
If you're "Agreeing" with me, why are you pretending to he refuting me or
at least countering me?
I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell
Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...
It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.
That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
there are testable predictions was the main point of the original publication.
I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell
Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
On 4/25/23 1:42 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
I'm afraid you are fixated on a word that, according to the definition >>>>> you advance here, may have been misapplied.
Wrong. I actually took the time to point out that it is misapplied.
Agreed. But doesn't that seem like a trivial point to fixate on?
It was the point: THINKING!
Everything I said about this " Silurian hypothesis" applies to abiogenesis. >> it even applies to SETI.
So it
isn't really a hypothesis under one particular definition. So what?
It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with >> the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.
That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
there are testable predictions was the main point of the original >publication.
When you say "Again" do you mean after you read me saying
exactly that TWICE already, or do you mean something else?
I answered your question, twice.
That's kind of retarded, if you repeated back what I said, pretending I
didn't say it, MORE THAN ONCE. Really, really retarded.
Here. I explained it already, again..
Again, you're quoting me saying there is none, but only after
the SECOND time you supposedly read my words, only to
conclude that I didn't say exactly what you just read and quoted.
We are agreed that there are no data the Silurian hypothesis supposedly
explains.
If you're "Agreeing" with me, why are you pretending to he refuting me or
at least countering me?
I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell
Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis" or claims there
is evidence for it?
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik Simpson announced on another thread, in response to a thoroughly >on-topic reply of [mine] to Marc Verhaegen, that he would ignore any posts I make,
in lieu of killfiling me, which is impossible on Google Groups.
His unjustifiable slur on me below thus invokes a cartoon of an ostrich with its head buried
deep in the sand, while kicking furiously with both feet.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:05:21?AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:20:21?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/14/23 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Once I learned the meaning of "gaslighting" less than a year ago, a lot of your attacks on me
over the years finally made sense. Hence my "hope that they are things of the past,"
but it looks like gaslighting comes naturally to you, and you'll have a hard time breaking
the habit, assuming you even want to break it.
Simpson may have sensed that Harshman's raving below would get a long counterattack
from me, which it did:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27?PM
Here comes Harshman's raving, ending in a surreal sentence referring to
a mysterious "the conspiracy against you" without any tangible referent:
Sorry, but this is a fine example of your paranoia. All that is
exclusively in your head. Now of course that's what a gaslighter would >> > say, but it's also what a non-gaslighter would say. How would you tell >> > the difference? Well, one way is to ask a third party who has observed >> > things. If you think there are no third parties not involved in the
conspiracy against you, think on that for a while.
In the post I linked above, I quoted from a thread where I laid bare this >kind of nonsense about "paranoia" and "conspiracy":
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/72ORRQeol6M/m/8U9I0cmSLQAJ
Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"
Apr 15, 2016, 4:17:00?PM
Opening paragraph: >_____________________________________________________________
In my experience, the chief use of the word "paranoid" is as a talisman
to ward off charges of reprehensible behavior, such as cowardice, hypocrisy,
irresponsibility, insincerity, dishonesty, etc. >==============================================================
PS I scrolled down to the end of the thread to see whether JTEM subsequently
outdid what he did in that s.b.p. thread, but he didn't even come close.
So, hard as it is to believe, he is still the kinder, gentler JTEM -- relatively speaking, of course.
Yes, Peter is the measure of all things, as Aristotle said.
Sarcasm cannot refute the assessment I made. If you doubt it, I'll show you
the s.b.p. post I am talking about and and let you judge for yourself whether my comparison is valid.
Others might want to judge for themselves, but it's up to you to start the ball rolling, if you are inclined in that direction.
I'm not.
Here comes Erik now, head in sand and kicking all the way:
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs.
This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
truth behind Erik's trolling here.
Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.
This leads to his nearly complete inability to detect
cranks and trolls.
Erik Simpson is forgetting that JTEM has his non-troll interludes, just as Erik himself does.
Erik's trolling interludes are the rare exception, the exact opposite
of JTEM.
But here, Erik is trolling all the way. He doesn't even dare to name any people he would
like for people to think of as cranks or trolls.
I suppose, for bizarre and self-serving meanings of "troll".
Who people think are cranks and trolls doesn't inform this discussion any more than do Robert Camp's posts.
OTOH how you figure Erik's comments
above qualify as "trolling" would at least be relevant to your point.
If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with me that Marc Verhaegen
is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
A difference is their
choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
of JTEM's posts are hard-R.
John Harshman wrote:
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the post I did on this thread yesterday:
"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the post I did on this thread yesterday:
"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ
But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?
John Harshman wrote:
It means it's not science. So we're not limited to it's unfamiliarity with >>> the scientific rules regarding naming precedence, we also have the
fact that it fails to make any testable predictions.
That's an open question, and in fact asking the question of whether
there are testable predictions was the main point of the original
publication.
The only question is how you lived to even puberty when you are clearly
so fucking STUPID!
"It" is an idea, not a label, and "It" doesn't begin with a paper written in 2018.
Damn. YOU are fucked up...
I will go further and say that there is nobody, as far as I
can tell
Which, right there, is a *Very* powerful disclaimer...
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
I was using it as an example, because the exact same fact, the same
methods can be used to test the scientific validity of other claims.
Like abiogenesis, or even SETI. You don't know this because I cleverly
stated this, overtly, making it impossible to miss yet you still testify
now that you missed it... again.
Switch handles and agree with yourself. You've plummeted as far as
you can go with this one here.
On 4/25/23 6:13 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31?PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this, if by "support" you mean "make claims" >rather than "offer actual evidence".
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
post I did on this thread yesterday:
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to
see why, but that's people for you.
"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ
But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?
He seems to think I'm most of the people responding to him; possibly >including you.
You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
Wrong on both counts.
I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.
Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?
Gisulat ni jillery:
If he did, he might have egg on his face: Harshman himself agreed with >>>me that Marc Verhaegen is not a troll, but I have said Marc is a crank.
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>sufficient to hint they are sock puppets. A difference is their
choice of adjectives; Verhaegan's posts are G-rated, while almost all
of JTEM's posts are hard-R.
Sockpuppet??
GondwanaTalks Verhaegen is a retired GP from Belgium (EU) who has been >preaching his Aquatic Ape Gospel for more than 35 years, has written
numerous "scientific" articles about the subject and has been thusly
thanked by AAG high priestess Elaine Morgan in her book The Scars Of >Evolution:
"I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Marc Verhaegen.
It was a paper published by him in 1987 which gave me the idea of
approaching the subject from a different angle, and I have benefited
greatly from his advice and co-operation during the writing of this
book. (This does not necessarily imply that he agrees with all the
opinions expressed in it.)"
Another funny example of how seemingly normal people can derail on the >subject of The Decent Of Humankind can be found here:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution
As for JTEM is a jerk: I found a post dated 13-10-2011 in >sci.anthropology.paleo which sees him foaming, yelling and shouting
exactly like he does in talk origins today. In short a perpetual and
probably incurable rabble-rouser.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs.
This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
truth behind Erik's trolling here.
Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.
It does nothing of the sort. I gave the EXACT reason I mentioned him, even hinting
about being able to document what I am saying in a jiffy ["here"].
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets.
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person.
However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the
effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
sock puppets.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious
attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
would call "serious" attention.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/25/23 6:13 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31?PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this, if by "support" you mean "make claims"
rather than "offer actual evidence".
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the >>> post I did on this thread yesterday:
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to
see why, but that's people for you.
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
In my response, I set this straight a few minutes ago, at the end of the following post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/UMk3Xm_WBwAJ
But back to Harshman: what other nyms do you ascribe to him? and on which Google groups?
He seems to think I'm most of the people responding to him; possibly
including you.
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >flames?
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the
effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about
sock puppets.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM
sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I
would call "serious" attention.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:42:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
Their mutual echo chambers distracted me. I withdraw this specific
claim about "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >>>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the >>effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly: "Why? Because you want to win
the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:53:43 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
One of Peter's most endearing traits is his inability to understand what others say, much less
what they mean, which he always inferrs.
This applies more to past defenders of Erik himself against my accusations, than it does to me.
The hapless Robert Camp is one of them, as I will document if anyone cares about the
truth behind Erik's trolling here.
Robert Camp hasn't posted to T.O. since December 2020, at least not
using that nic. That explains perfectly why you mention him here.
It does nothing of the sort. I gave the EXACT reason I mentioned him, even hinting
about being able to document what I am saying in a jiffy ["here"].
Your allusions to Robert Camp's posts have nothing to do with your "endearing traits" or with this topic,
or with anything anybody said in it.
It's just more of your usual mindless obfuscating noise.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:42:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock
puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
Their mutual echo chambers distracted me. I withdraw this specific
claim about "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >>>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster
using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch
language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the >>effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly: "Why? Because you want to win
the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
So we're agreed that nobody supports this "hypothesis"
Start with Graham Hancock, you cud chewing retard.
Sorry, did you ever document him supporting this "hypothesis"?
again, NOT my topic.
I never said anything about popularity, except that
it isn't popular, and none of it is relevant to my post.
I'm not interested in playing that worthless tangent...
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY FIRST SENTENCE!
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the post I did on this thread yesterday:
"Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, sufficient to hint they are sock puppets."
The good Doctor has some real notoriety, and you can see him yourself on WHAT TALKS. Check Youtube.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
demonstrably true.
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the
capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly:
"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
Gisulat ni jillery:
[Accusations of sockpuppetery]
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of >>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic)
I'm satisfied.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
That "nagging" remark was in jest.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly:
You don't know how I regard myself and I'm not gonna tell you.
"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
No. Because you keep feeding the troll.
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
JTEM sucks Marc's dick because Marc has a healthy diet consisting of shellfish (and many other marine creatures). And you know the
connection: SEAfood -> DHA -> SEAmen. Yum yum.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM >>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
totally berserk.
Pancho
By "nobody" I meant
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
I don't think
His Lusciousness, the seemingly divine JTEM doth truthed:
You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
Wrong on both counts.
I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.
Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?
You first.
Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
I recall Verhaegen being an aquatic ape proponent on usenet perhaps for >several decades for what that’s worth. About the only thing I recall about >him.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 2:55:32?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:53:43 -0700 (PDT), PeeWee Peter wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
...including the attribution line to Erik Simpson, who wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
[Accusations of sockpuppetery]
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic)
I'm satisfied.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
That "nagging" remark was in jest.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly:
You don't know how I regard myself and I'm not gonna tell you.
"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
No. Because you keep feeding the troll.
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
JTEM sucks Marc's dick because Marc has a healthy diet consisting of >shellfish (and many other marine creatures). And you know the
connection: SEAfood -> DHA -> SEAmen. Yum yum.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
totally berserk.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:47:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:42:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> >>wrote:They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock >>>>puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
Their mutual echo chambers distracted me. I withdraw this specific
claim about "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >>>>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of
the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not
sure why you brought it up.
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster >>>>using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster >>>>using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch >>>language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and
while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the >>>effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly: "Why? Because you want to win
the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM
licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and
so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up
such things. Not sure why you do.
putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
demonstrably true.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Also by jillery: if you were to read the interaction between us on this thread >since April 18, this would become clear.
You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
Wrong on both counts.
I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.
Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?
You first.
What an astounding idiotic thing to say!
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/D13_GGoCBQAJ
There. That is me. First. So go ahead and explain exactly what you
are pretending to be disagreeing with, and why.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask relevant questions of other posters.
John Harshman wrote:
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like, swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to
be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
John Harshman wrote:
Wikipedia bears JTEM out on this
JTEM never gave a fat flying fuck about how popular the idea is,
how many adherents there are, and quite frankly it's all irrelevant
to my point.
...just coincidence that *Everybody* except JTEM in an
irrelevant, imaginary tangent.
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>>>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you >accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google
paradigm.
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and
distinctive terms.
It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.
OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?
See below.
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of >>>>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>>>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not >>>sure why you brought it up.
Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic) >>I'm satisfied.
You haven't even tried to show that's the case. Not sure why you
suppose you convinced me of it.
That "nagging" remark was in jest.
Your "jesting" completely ignores their common behaviors. That's a
good way to feed the trolls.
"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
No. Because you keep feeding the troll.
JTEM feeds himself, a self-parody.
It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
totally berserk.
You accuse me of feeding the troll
even as you admit to feeding the
troll yourself. You parrot a PeeWee Peterism, another common behavior
among trolls.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>>>>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>> is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
However, I fully understand if you don't want to become embroiled in
the never-ending disputes between us. As long as you don't show
any irrational favoritism, your silence about them is golden as far as I am concerned.
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
However, I fully understand if you don't want to become embroiled in
the never-ending disputes between us. As long as you don't show
any irrational favoritism, your silence about them is golden as far as I am concerned.
Everybody in here seems to hate each other and accuse the others of trolling. Truly a pit full of snakes.
Maybe I could start from the beginning of the year, and read everything
up to now an try to make sense of it. But only if I'm very bored or just desperate.
--
Pancho
On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like, >> swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything
further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to
be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
You really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really >different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean >something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up >>>such things. Not sure why you do.
They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
demonstrably true.
If there is one thing any true red blooded yank really really really
hates above all else it's being called a gay/faggot/homo/shirtlifter.
Let's hope JTEM loves littoral homo is one of them true red blooded
yanks.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:31:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:47:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:42:39 +0200, Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> >>>wrote:They're both riffs on "JTEM is my hero". I prefer "JTEM is a
Gisulat ni jillery:
Both regularly make baseless claims that other posters are sock >>>>>puppets.
I don't remember any sock puppet claims by "the good doctor".
Their mutual echo chambers distracted me. I withdraw this specific
claim about "the good doctor".
ISTM reasonable to throw such claims back at them.
Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the >>>>flames?
Apparently those are your reasons.
I stipulate for argument's sake Marc Verhaegen is a real-life person. >>>>>However, that doesn't exclude the possibilities that the real-life
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of >>>>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>>>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not >>>sure why you brought it up.
Marc Verhaegen exercises trollish Usenet habits, or that the poster >>>>>using that nic in T.O. is that real-life person, or that the poster >>>>>using that nic in T.O. also posts as JTEM.
Like I said before in this ng, GondwanaTalks is posting in a Dutch >>>>language newsgroup (nl.wetenschap) on exactly the same subject, and >>>>while doing so belittles the only person over there who is making the >>>>effort of seriously dealing with his crackpottery.
Rather unpalatable if I may say so, but at least he's not nagging about >>>>sock puppets.
Not nagging about sock puppets doesn't mitigate his mindless
ad-hominems, his wholesale deletions of relevant comments, his
repetitve assertions of claims without basis, and his habitual
injections of obfuscating noise. These are all common behaviors
shared among trolls.
Crackpots like Verhaegen and JTEM are just not worth giving serious >>>>>>attention to. Mockery and ridicule is all they deserve.
nobody mentioned *serious* attention before now.
Someone has to be the first.
To quote someone you regard so highly: "Why? Because you want to win
the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
Of your most recent posting wave 8 messages are direct answers to JTEM >>>>sucks Marc's dick provocations. Which means 8 out of 13. That's what I >>>>would call "serious" attention.
Seriously? I had no idea JTEM sucks Marc's dick. That might explain
why their posts read like they're Tweeedledum and Tweedle dumber.
It's participants like you who keep benthic fauna members like JTEM >>>>licks Marc's arse rearing their ugly little heads again and again and >>>>so on.
Their sexual practices don't inform this discussion. I don't bring up >>>such things. Not sure why you do.
putz", which has the advantage, unlike the above, of being
demonstrably true.
If by "they're" you mean Pancho's allusions to imagined sexual
practices,
I suppose doing such things with JTEM might be considered--
heroic aka pity sex with incels, but that still doesn't explain why
Pancho repeatedly mentions them.
Gisulat ni jillery:
"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google >>paradigm.
Please do your homework.
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and >>distinctive terms.
Maybe it's because GondwanaTalks' "specific links" are referring to
websites in Dutch. As he has repeated again and again and again in >nl.wetenschap: "Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.
Pancho has met GondwanaTalks in a Dutch newsgroup on science
(nl.wetenschap). In this newsgroups GondwanaTalks has started preaching
the Aquatic Ape Gospel, while promoting a book he has written on the
subject: "De evolutie van de mens: waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen >spreken", which is in Dutch.
Then Pancho noticed GondwanaTalks' presence in talk.origins. And
stumbled upon JTEM is his sister's son.
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually
IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and
have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
[...] but there seems to be no pleasing you.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:27:58 +0200, the following appearedI'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google
paradigm.
Please do your homework.
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and
distinctive terms.
Maybe it's because GondwanaTalks' "specific links" are referring to
websites in Dutch. As he has repeated again and again and again in
nl.wetenschap: "Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.
Pancho has met GondwanaTalks in a Dutch newsgroup on science
(nl.wetenschap). In this newsgroups GondwanaTalks has started preaching
the Aquatic Ape Gospel, while promoting a book he has written on the
subject: "De evolutie van de mens: waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen
spreken", which is in Dutch.
Then Pancho noticed GondwanaTalks' presence in talk.origins. And
stumbled upon JTEM is his sister's son.
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually
IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and
have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
reference in your nom de post.
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually
IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and
have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
reference in your nom de post.
Gisulat ni John Harshman:
Get used to it, Yankees!
Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
reference in your nom de post.
I'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.Not bad!. Maybe I'll name my next sock puppet Sam Kafka.
Get used to it, Yankees!
Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
reference in your nom de post.
I'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.
On 4/27/23 8:07 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:27:58 +0200, the following appearedI'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google
paradigm.
Please do your homework.
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and
distinctive terms.
Maybe it's because GondwanaTalks' "specific links" are referring to
websites in Dutch. As he has repeated again and again and again in
nl.wetenschap: "Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.
Pancho has met GondwanaTalks in a Dutch newsgroup on science
(nl.wetenschap). In this newsgroups GondwanaTalks has started preaching
the Aquatic Ape Gospel, while promoting a book he has written on the
subject: "De evolutie van de mens: waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen
spreken", which is in Dutch.
Then Pancho noticed GondwanaTalks' presence in talk.origins. And
stumbled upon JTEM is his sister's son.
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually >>> IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and
have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
reference in your nom de post.
Once again, merely posting
[ … ]
Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand theI'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.
reference in your nom de post.
JTEM feeds himself, a self-parody.
You
You
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually >>>IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and >>>have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
Geez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand the
reference in your nom de post.
My sock puppet's remark was directed at jillery, who seems to have a bit
of a problem with the concept of the Atlantic Ocean having a West coast
(us [*]) AND an East coast (them [*]). (For the sake of clarity I'll
keep the North and South side out of the discussion.)
To recapitulate: JTEM is the product of a mistake is situated at the
West side of the Atlantic and GondwanaTalks resides at the East side.
Hope I've made my sock puppet's idea clear now.
[*] Or the other way round from my perspective, of course.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:20:33?AM UTC-7, Pancho Sanza wrote:
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
However, I fully understand if you don't want to become embroiled in
the never-ending disputes between us. As long as you don't show
any irrational favoritism, your silence about them is golden as far as I am concerned.
Everybody in here seems to hate each other and accuse the others of
trolling. Truly a pit full of snakes.
Maybe I could start from the beginning of the year, and read everything
up to now an try to make sense of it. But only if I'm very bored or just
desperate.
--
Pancho
Only the most extreme case of boredom would needed for such a program. It would
make some of the behavior seen here more understandable. One of the characteritics
you'd observe is that there's a lot of boredom going on and that lastwordism is a thing.
Gisulat ni jillery:
"Aquatic ape" is a topic well-suited to Internet trolling. My
impression is JTEM/Marc are trolling this topic to hack the Google >>paradigm.
Please do your homework.
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and >>distinctive terms.
Maybe it's because GondwanaTalks' "specific links" are referring to
websites in Dutch. As he has repeated again and again and again in >nl.wetenschap: "Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
It's not clear to me the role Pancho plays here.
Pancho has met GondwanaTalks in a Dutch newsgroup on science
(nl.wetenschap). In this newsgroups GondwanaTalks has started preaching
the Aquatic Ape Gospel, while promoting a book he has written on the
subject: "De evolutie van de mens: waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen >spreken", which is in Dutch.
Then Pancho noticed GondwanaTalks' presence in talk.origins. And
stumbled upon JTEM is his sister's son.
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually
IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and
have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it >>>>> both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>>>>>>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>>> is better. You're welcome.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask >>>> relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you >>> accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
On 4/26/23 11:55 AM, John Harshman wrote:
[...] but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Bingo.
Gisulat ni jillery:
OK, let me rephrase. What was your reasoning behind "throwing such
claims back at them"? What did you hope to achieve?
See below.
OK.
GondwanaTalk's posting IP locates him around Brussels, which is the >>>>>capital of Belgium, which is in Europe, which is on the other side of >>>>>the Atlantic, JTEM appears to be located in the vicinity of Boston, >>>>>Massachusetts, USA.
So maybe one of them is using a VPN in order to fool the community...
Ok then, so you know IP addresses are poor evidence of identity. Not >>>>sure why you brought it up.
Forget about the VPN. As long as I have convinced you that we are
dealing with two different entities (one on either side of the Atlantic) >>>I'm satisfied.
You haven't even tried to show that's the case. Not sure why you
suppose you convinced me of it.
I've told you their IP-addresses are on different sides of the Atlantic.
But you seemingly still believe in the VPN-hypothesis.
That "nagging" remark was in jest.
Your "jesting" completely ignores their common behaviors. That's a
good way to feed the trolls.
"They're both obnoxious and annoying twats, posting crap in this
newsgroup, but fortunately at least one of them doesn't nag about
sock puppets."
That's me trying to tell a joke to a suspicious (or ignorant, you
choose) audience.
"Why? Because you want to win the dispute? Because you want to fuel the flames?"
No. Because you keep feeding the troll.
JTEM feeds himself, a self-parody.
8 Out of 13 messages you posted earlier were direct answers to JTEM is a
self parodying troll. That's "feeding the troll" in my book. Without
doubt.
(Btw was this the passage you meant with "see below" above?)
It's an experiment. To see if I can make JTEM is a closet homo go
totally berserk.
You accuse me of feeding the troll
I didn't accuse, I established a fact.
even as you admit to feeding the
troll yourself. You parrot a PeeWee Peterism, another common behavior >>among trolls.
At least JTEM likes origami appears to have gone silent on me (for now).
One could call that a plus.
On 2023-04-27 15:49:49 +0000, John Harshman said:
[ … ]
I picked up the reference with Pancho Sanza without difficulty, but IGeez, give it a rest! Some of us even understand theI'm thinking that a more appropriate literary nym would be Greg Samsa.
reference in your nom de post.
have a different problem, that at first glance it looks too much like "Pentcho Valev", who is a crackpot that I've known in various news
groups since the 1990s and who is very active at present on sci.physics.relativity.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it >>>>>>> both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>>>>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>>>>> is better. You're welcome.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask >>>>>> relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you >>>>> accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>>>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we >agree?
John Harshman wrote:
You
Repeat: I don't care. It's irrelevant. Take your meds, ask your nurse to help read it but, go back and read the initial post... this time the words and not the noise in your skull.
You
Again: Don't care. You can comment on my post but I have no interest
in your mental illness.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it >>>>>> both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for >>>>>>>>> comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>>>> is better. You're welcome.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask >>>>> relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you >>>> accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
I've told you their IP-addresses are on different sides of the Atlantic. >>But you seemingly still believe in the VPN-hypothesis.
And you agreed their IP-addresses inform neither their actual location
nor their actual identity. Why are you backpedaling now?
"They're both obnoxious and annoying twats, posting crap in this
newsgroup, but fortunately at least one of them doesn't nag about
sock puppets."
That's me trying to tell a joke to a suspicious (or ignorant, you
choose) audience.
So you think your jokes are funny. I acknowledge humor can be a
personal thing.
8 Out of 13 messages you posted earlier were direct answers to JTEM is a >>self parodying troll. That's "feeding the troll" in my book. Without
doubt.
So you keep a book of jokes you find funny. Got it.
You accuse me of feeding the troll
I didn't accuse, I established a fact.
Only in your "book". Noting a troll != feeding a troll. However
posting asinine allusions about a troll does.
At least JTEM likes origami appears to have gone silent on me (for now). >>One could call that a plus.
So it's all about you. Quelle surprise.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it >>>>>>>> both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once >>>>>>>>>>> again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>>>>>> is better. You're welcome.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask >>>>>>> relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you >>>>>> accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions? >>>>> Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>>>>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you
say is optional?
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not
justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in
styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
My sock puppet's remark was directed at jillery, who seems to have a bit
of a problem with the concept of the Atlantic Ocean having a West coast
(us [*]) AND an East coast (them [*]). (For the sake of clarity I'll
keep the North and South side out of the discussion.)
To recapitulate: JTEM is the product of a mistake is situated at the
West side of the Atlantic and GondwanaTalks resides at the East side.
Your repetition informs neither a point about sock puppets nor your >incoherent allusions about jillery. Not sure why you think that makes >anything "clear".
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com
However, I fully understand if you don't want to become embroiled in
the never-ending disputes between us. As long as you don't show
any irrational favoritism, your silence about them is golden as far as I am concerned.
Everybody in here seems to hate each other and accuse the others of trolling.
Truly a pit full of snakes.
Maybe I could start from the beginning of the year, and read everything
up to now an try to make sense of it. But only if I'm very bored or just desperate.
--
Pancho
Please curb your overheated imagination.
Gisulat ni jillery:
My sock puppet's remark was directed at jillery, who seems to have a bit >>>of a problem with the concept of the Atlantic Ocean having a West coast >>>(us [*]) AND an East coast (them [*]). (For the sake of clarity I'll
keep the North and South side out of the discussion.)
To recapitulate: JTEM is the product of a mistake is situated at the
West side of the Atlantic and GondwanaTalks resides at the East side.
Your repetition informs neither a point about sock puppets nor your >>incoherent allusions about jillery. Not sure why you think that makes >>anything "clear".
If it has finally become clear to you that there are people living at
the other side of the Atlantic and that one of them, with 99.99999% >certainty, is retired Belgian GP and Aquatic Ape expert GondwanaTalks >Verhaegen, my mission has been accomplished.
Their IP-Posting-Host IP addresses, visible in the headers of their
Google Groups messages, clearly indicate GondwanaTalks as living in
Belgium and JTEM is a tub full of lard in or around Boston US.A
If you still believe they are trying to deceive us by using VPN you are >deluded, paranoid or both.
Gisulat ni jillery:
My sock puppet's remark was directed at jillery, who seems to have a bit >>of a problem with the concept of the Atlantic Ocean having a West coast >>(us [*]) AND an East coast (them [*]). (For the sake of clarity I'll >>keep the North and South side out of the discussion.)
To recapitulate: JTEM is the product of a mistake is situated at the >>West side of the Atlantic and GondwanaTalks resides at the East side.
Your repetition informs neither a point about sock puppets nor your >incoherent allusions about jillery. Not sure why you think that makes >anything "clear".
If it has finally become clear to you that there are people living at
the other side of the Atlantic and that one of them, with 99.99999% certainty, is retired Belgian GP and Aquatic Ape expert GondwanaTalks Verhaegen, my mission has been accomplished.
Their IP-Posting-Host IP addresses, visible in the headers of their
Google Groups messages,
clearly indicate GondwanaTalks as living in
Belgium and JTEM is a tub full of lard in or around Boston US.A
If you still believe they are trying to deceive us by using VPN you are deluded, paranoid or both.
Zippo
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it >>>>>>>>> both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above >>>>>>>>>> is better. You're welcome.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask >>>>>>>> relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions? >>>>>> Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>>>>>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you
say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not
justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in
styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which >respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Please do your homework.
You first.
Dear, oh dear...
This would explain their repeated and apparently mindless
refusal to cite specific links, and instead refer to unusual and >>>>distinctive terms.
Maybe it's because GondwanaTalks' "specific links" are referring to >>>websites in Dutch. As he has repeated again and again and again in >>>nl.wetenschap: "Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
"Websites in Dutch" doesn't inform GondwanaTalks' refusal to cite
specific links, nor the references to unusual and distinctive terms.
Maybe I can help you. Give me some of the "specific links" and "unusual
and distinctive terms" you're interested in and I will see what I can do
for you.
Your "maybe" is a mindless excuse.
"Maybe" means: there is the possibility of. It also means: I'm not sure. >Comprende?
It may be difficult to understand for some Americans, but there actually >>>IS a world outside the USA. Where people speak different languages and >>>have different customs. Get used to it, Yankees!
Ok, so you found an opportunity to piggyback your troll onto other
trolls.
Dear, oh dear...
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 4:25:33?PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
My sock puppet's remark was directed at jillery, who seems to have a bit >> >>of a problem with the concept of the Atlantic Ocean having a West coast >> >>(us [*]) AND an East coast (them [*]). (For the sake of clarity I'll
keep the North and South side out of the discussion.)
That's one of the few things I don't see jillery having ANY trouble with.
But it's pretty clear that you are joking again. [That does not necessarily mean
you think the joke is funny. I saw how jillery had a problem with THAT.]
To recapitulate: JTEM is the product of a mistake is situated at the
West side of the Atlantic and GondwanaTalks resides at the East side.
Your repetition informs neither a point about sock puppets nor your
incoherent allusions about jillery. Not sure why you think that makes
anything "clear".
Just in case the concept of "sock puppet" isn't completely clear to you... >If "Pancho Sanza" is the pseudonym under which you first posted here, that is NOT a sock puppet of yours,
but only your "moniker," a.k.a. *nom de guerre*, a.k.a. pseudonym [or just "nym"].
Since you've made it pretty clear that Frank Zippo and Pancho Sanza are different monikers
for the same person, neither one is a sock puppet of the other. The way I understand the term "sock puppet,"
the person behind the sock puppet hides the fact that the posts of the sock puppet
are due to the same person as the one behind an established moniker by which [s]he is identified.
This is the definition to which the Estonian Öö Tiib referred when he said,
"Usage of sock puppets is one of very few things for what some effort will be made to banish you."
Unfortunately, there are others, including one case of what I consider to be >a serious miscarriage of justice. Ron Okimoto somehow managed to get the moderator,
DIG (David Iain Greig), to ban Dr. Dr. Kleinman because he kept trying to have the last word against Ron O,
and was insulting to Ron O to boot -- but he was not as abusive as JTEM has been on this thread.
Dr. Dr. Kleinman was a crank who had a lot in common with Dr. Marc Verhaegen, but was generally
tolerated because he became the last really genuine and prolific creationist posting to talk.origins.
Without someone like that to match wits with, talk.origins has lost a lot of focus.
If it has finally become clear to you that there are people living at
the other side of the Atlantic and that one of them, with 99.99999%
certainty, is retired Belgian GP and Aquatic Ape expert GondwanaTalks
Verhaegen, my mission has been accomplished.
Their IP-Posting-Host IP addresses, visible in the headers of their
Google Groups messages,
Google Groups used to show the headers of posts to those who use it,
but it no longer does so. How is it that your can see the IIP-Posting-Host IP addresses?
clearly indicate GondwanaTalks as living in
Belgium and JTEM is a tub full of lard in or around Boston US.A
If you still believe they are trying to deceive us by using VPN you are
deluded, paranoid or both.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions? >>>>>>> Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>>>>>>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you
say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not
justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in
styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which
respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we >>>> agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions? >>>>>>>> Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance, >>>>>>>>> sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.*****************************
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you
say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have >known.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English. >>>> And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not
justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in
styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which
respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we >>>>> agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried >>>> to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are
not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion
of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became >confused over this.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions? >>>>>>>>> Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>>>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have
known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote >>>>> you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English. >>>>> And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which >>>> respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>>>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>>>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we >>>>>> agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried >>>>> to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are
not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion
of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became
confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you
are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of >>>>>>>>>> my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >>>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have >>> known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about.
I believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is >anyone.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote >>>>>> you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English. >>>>>> And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >>>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >>>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which >>>>> respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming >>>>> these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You >contradict yourself.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >>>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of >>>>>>>>>> it, characteristics of trolls.I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say >>>>>>>>>> NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >>>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >>>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we >>>>>>> agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that >you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder >"you first". Do you think that's healthy?
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried >>>>>> to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Yet another example.
Is tit for tat your only principle?
Now if you will
recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only >changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
post I did on this thread yesterday:
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to********************************
see why, but that's people for you.
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better? ***********************************
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since
I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to
the contrary exists only inside your head.
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are
not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion
of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became
confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you
are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like
for any reason.
Maybe I can help you. Give me some of the "specific links" and "unusual
and distinctive terms" you're interested in and I will see what I can do >>for you.
Your cites don't inform GondwanaTalks' opinions. It's his job to back
up his claims. That whooshing sound you hear is this point going over
your head.
Their IP-Posting-Host IP addresses, visible in the headers of their
Google Groups messages, clearly indicate GondwanaTalks as living in
Belgium and JTEM is a tub full of lard in or around Boston US.A
If you still believe they are trying to deceive us by using VPN you are >>deluded, paranoid or both.
If you still believe your willfully stupid ad hominems about me and
USians show they are independent entities, then you have no idea what
you're talking about and are proud of it.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:19 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:OK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled >>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >>>>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have >>>> known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about.
I believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is
anyone.
You can also BELIEVE anything you want, and allude to anybody you
want. That's what trolls do.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote >>>>>>> you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English. >>>>>>> And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >>>>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >>>>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which >>>>>> respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming >>>>>> these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You
contradict yourself.
Ok, you don't comprehend that the above answers the question you asked immediately before. So to rephrase: If I follow the reasoning behind
your misrepresentations, my purpose in claiming these similarities is
to convince you to post baseless claims like the above. Better?
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >>>>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud ofI presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >>>>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >>>>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that
you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder
"you first". Do you think that's healthy?
You can also NOTICE whatever you want even when your presumptions are
wrong. My "you first" does NOT justify my behavior, rude or
otherwise. Instead it merely notes that respondents demand from me
things they don't demand from themselves. And since you asked, such
noting shows the vacuity of their demands. For respondents' to
devolve to making such demands is not a healthy thing. Noting their devolution is very healthy. There's a difference. You're welcome.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried >>>>>>> to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Yet another example.
Another example? Of what? Once again, you don't say.
Is tit for tat your only principle?
The above is NOT tit-for-tat. It IS noting your criticism of me about
things you do yourself even while you do them aka a PeeWee Peterism. I
am unsurprised that you parrot him here.
Now if you will
recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only
changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
To refresh YOUR convenient amnesia:
*******************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[JTEM to YOU]
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
[NYIKOS to JTEM]
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the >>> post I did on this thread yesterday:
[YOU to NYIKOS]
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to********************************
see why, but that's people for you.
In the context above Nyikos' "that" refers to JTEM's claim <you were trolling>.
To follow context, you say you don't think <you were trolling>.
To follow context, you claim without basis I believe <you were
trolling>, and expressed confusion why I would believe <you were
trolling>
If you NOW say your "that" refers to Nyikos' claim, it would mean you
claim I believe <I was trolling>. I have no idea why even you would
make such an incoherent and nonsensical claim.
To continue to refresh your convenient amnesia: **********************************
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[ME to YOU]
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
[YOU to ME]
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?***********************************
My comments above don't inform what I believed. They say you failed
to comprehend what I wrote (and you still don't), and failed to ask
what I believed (which you never did). So, no matter what you say
your previous "that" meant, your reply above doesn't inform my
comments.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since
I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to
the contrary exists only inside your head.
I neither mention nor infer nor allude to your motivations. I refer explicitly and only to your expressed comments. More to the point,
your comments above are an odd objection from someone who has spent
the last several posts presuming to know what I "believe" (that's yet
another PeeWee Peterism).
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are >>>> not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion >>>> of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became
confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you
are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like
for any reason.
That's exactly what trolls do, to exaggerate without reason or logic.
There are lots of things you also don't like about trolls, and lots of
things you also don't like which have nothing to do with trolls.
As you can see by his large forehead he has eaten a lot of seafood in
his life, so there is a vast amount of knowledge hidden in his head.
Gisulat ni Frank Zippo:
[GondwanaTalks on youtube]
As you can see by his large forehead he has eaten a lot of seafood inDone a lot of swimming too. His youtube portrait gives us a good
his life, so there is a vast amount of knowledge hidden in his head.
indication which part of his head has been above water and which part
under.
It takes a very intricate and complicated breathing technique to swim
the way "the good doctor" does, I can assure you that!
--
Kafka (Another one of my sock puppets)
There are several here whom I have never seen trolling.
Also, I would I only make the accusation when I can back up the claim that they ARE trolling.
JTEM and jillery accuse me of it to divert attention from the fact that they haven't a leg to stand on.
Erik Simpson writes JTEM off as a troll because he doesn't want anyone to know that JTEM has his serious moments.
I do NOT expect you to believe anything I wrote in the preceding paragraph without evidence.
However, if you stick it out in talk.origins long enough, with an open mind, >I believe you will see the truth of it. However, as I said earlier, you are perfectly free
to keep your opinion to yourself as far as I'm concerned.
Since you've made it pretty clear that Frank Zippo and Pancho Sanza are different monikers
for the same person, neither one is a sock puppet of the other. The way I understand the term "sock puppet,"
the person behind the sock puppet hides the fact that the posts of the sock puppet
are due to the same person as the one behind an established moniker by which [s]he is identified.
Gisulat ni Frank Zippo:
[GondwanaTalks on youtube]
As you can see by his large forehead he has eaten a lot of seafood in
his life, so there is a vast amount of knowledge hidden in his head.
Done a lot of swimming too. His youtube portrait gives us a good
indication which part of his head has been above water and which part
under.
It takes a very intricate and complicated breathing technique to swim
the way "the good doctor" does, I can assure you that!
--
Kafka (Another one of my sock puppets)
Gisulat ni jillery:
Their IP-Posting-Host IP addresses, visible in the headers of their >>>Google Groups messages, clearly indicate GondwanaTalks as living in >>>Belgium and JTEM is a tub full of lard in or around Boston US.A
If you still believe they are trying to deceive us by using VPN you are >>>deluded, paranoid or both.
If you still believe your willfully stupid ad hominems about me and
USians show they are independent entities, then you have no idea what >>you're talking about and are proud of it.
Just confirm that you are finally convinced GondwanaTalks Verhaegen and
JTEM is his own hero are two different persons living on different sides
of the Atlantic and we're over & done with.
How hard can that be?
Gisulat ni jillery:
Maybe I can help you. Give me some of the "specific links" and "unusual >>>and distinctive terms" you're interested in and I will see what I can do >>>for you.
Your cites don't inform GondwanaTalks' opinions. It's his job to back
up his claims. That whooshing sound you hear is this point going over
your head.
So you don't want to be just informed, you want GondwanaTalks tot tell
you in person!
Nevertheless:
<https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/>
which also has links to his recent book and his "scientific" essays.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMlD5KMGuY&t=2101s>
which has the "good doctor" himself, explaining his theory for the
zillionth time.
As you can see by his large forehead he has eaten a lot of seafood in
his life, so there is a vast amount of knowledge hidden in his head.
I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone who might be reading >this, if indeed there is anyone, for drawing out this pointless mess, or
in fact for even beginning it. But I'll stop now.
I tried not to read it, but I got bored and have a very morbid sense
of curiosity. As per your apology, I was thinking on Macbeth.
. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
. To the last syllable of recorded time,
. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
. Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
. And then is heard no more: it is a tale
. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
. Signifying nothing..
Most especially I was thinking about "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
"Idiot" is overly harsh and likely the wrong people will take it
as directed towards them outside of the poetic construct.
Strutting and fretting upon the stage also has a resonance.
If I had a better literary background I would add something
that references a compunction to bring out the worst in
each other (something that often takes very little effort).
But now I've gone and added my own noise with little to no
prospects that it will produce any useful results. Shall I
delete this or post it? Maybe a coin flip?
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:OK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only >>>>>>>>>>> options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled >>>>>>>>> misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have >> known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about.
I believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is anyone.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote >>>>> you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English. >>>>> And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which >>>> respect he differs from Verhaegen.
What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You contradict yourself.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud ofI presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder "you first". Do you think that's healthy?
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried >>>>> to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for yourself.
Yet another example. Is tit for tat your only principle? Now if you will recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since
I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to
the contrary exists only inside your head.
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are >> not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion
of human origins.
I also doubt that anyone understands how you became
confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you
are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like
for any reason.
On 4/28/23 2:00 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:19 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John HarshmanI believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:OK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >>>>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled >>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >>>>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >>>>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you >>>>> IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have
known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about. >>
anyone.
You can also BELIEVE anything you want, and allude to anybody you
want. That's what trolls do.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >>>>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >>>>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which
respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming >>>>>> these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless >>>>> claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You >> contradict yourself.
Ok, you don't comprehend that the above answers the question you asked immediately before. So to rephrase: If I follow the reasoning behind
your misrepresentations, my purpose in claiming these similarities is
to convince you to post baseless claims like the above. Better?
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >>>>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >>>>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud ofI presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >>>>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >>>>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >>>>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent >>>>>>> questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that >> you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder >> "you first". Do you think that's healthy?
You can also NOTICE whatever you want even when your presumptions are wrong. My "you first" does NOT justify my behavior, rude or
otherwise. Instead it merely notes that respondents demand from me
things they don't demand from themselves. And since you asked, such
noting shows the vacuity of their demands. For respondents' to
devolve to making such demands is not a healthy thing. Noting their devolution is very healthy. There's a difference. You're welcome.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too >>>>> dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid >>>>> trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Yet another example.
Another example? Of what? Once again, you don't say.
Is tit for tat your only principle?
The above is NOT tit-for-tat. It IS noting your criticism of me about things you do yourself even while you do them aka a PeeWee Peterism. I
am unsurprised that you parrot him here.
Now if you will
recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only
changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
To refresh YOUR convenient amnesia:
*******************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
[JTEM to YOU]
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
[NYIKOS to JTEM]
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
post I did on this thread yesterday:
[YOU to NYIKOS]
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to >> see why, but that's people for you.********************************
In the context above Nyikos' "that" refers to JTEM's claim <you were trolling>.
To follow context, you say you don't think <you were trolling>.
To follow context, you claim without basis I believe <you were
trolling>, and expressed confusion why I would believe <you were
trolling>
If you NOW say your "that" refers to Nyikos' claim, it would mean you claim I believe <I was trolling>. I have no idea why even you would
make such an incoherent and nonsensical claim.
To continue to refresh your convenient amnesia: **********************************
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ME to YOU]
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
[YOU to ME]
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?***********************************
My comments above don't inform what I believed. They say you failed
to comprehend what I wrote (and you still don't), and failed to ask
what I believed (which you never did). So, no matter what you say
your previous "that" meant, your reply above doesn't inform my
comments.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since >> I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to >> the contrary exists only inside your head.
I neither mention nor infer nor allude to your motivations. I refer explicitly and only to your expressed comments. More to the point,
your comments above are an odd objection from someone who has spent
the last several posts presuming to know what I "believe" (that's yet another PeeWee Peterism).
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are >>>> not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion >>>> of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became >>>> confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you >>> are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like >> for any reason.
That's exactly what trolls do, to exaggerate without reason or logic. There are lots of things you also don't like about trolls, and lots of things you also don't like which have nothing to do with trolls.
I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone who might be reading this, if indeed there is anyone, for drawing out this pointless mess, or
in fact for even beginning it. But I'll stop now.
I recall Verhaegen being an aquatic ape proponent on usenet perhaps for several decades for what that’s worth. About the only thing I recall about him.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
So you don't want to be just informed, you want GondwanaTalks tottell you in person!
Your comments above show you still fail to comprehend written
English. You also still fail to understand who are best qualified to
back up a person's opinions.
As you can see by his large forehead he has eaten a lot of seafood in
his life, so there is a vast amount of knowledge hidden in his head.
If your point is to drive hits to a website about an arcane and
outlier concept, you're doing a good job.
Either way, your cites about what GondwanaTalks' forehead is full of
don't inform the veracity of The Silurian Hypothesis or any other
topic he might have mentioned on T.O.
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
Gisulat ni jillery:
So you don't want to be just informed, you want GondwanaTalks tottell you in person!
Your comments above show you still fail to comprehend written
English. You also still fail to understand who are best qualified to
back up a person's opinions.
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult.
into an ad hominem [fallacy] you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
Since you've made it pretty clear that Frank Zippo and Pancho Sanza are different monikers
for the same person, neither one is a sock puppet of the other. The way I understand the term "sock puppet,"
the person behind the sock puppet hides the fact that the posts of the sock puppet
are due to the same person as the one behind an established moniker by which [s]he is identified.
Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with
the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
It may come as a bit of surprise to you but I'm indeed inclined to
believe you and take you seriously.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:40:05?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
....
I tried not to read it, but I got bored and have a very morbid sense
of curiosity. As per your apology, I was thinking on Macbeth.
. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
. To the last syllable of recorded time,
. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
. Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
. And then is heard no more: it is a tale
. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
. Signifying nothing..
Most especially I was thinking about "sound and fury, signifying nothing". >>
"Idiot" is overly harsh and likely the wrong people will take it
as directed towards them outside of the poetic construct.
Strutting and fretting upon the stage also has a resonance.
If I had a better literary background I would add something
that references a compunction to bring out the worst in
each other (something that often takes very little effort).
But now I've gone and added my own noise with little to no
prospects that it will produce any useful results. Shall I
delete this or post it? Maybe a coin flip?
It was heads by the way.
But I award myself points for foreshadowing...
I've been sitting up to now on the sidelines of this long tiff between jillery and John.
I'm saving time by talking to John in the second person
through multiple levels of back-and-forth, and about jillery in the third person.
[Which is natural, because jillery sometimes refers to jillery in the third person.]
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:45:34?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jilleryOK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you >> >>>>>>>>> allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
If you can't see a difference, your aptitude for scientific research has atrophied, John.
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted >> >>>>>>> your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >> >>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have >> >> known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about.
I believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is
anyone.
There is. I've been sitting on the sidelines, observing what looks to me
like an extended game of "chicken". The first person to swerve and clearly >explain what 'e meant loses the game.
Like her ally Ron O, jillery has a penchant for getting in the last word,
and that partly explains how the game has lasted so long.
Dr. Dr. Kleinman didn't humor Ron O in his penchant, but kept trying to get the last word in,
and Ron O went like a crybaby to DIG to ban him for it, and the rest is history.
Ron O and DIG have deprived t.o. of its last really committed and prolific creationist,
and t.o. is the poorer for it.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote >> >>>>> you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not >> >>>>> justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in >> >>>>> styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
Those similarities are tremendously exaggerated by jillery. Especially the similarities in style.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which
respect he differs from Verhaegen.
JTEM shows no substance on this thread, but I've caught him having substance on
rare occasions, in s.b.p. You were probably letting your perennial sidekick, >Erik Simpson, do your thinking for you in that last sentence.
What was your purpose in claiming
these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless
claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You
contradict yourself.
I'll wait to see whether jillery comments on this before I comment on it.
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That >> >>>>>> seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Still showing no aptitude for thinking like a scientist.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations
suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was >> >>>>>>>>> mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions.
I presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a
coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that
you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder
"you first". Do you think that's healthy?
Looking more and like a game of "chicken," as described above.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
You were ambiguous here, John. It's the fact that they are NOT the same person that is bleedin' obvious.
Hence, jillery's rejoinder makes sense in this context:
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
Unlike research mathematicians like myself, jillery is very poor at divining intended meaning.
Instead of explaining your last comment, you went off on a tangent:
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Yet another example. Is tit for tat your only principle? Now if you will
recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only
changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since
I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to
the contrary exists only inside your head.
This contradicts something you trolled in sci.bio.paleontology a number
of years back, but I won't go into that unless someone reading this >(including yourself, of course) wants to know more about it.
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are >> >> not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion >> >> of human origins.
It's a notion which I've seen loaded down with much more excess baggage in >Marc's case than in JTEM's.
I also doubt that anyone understands how you became
confused over this.
I'm no exception to this statement, except that I'm not even sure
jillery was confused. Maybe she just wanted to stir up a tempest in a teapot. >If so, jillery has been spectacularly succeeded.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you
are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like
for any reason.
It would be very good if jillery spelled out her private definition of "trolling."
But I think she will opt for many more rounds of "chicken" instead.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:10:06?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 2:00 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:19 -0700, John HarshmanI will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone who might be reading
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 7:23 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:44:27 -0700, John HarshmanI believe I made myself clear to everyone other than you. If there is
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 6:24 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> trolled:
On 4/27/23 12:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:11:45 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 11:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:03:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/23 12:24 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:36:59 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:53 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:55:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:47 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John HarshmanOK, now I'm confused. Were you trolling or weren't you? I've tried it
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery
as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?
Since you asked, only trolls like you would suggest your reply above
is better. You're welcome.
both ways, but there seems to be no pleasing you.
Only trolls like you would suggest your "both ways" are the only
options, nevermind the most relevant ones. I know you know how to ask
relevant questions of other posters.
What are the other options, notably the most relevant ones? Why did you
accuse JTEM/Verhaegen of being the same person?
Really? Do you really not know to ask before jumping to conclusions?
Even after I rubbed your nose in it? Really?
You don't say, because you're trolling, so I can only assume you
allude to this:
****************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:13:45 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Marc Verhaegan's and JTEM's posts share similar styles and substance,*****************************
sufficient to hint they are sock puppets.
If so, I presume you recognize the difference between the meaning of
my comment above and the meaning of your multiple mangled
misrepresentations of it.
You presume wrong. What's the difference?
And you *still* don't say if the above is the comment that twisted
your knappies. Why is that?
You didn't ask.
You shouldn't have to be asked. Or do you think backing up what you >> >>>>>>> say is optional?
Yes, when we both already know what we're talking about.
NOBODY knows what you, John Harshman, are talking about until you
IDENTIFY what you are talking about.
Bet that most people reading all this, if there are any such, would have
known.
You can PRESUME anything you want. You can CLAIM anything you want.
Until you make yourself clear, nobody KNOWS what you're talking about. >> >>
anyone.
You can also BELIEVE anything you want, and allude to anybody you
want. That's what trolls do.
But yes, the comment where you claimed they were sock
puppets was in fact what we're talking about.
Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, as proved by the very quote
you finally admitted is the cause of your twisted knappies.
"sufficient to hint" != "they were", at least not in standard English.
And even if your misrepresentation was correct, that still would not
justify your presumption about what I "believed".
The point of my quoted comment is to emphasize their similarities in
styles and substance, a point which you continue to conveniently
ignore as you pursue your troll de jour.
They have no similarities in style. And JTEM has no substance, in which
respect he differs from Verhaegen. What was your purpose in claiming >> >>>>>> these similarities?
Following your misrepresentations, to convince you to post baseless >> >>>>> claims like the above.
You want me to post baseless claims??
Stupid question. What I want is irrelevant to you. You do whatever
you want.
But you just said you wanted to convince me to post baseless claims. You >> >> contradict yourself.
Ok, you don't comprehend that the above answers the question you asked
immediately before. So to rephrase: If I follow the reasoning behind
your misrepresentations, my purpose in claiming these similarities is
to convince you to post baseless claims like the above. Better?
So what's the difference?
Is it that you didn't quite accuse them but only "hint" at it? That
seems a quibble.
Still seems a quibble.
Your failure to identify your basis of your misrepresentations >> >>>>>>>>>>> suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud ofI presume you don't intend to answer my questions.
it, characteristics of trolls.
If you claim your questions above are relevant, then why do they say
NOTHING about JTEM/Marc's mutual echo chambers?
If you now abandon your questions, then I will acknowledge I was
mistaken to think that you know how to ask relevant questions. >> >>>>>>>>>>
I presume you don't intend to ask a relevant question, or even a >> >>>>>>>>> coherent one. So once again you impose an impasse.
So I was right about you not answering.
And I am right about you not asking relevant or even coherent
questions.
We're both right. Rejoice!
It should be clear by now, and
should have been so long ago, that they are not the same person. Can we
agree?
Can we agree I never said they were the same persons?
Sure, if you want to weasel away from that.
I merely followed your lead. Back atcha, weasel.
So I'm your role model? Odd.
You make clear the spirit of your comments.
I notice that you quite often justify your rude behavior by saying that >> >> you're only doing what your respondent does. Hence your common rejoinder >> >> "you first". Do you think that's healthy?
You can also NOTICE whatever you want even when your presumptions are
wrong. My "you first" does NOT justify my behavior, rude or
otherwise. Instead it merely notes that respondents demand from me
things they don't demand from themselves. And since you asked, such
noting shows the vacuity of their demands. For respondents' to
devolve to making such demands is not a healthy thing. Noting their
devolution is very healthy. There's a difference. You're welcome.
As to whether they are in fact the same person, you haven't even tried
to establish that.
No need to establish the bleedin' obvious.
There's that word again, "obvious", the last refuge of trolls too
dishonest to even take the time to explain their willfully stupid
trolls.
You over-use that epithet.
Even if so, YOU first used it against me. Take responsibility for
yourself.
Yet another example.
Another example? Of what? Once again, you don't say.
Is tit for tat your only principle?
The above is NOT tit-for-tat. It IS noting your criticism of me about
things you do yourself even while you do them aka a PeeWee Peterism. I
am unsurprised that you parrot him here.
Now if you will
recall, if you can recall, I first said you weren't trolling and only
changed my mind when you told me I was wrong.
To refresh YOUR convenient amnesia:
*******************************
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:56:55 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
[JTEM to YOU]
But you're fucked up. You're a nym shifting troll.
[NYIKOS to JTEM]
That reminds me of how jillery trolled about you and Marc in reply to the
post I did on this thread yesterday:
[YOU to NYIKOS]
I don't think that was trolling. Jillery apparently believed it. Hard to >> >> see why, but that's people for you.********************************
In the context above Nyikos' "that" refers to JTEM's claim <you were
trolling>.
To follow context, you say you don't think <you were trolling>.
To follow context, you claim without basis I believe <you were
trolling>, and expressed confusion why I would believe <you were
trolling>
If you NOW say your "that" refers to Nyikos' claim, it would mean you
claim I believe <I was trolling>. I have no idea why even you would
make such an incoherent and nonsensical claim.
To continue to refresh your convenient amnesia:
**********************************
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:09:58 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ME to YOU]
I suppose jillery should feel grateful that Harshman described jillery >> >>> as "people". Mitigating that case is Harshman's failure to read for
comprehension what jillery wrote and to ask jillery why BEFORE once
again jumping to conclusions about what jillery "believed".
[YOU to ME]
OK, I take it back. You were trolling. Better?***********************************
My comments above don't inform what I believed. They say you failed
to comprehend what I wrote (and you still don't), and failed to ask
what I believed (which you never did). So, no matter what you say
your previous "that" meant, your reply above doesn't inform my
comments.
Few of the people you accuse of trolling are
actually trolling. Me, for example.
That's exactly what trolls say, to deny without basis, and despite
evidence to the contrary.
That's also what non-trolls say, isn't it? And I do have a basis, since >> >> I actually know my own motivations, while you don't. And the evidence to >> >> the contrary exists only inside your head.
I neither mention nor infer nor allude to your motivations. I refer
explicitly and only to your expressed comments. More to the point,
your comments above are an odd objection from someone who has spent
the last several posts presuming to know what I "believe" (that's yet
another PeeWee Peterism).
Again, I'm pretty sure that most
people who have encountered both of them have easily seen that they are
not the same. Their only similarity is in fact belief in an odd notion >> >>>> of human origins. I also doubt that anyone understands how you became >> >>>> confused over this.
Again, that you continue to misrepresent what I posted shows that you >> >>> are indeed trolling, your dishonest claims notwithstanding.
Your definition of "trolling" seems to encompass any post you don't like >> >> for any reason.
That's exactly what trolls do, to exaggerate without reason or logic.
There are lots of things you also don't like about trolls, and lots of
things you also don't like which have nothing to do with trolls.
this, if indeed there is anyone, for drawing out this pointless mess, or
in fact for even beginning it. But I'll stop now.
I tried not to read it, but I got bored and have a very morbid sense
of curiosity. As per your apology, I was thinking on Macbeth.
. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
. To the last syllable of recorded time,
. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
. Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
. And then is heard no more: it is a tale
. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
. Signifying nothing..
Most especially I was thinking about "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
"Idiot" is overly harsh and likely the wrong people will take it
as directed towards them outside of the poetic construct.
Strutting and fretting upon the stage also has a resonance.
If I had a better literary background I would add something
that references a compunction to bring out the worst in
each other (something that often takes very little effort).
But now I've gone and added my own noise with little to no
prospects that it will produce any useful results. Shall I
delete this or post it? Maybe a coin flip?
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Gisulat ni John Harshman:
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >>into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright, >>and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The >>"therefore" part is mandatory.
Jillery isn't very bright because his/her/their/its assumption that
my remark "Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts (and wisely
deletes the rest of my post)" is an (asinine) ad-hominen [sic] is wrong.
So maybe my ad-hominem is indeed not an ad-hominem after all but just a >rightful conclusion.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been sitting up to now on the sidelines of this long tiff between jillery and John.
I'm saving time by talking to John in the second person
through multiple levels of back-and-forth, and about jillery in the third person.
[Which is natural, because jillery sometimes refers to jillery in the third person.]
Which is natural since PeeWee Peter refers to jillery in the third
person, because PeeWee Peter likes to play willfully stupid pronoun
games.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:10:04?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominems.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
It takes some sophistication in scientific matters to fully answer
this question, and lots of experience with the ways of jillery.
Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with
the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they >>can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery is >pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other
nics, are in that second group.
On 4/28/23 2:59 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John HarshmanThat was almost an ad hominem, if you're saying that because I'm a
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >>> into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright, >>> and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
"therefore" part is mandatory.
A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
willfully stupid troll my interjection is irrelevant.
On 4/28/23 3:05 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been sitting up to now on the sidelines of this long tiff between jillery and John.
I'm saving time by talking to John in the second person
through multiple levels of back-and-forth, and about jillery in the third person.
[Which is natural, because jillery sometimes refers to jillery in the third person.]
Which is natural since PeeWee Peter refers to jillery in the third
person, because PeeWee Peter likes to play willfully stupid pronoun
games...
It puts the lotion on its skin...
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
And a spelling troll too.
How stupid are you?
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with >>the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they >>can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery is >pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka otherAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever
claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
Gisulat ni jillery:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
trolled:
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
Since you asked, I prefer you addressed me not at all. You're
welcome.
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
Since you asked, I prefer you addressed me not at all.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright, >and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The >"therefore" part is mandatory.
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:43:52 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:26:31 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> >>trolled:
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
Since you asked, I prefer you addressed me not at all. You're
welcome.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with >> >>the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they >> >>can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other
nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever
claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
Gisulat ni jillery:
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
Since you asked, I prefer you addressed me not at all.
You first.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:00:05?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >> >into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright, >> >and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
"therefore" part is mandatory.
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
I had considered making a similar point about the implicit genetic
fallacy in most ad hominem attacks, so I agree with that aspect
of your comment. I bother to add this because the valid point is
potentially lost owing to the added editorializing.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:23:10 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It may come as a bit of surprise to you but I'm indeed inclined toApparently it comes as a surprise to Mark Isaak and Lawyer Daggett.
believe you and take you seriously.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with >> >>the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other
nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever
claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost alwaysDo you count friendly-fire as well?
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Gisulat ni jillery:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:43:52 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:26:31 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> >>>trolled:
How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
Since you asked, I prefer you addressed me not at all. You're
welcome.
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
Gisulat ni jillery:
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that
case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:10:04 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:00:05?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
I had considered making a similar point about the implicit genetic >fallacy in most ad hominem attacks, so I agree with that aspect
of your comment. I bother to add this because the valid point is >potentially lost owing to the added editorializing.
What you call "added editorializing" is both valid and relevant.Wither or not, some of use have brains that somewhat subconsciously
read ahead of the words that we start parsing and reading consciously.
When we see phrasing like "tool of willfully stupid trolls", there exists an impulse to toss the whole into the bit bucket. I fully expect you to think that such is a fault on any such person's part, our loss, etc.. Of course, if somebody was interested in actually communicating to a broad
audience, one might adapt one's writing so as not to be so quickly dismissed.
But I apologize. I expect you want to advice from me. I'm really just
adding this for the millions of lurkers out there.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:00:05?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it >> >into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright, >> >and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
"therefore" part is mandatory.
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
I had considered making a similar point about the implicit genetic
fallacy in most ad hominem attacks, so I agree with that aspect
of your comment. I bother to add this because the valid point is >potentially lost owing to the added editorializing.
What you call "added editorializing" is both valid and relevant.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:25:04?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:10:04?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettWither or not, some of use have brains that somewhat subconsciously
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:00:05?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-hominens.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
I had considered making a similar point about the implicit genetic
fallacy in most ad hominem attacks, so I agree with that aspect
of your comment. I bother to add this because the valid point is
potentially lost owing to the added editorializing.
What you call "added editorializing" is both valid and relevant.
read ahead of the words that we start parsing and reading consciously.
When we see phrasing like "tool of willfully stupid trolls", there exists an >> impulse to toss the whole into the bit bucket. I fully expect you to think >> that such is a fault on any such person's part, our loss, etc.. Of course, >> if somebody was interested in actually communicating to a broad
audience, one might adapt one's writing so as not to be so quickly dismissed.
But I apologize. I expect you want to advice from me. I'm really just
adding this for the millions of lurkers out there.
Millions of lurkers? Surely you jest. There might be a dozen or so.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:05:04?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:Do you count friendly-fire as well?
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with >> >> >>the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other
nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever
claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Fire is fire, but if this is friendly (I hope so!), so muchthe better.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
--
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
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:10:04?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:23:10 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It may come as a bit of surprise to you but I'm indeed inclined toApparently it comes as a surprise to Mark Isaak and Lawyer Daggett.
believe you and take you seriously.
If this is supposed to mean that I don't take you seriously, that fails
to represent my point of view.
I disagree with you on a number of
points, including on the necessity and value of responding to certain
posts and people. I further disagree with you about the self-destructive >nature of certain levels of antagonism in extended back and forth.
I don't see much value in an extended argument with you on that because
it's already been established that we disagree and are unlikely to ever >persuade the other. On occasion, I repeat my point as what I consider >potential comfort to others who feel similarly.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that
case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
[1] Long story short, jillery's knowledge of science is a hectare broad,
but her understanding of it is only a few centimeters deep.
That hectare is enough to wow scientific nonentities like Burkhard,
but the lack of depth forces jillery to derail one scientific discussion/debate
after another. One such derailment occurred right on this thread,
and I plan to rectify this matter in a new thread,
"Burkhard v. Peter on the Theory of Intelligent Design"
The OP comes today,
On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like, swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend toYou really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:45:32?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:You really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like,
swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything >> > further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to >> > be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY
FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean
something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
Wrong. It's been true in jillery's private world for over a decade, and
it's gotten more and more frequent recently.
I can't blame you for not knowing much about this, because jillery
has been doing this far more frequently in reply to me than to you.
The thing is, you and jillery fight like Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreeing to have a battle,
while jillery fights me like I'm the black crow that made these two quite forget their quarrel.
I trust you are familiar with the episode in Through the Looking Glass and what Alice Found There,
to which this alludes.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:10:04?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:00:05?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:09:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/23 12:20 PM, Frank Zippo wrote:A pedantic and pointless objection. The association to the argument
Gisulat ni jillery:I'm afraid that isn't actually an ad hominem, just an insult. To make it
Please curb your overheated imagination.
You first.
Jillery resorts to kindergarten level retorts
(and wisely deletes the rest of my post).
Zippo continues to resort to asinine ad-homines.
Jillery isn't very bright, is s/he/they/it?
Now that IS an ad-hominem (notice the letter m at
the end of "hominem").
into an ad hominem you would have to say that jillery isn't very bright,
and therefore her argument (whatever that may be) is wrong. The
"therefore" part is mandatory.
is implicit in the insult. Regardless of the label, such irrelevant
injections are the first, last, and most common tool of willfully
stupid trolls.
I had considered making a similar point about the implicit genetic
fallacy in most ad hominem attacks, so I agree with that aspect
of your comment. I bother to add this because the valid point is
potentially lost owing to the added editorializing.
What you call "added editorializing" is both valid and relevant.
Wither or not, some of use have brains that somewhat subconsciously
read ahead of the words that we start parsing and reading consciously.
When we see phrasing like "tool of willfully stupid trolls", there exists an >impulse to toss the whole into the bit bucket. I fully expect you to think >that such is a fault on any such person's part, our loss, etc.. Of course,
if somebody was interested in actually communicating to a broad
audience, one might adapt one's writing so as not to be so quickly dismissed.
But I apologize. I expect you want to advice from me. I'm really just
adding this for the millions of lurkers out there.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:05?PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:Uh-huh; whatever you say.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that
case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
Likewise, thou shouldst not use "you" to address a single listener, as such new-fangled use of "you" to replace a perfectly good second person singular pronoun, is inappropriate.
--
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appearedThem for me is often vaguely appropriate to not dwell on gender (or sex). >Jillery hasnt supplied preferred pronouns that I know of. If Jillery did I >would go that route. Why this happens to be an issue I am not sure. Ruffled >feathers?
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>> case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
People obsess too much over a sex or gender. Nonbinary seem an appropriate >out. Who fucking cares?
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
As I have stated several times, "jillery" is a
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
I have also stated
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in
T.O., or their veracity
, and those who obsess about personal details
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >otherwise.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:05:04?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:From "Maxims for Maximally Effective Mercenaries":
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:Do you count friendly-fire as well?
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with
the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other >>> >> >nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever
claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
Fire is fire, but if this is friendly (I hope so!), so muchthe better.
"Friendly fire isn't"
This goes with:
"Incoming fire has the right of way"
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 20:26:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I didn't imply it was.
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
As I have stated several times, "jillery" is aSorry; missed those. So it's basically a made-up word with
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
no significance of any sort. Got it.
I have also statedNor did I imply it did.
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in
T.O., or their veracity
, and those who obsess about personal detailsAs you say.
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >>otherwise.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 01:08:55 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Me? Not at all. I simply prefer to use grammar as I learned
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appearedThem for me is often vaguely appropriate to not dwell on gender (or sex). >>Jillery hasn’t supplied preferred pronouns that I know of. If Jillery did I >>would go that route. Why this happens to be an issue I am not sure. Ruffled >>feathers?
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>> case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
it; in which plural pronouns are not normally used for
singular subjects. You (and she/he/whatever) can use
whatever you wish, as will I.
Not me. A singular non-gendered pronoun (other than "it")
People obsess too much over a sex or gender. Nonbinary seem an appropriate >>out. Who fucking cares?
would be good.
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?Nope.
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
It's amazing how trolls
who make a point of saying how jillery "isn't
very bright" have no problem posting willfully stupid comments like
the above.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:You really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like, >>> swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything
further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to
be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY >>>>> FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean
something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
Wrong. It's been true in jillery's private world for over a decade, and
it's gotten more and more frequent recently.
On 4/28/23 6:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:You really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really >> different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like,
swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything >>> further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to >>> be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise
in your head?
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY >>>>> FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean >> something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
Wrong. It's been true in jillery's private world for over a decade, and it's gotten more and more frequent recently.That jillery or perhaps others do it too (if indeed that's true) isn't relevant and doesn't make what I said wrong. Once again you manufacture
an opportunity to launch a pointless attack on your favorite enemies.
And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
resulting from this irrelevant seed.
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
It's amazing how trolls
You will probably accuse me of trolling when I note that you seem
totally obsessed with trolls and trolling.
who make a point of saying how jillery "isn't
very bright" have no problem posting willfully stupid comments like
the above.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come
naturally to them.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:20:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 6:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/26/23 7:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:That jillery or perhaps others do it too (if indeed that's true) isn't
Wrong. It's been true in jillery's private world for over a decade, andJohn Harshman wrote:You really need to figure out that everyone responding to you are really >>>> different people. As far as I know none of them has ever used a sock
By "nobody" I meant
Again, I don't care. Pull whatever number out of your ass that you'd like,
swear on a stake of bibles that you're an idiot and can't find anything >>>>> further back than 2018: It's irrelevant.
As you're pretending to be "Different" people, why don't you pretend to >>>>> be the one with reading comprehension and STOP reacting to the noise >>>>> in your head?
puppet. You seem to be not just a loon but a paranoid loon.
Thanks ever so much.
NOT that it ever mattered because POPULARITY was never anything
I brought up, except in recognizing that it's NOT popular IN MY VERY >>>>>>> FIRST SENTENCE!
Popularity is
Irrelevant.
I don't think
If you pay me enough I will promise to act surprised.
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean >>>> something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world. >>>
it's gotten more and more frequent recently.
relevant and doesn't make what I said wrong. Once again you manufacture
an opportunity to launch a pointless attack on your favorite enemies.
And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
resulting from this irrelevant seed.
There are ways to stop endless back and forths. Besides, the last person
to post to a thread often winds up looking like an idiot. So if anyone is processing what that means, go ahead. Make me look like an idiot.
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
They are quite right given I’ve kept Indo-Pacifics as pets caught around my >house and witnessed the egg-laying.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:57:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 20:26:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I didn't imply it was.
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
<which "jill" seems to indicate> so implies. If you now say "jill"
had no relevance to your comments, then your mention of it is
pointless.
As I have stated several times, "jillery" is aSorry; missed those. So it's basically a made-up word with
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
no significance of any sort. Got it.
All words are made up. Neologisms are recent inventions, and have as
much meaning as any other word. The significance of "jillery" is it's
my chosen Usenet nym, which is my purpose for creating it.
I have also statedNor did I imply it did.
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in >>>T.O., or their veracity
<and since "her" is appropriate for biological females, which "jill"
seems to indicate> so implies. Either you don't understand the
implications of your words, or you had a sudden compulsion to post
pointless comments. Pick your poison.
--, and those who obsess about personal detailsAs you say.
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >>>otherwise.
And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
resulting from this irrelevant seed.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:03:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 01:08:55 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Me? Not at all. I simply prefer to use grammar as I learned
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appearedThem for me is often vaguely appropriate to not dwell on gender (or sex). >>>Jillery hasnt supplied preferred pronouns that I know of. If Jillery did I >>>would go that route. Why this happens to be an issue I am not sure. Ruffled >>>feathers?
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>> from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>> case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
it; in which plural pronouns are not normally used for
singular subjects. You (and she/he/whatever) can use
whatever you wish, as will I.
Not me. A singular non-gendered pronoun (other than "it")
People obsess too much over a sex or gender. Nonbinary seem an appropriate >>>out. Who fucking cares?
would be good.
Why even raise the issue of implied gender, as you do here, especially
when you say you agree gender isn't relevant to context? If you have
a need to specify a person, use their identified nym or some
recognizable variation of it. It might seem artificial at first to
repeat a nym, but no more so than "he/she/it".
--My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?Nope.
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and >>>only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
They are quite right given Ive kept Indo-Pacifics as pets caught around my >>house and witnessed the egg-laying.
"Hemidactylus" isn't an asexual gecko, Hemidactylus garnotii aka the >Indo-Pacific gecko aka Garnot's house gecko aka the fox gecko aka the
Assam greyish brown gecko is. You cannot hold an entire genus respon-
sible for the sins of just one of its species.
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:50:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:05:04?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:From "Maxims for Maximally Effective Mercenaries":
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:Do you count friendly-fire as well?
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with
the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other >>>> >> >nics, are in that second group.
jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever >>>> >> claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with
sock puppets.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in
the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
Fire is fire, but if this is friendly (I hope so!), so muchthe better.
"Friendly fire isn't"
This goes with:
"Incoming fire has the right of way"
Thus justifying the following one-liner:
"With friends like that who needs enemas?"
My question to Eric alludes to those who hold me responsible for
trolls.
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:We have a live one.
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
It's amazing how trolls
You will probably accuse me of trolling when I note that you seem
totally obsessed with trolls and trolling.
who make a point of saying how jillery "isn't
very bright" have no problem posting willfully stupid comments like
the above.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come
naturally to them.
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
They are quite right given I’ve kept Indo-Pacifics as pets caught around my
house and witnessed the egg-laying.
"Hemidactylus" isn't an asexual gecko, Hemidactylus garnotii aka the Indo-Pacific gecko aka Garnot's house gecko aka the fox gecko aka the
Assam greyish brown gecko is. You cannot hold an entire genus respon-
sible for the sins of just one of its species.
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Gisulat ni John Harshman:
And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
resulting from this irrelevant seed.
I get the impression that discussions in here mostly consist of
stacking misunderstandings on top of each other. Often almost
literally as a lot of participants don't seem to know how to
decently prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of
their predecessors.
Gisulat ni *an asexual gecko*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
Ummm...he did say *an* asexual gecko, which is not incorrect,
simply incomplete as a treatise on geckos in general.
So since there is (apparently; I'm no expert) at least one asexual
species, his comment was not incorrect.
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Pedantic nonsense noted and thrown in circular file.
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Or, since this is not a "sci" group dedicated to biology,
he could continue to post as he's done for quite a few years.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
I get the impression that discussions in here mostly consist of
stacking misunderstandings on top of each other. Often almost
literally as a lot of participants don't seem to know how to
decently prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of
their predecessors.
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come
naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Or, since this is not a "sci" group dedicated to biology,
Still, in a group called talk.origins one should have a basic
understanding and knowledge of taxonomy.
he could continue to post as he's done for quite a few years.
That's not an excuse. And yes, he has my permission to use his nom de
plume *Hemidactylus" till the end of time.
And yes, he has my permission to use his nom de
plume *Hemidactylus" till the end of time.
I didn’t nor will I ask, bozo.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
I get the impression that discussions in here mostly consist of
stacking misunderstandings on top of each other. Often almost
literally as a lot of participants don't seem to know how to
decently prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of
their predecessors.
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
If you say so...
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call >>>yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Or, since this is not a "sci" group dedicated to biology,
Still, in a group called talk.origins one should have a basic
understanding and knowledge of taxonomy.
he could continue to post as he's done for quite a few years.
That's not an excuse.
And yes, he has my permission to use his nom de
plume *Hemidactylus" till the end of time.
Gisulat ni *an asexual gecko*:
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call >>>yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
Pedantic nonsense noted and thrown in circular file.
Ignorance = bliss.
So you’re admitting you’re here to troll and jillery is a sustained target >of said trolling (also while you’re nymshifting).
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*?
Yes, I do. There are almost 200 species in the genus Hemidactylus and
only two of them reproduce asexually; H garnotii and H vietnamensis.
IMHO it's important to have your facts right.
They are quite right given I’ve kept Indo-Pacifics as pets caught around my
house and witnessed the egg-laying.
"Hemidactylus" isn't an asexual gecko, Hemidactylus garnotii aka the Indo-Pacific gecko aka Garnot's house gecko aka the fox gecko aka the
Assam greyish brown gecko is. You cannot hold an entire genus respon-
sible for the sins of just one of its species.
If you want to base your nym on an asexual gecko, you should call
yourself Hemidactylus garnotii or Hemidactylus vietnamensis.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 05:05:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:03:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>It was a direct response to a comment about gender, as can
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 01:08:55 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Me? Not at all. I simply prefer to use grammar as I learned
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appearedThem for me is often vaguely appropriate to not dwell on gender (or sex). >>>>Jillery hasn’t supplied preferred pronouns that I know of. If Jillery did I
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>> from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>>> case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
would go that route. Why this happens to be an issue I am not sure. Ruffled >>>>feathers?
it; in which plural pronouns are not normally used for
singular subjects. You (and she/he/whatever) can use
whatever you wish, as will I.
Not me. A singular non-gendered pronoun (other than "it")
People obsess too much over a sex or gender. Nonbinary seem an appropriate >>>>out. Who fucking cares?
would be good.
Why even raise the issue of implied gender, as you do here, especially
when you say you agree gender isn't relevant to context? If you have
a need to specify a person, use their identified nym or some
recognizable variation of it. It might seem artificial at first to
repeat a nym, but no more so than "he/she/it".
be easily seen above by anyone not more interested in
starting arguments than in understanding discussions.
My nym is based on an asexual gecko. Anyone have a problem with *that*? >>>>Nope.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come
naturally to them.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 05:04:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:57:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>It was a shortening of "jillery", which I assumed (yeah, I
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 20:26:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:I didn't imply it was.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>>>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to
indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
<which "jill" seems to indicate> so implies. If you now say "jill"
had no relevance to your comments, then your mention of it is
pointless.
know) would be understood. Mea culpa.
I see nothing in what I wrote to even vaguely imply thatAs I have stated several times, "jillery" is aSorry; missed those. So it's basically a made-up word with
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
no significance of any sort. Got it.
All words are made up. Neologisms are recent inventions, and have as
much meaning as any other word. The significance of "jillery" is it's
my chosen Usenet nym, which is my purpose for creating it.
I have also statedNor did I imply it did.
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in >>>>T.O., or their veracity
<and since "her" is appropriate for biological females, which "jill"
seems to indicate> so implies. Either you don't understand the >>implications of your words, or you had a sudden compulsion to post >>pointless comments. Pick your poison.
your gender, whatever it is and whatever you might imagine
it to be, affects your posts in any way whatsoever.
Or does
simply mentioning a possible gender imply such to you? If
so, you may need professional help to deal with that
obsession.
, and those who obsess about personal detailsAs you say.
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >>>>otherwise.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary? ***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 05:12:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:50:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>And my comment to Eric was a response *only* to *his*
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson >>><eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:05:04?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:From "Maxims for Maximally Effective Mercenaries":
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:50:22 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:45:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Zippo wrote:Do you count friendly-fire as well?
Gisulat ni jillery:
[...]Some participants in here seem a bit pre-occupied or even obsessed with
the "sock puppet" phenomenon. And my philosophy is: if they want it they
can get it.
The second, larger group are those who lie that jillery isAnother wrong allegation made by not very bright controversialist >>>>> >> jillery. Because neither Zippo nor any of his sock puppets has ever >>>>> >> claimed aforementioned jillery as being pre-occupied/obsessed with >>>>> >> sock puppets.
pre-occupied/obsessed with sock puppets. You, Frank Zippo aka other >>>>> >> >nics, are in that second group.
Zippo et al have only alluded to such talk origins participants in >>>>> >> the broadest possible sense.
--
Zippo
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response. Threads started by jillery have often been informative, replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state. This post will almost certainly draw fire.
Fire is fire, but if this is friendly (I hope so!), so muchthe better.
"Friendly fire isn't"
This goes with:
"Incoming fire has the right of way"
Thus justifying the following one-liner:
"With friends like that who needs enemas?"
My question to Eric alludes to those who hold me responsible for
trolls.
comment immediately preceding it:
"Fire is fire, but if this is friendly (I hope so!), so
muchthe better."
The earlier exchange was irrelevant to that, even with the
"this" in Eric's comment, and could have been about wombat
social structures without changing the meaning of either his
comment or my response *to that comment*.
Sheesh...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:48:28 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
Wrong on both counts.
I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.
Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?
You first.
What an astounding idiotic thing to say!
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/D13_GGoCBQAJ
There. That is me. First. So go ahead and explain exactly what you
are pretending to be disagreeing with, and why.
Once again, merely posting a link doesn't qualify, especially not a
link to something that doesn't show what you claim it shows. Once
again you show you don't know how to cite, and you don't even know
what to cite.
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
If you say so...
New to Usenet? I do indeed; try to learn from it.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery
posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity: >***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary? >***********************************
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
It wasn't that discussion which was the subject of Hemi's
comment, or of mine.
Can we not accept that "Hemidactylus" is just a short form of
"Hemidactylus garnotii"?
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
If you say so...
New to Usenet? I do indeed; try to learn from it.
I've been on usenet since 1994, which means I can remember when cutting >superfluous and irrelevant text was normal practice. Then came Microsoft >Outlook Express whose users answered ABOVE completely quoted text, and
now we have Google Groups with its equally clueless users.
So one could say I'm very much used to usenet. Though not with
inextricable spaghetti text. Maybe you could try the above paragraph
again and this time write a bite more comprehensible, if it's not too
much trouble please.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:48:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 05:04:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:57:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>It was a shortening of "jillery", which I assumed (yeah, I
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 20:26:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:I didn't imply it was.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that >>>>>>>case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to >>>>>>indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
<which "jill" seems to indicate> so implies. If you now say "jill"
had no relevance to your comments, then your mention of it is
pointless.
know) would be understood. Mea culpa.
I suppose that's as close to a retraction as you can muster.
I see nothing in what I wrote to even vaguely imply thatAs I have stated several times, "jillery" is aSorry; missed those. So it's basically a made-up word with
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
no significance of any sort. Got it.
All words are made up. Neologisms are recent inventions, and have as >>>much meaning as any other word. The significance of "jillery" is it's
my chosen Usenet nym, which is my purpose for creating it.
I have also statedNor did I imply it did.
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in >>>>>T.O., or their veracity
<and since "her" is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" >>>seems to indicate> so implies. Either you don't understand the >>>implications of your words, or you had a sudden compulsion to post >>>pointless comments. Pick your poison.
your gender, whatever it is and whatever you might imagine
it to be, affects your posts in any way whatsoever.
As I said, then you had no good reason to even mention it.
Or does
simply mentioning a possible gender imply such to you? If
so, you may need professional help to deal with that
obsession.
Yes, please post more willfully stupid personal attacks. I expect
nothing different from you.
, and those who obsess about personal detailsAs you say.
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >>>>>otherwise.
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
If you say so...
New to Usenet? I do indeed; try to learn from it.
I've been on usenet since 1994, which means I can remember when cutting >>superfluous and irrelevant text was normal practice. Then came Microsoft >>Outlook Express whose users answered ABOVE completely quoted text, and
now we have Google Groups with its equally clueless users.
So one could say I'm very much used to usenet. Though not with
inextricable spaghetti text. Maybe you could try the above paragraph
again and this time write a bite more comprehensible, if it's not too
much trouble please.
Let me translate for you; the [ and ] mark the beginning and
ending, respectively, of interlocutory editorial comments:
You said, dismissively, "If you say so..."
I replied "I do indeed [say so]; try to learn from it [the
explanation]",
prefaced by a possible reason why you seemed unfamiliar with the
practices I described and the reason for those practices.
Pretty simple, and hardly "spaghetti".
And my apologies for assuming that you're a newbie, and not
just unfamiliar with current (past 2 decades or so, at least
in t.o and sci.skeptic before it died) conventions.
Better now?
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:10:32?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:48:28 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
You are a SEVERE personality disorder, cowering behind rotating
sock puppets, shit posting in an effort to convince yourself that
people talk to you and you sometimes say things vaguely intelligent.
Wrong on both counts.
I've repeatedly challenged in many threads to just state what my
position is, what you think you're "Disagreeing" with and why, and
you've never been able to explain. You're just a bundle of emotions
acting out.
Go on then; WHAT did I say? WHAT is my position? WHAT do you
think you're "Disagreeing" with?
You first.
What an astounding idiotic thing to say!
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/D13_GGoCBQAJ
There. That is me. First. So go ahead and explain exactly what you
are pretending to be disagreeing with, and why.
Once again, merely posting a link doesn't qualify, especially not a
link to something that doesn't show what you claim it shows. Once
again you show you don't know how to cite, and you don't even know
what to cite.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>> >> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>> >>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>> >>>
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>> >> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>> >> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>> >> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
Your parable above describes two separate problems. And if your
intent is to accurately reflect events in T.O., your parable would
include a third group; those who blame the "guy" for making so much
noise, even as they completely ignore the steaming piles of doggy
doodoo turning their neighborhood into an unhealthy Hellhole. *******************************************************
In my view, that's not the proper extension of the metaphor. Rather,
there are neighbors who have spent significant time actually cleaning
up the mess deposited in their yards, have gone so far as to place a >dispensor for poop bags on their mail post and or left a trash can out
near the curb, and have on occasion chided neighbors who they witness
not cleaning up after their dogs. They recognize the fact that the
problem exists and have done their part to fight it. What they object
to is someone hysterically ranting on about perps and rubes while
kicking the poop around.
The difference is you are projecting that "poop" represents antisocial,
rude, or dishonest language and behavior from posters. I intend it to
mean bogus ID apologetics.
I have little interest in playing cloakroom monitor and scolding every
fool who tells a lie on talk.origins, or who using dishonest rhetoric.
Sure, I get irritated when it's done to me, but I've mostly learned that >whining about it ultimately hurts my ability to refute them on more >substantial points of science.
Over the years, I've witness that the most impressive, and I'd say
effective, contributors to t.o tended to ignore the insults and abuse
thrown at them. I like learning from others. I do write some rather
spicy retorts to the abusive rhetoric but almost always delete them
without posting because I'm convinced their primary benefit is
my own cathartic benefit in writing them, not in their being posted.
You disagree with me on that approach, and perhaps on how
close I come to meeting that standard.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
If you say so...
New to Usenet? I do indeed; try to learn from it.
I've been on usenet since 1994, which means I can remember when cutting >>>superfluous and irrelevant text was normal practice. Then came Microsoft >>>Outlook Express whose users answered ABOVE completely quoted text, and >>>now we have Google Groups with its equally clueless users.
So one could say I'm very much used to usenet. Though not with >>>inextricable spaghetti text. Maybe you could try the above paragraph >>>again and this time write a bite more comprehensible, if it's not too >>>much trouble please.
Let me translate for you; the [ and ] mark the beginning and
ending, respectively, of interlocutory editorial comments:
You said, dismissively, "If you say so..."
... which was a reply to your "Doing so is usually ..." etc.
And in my .sig I added "What the ... is he talking about?!"
I replied "I do indeed [say so]; try to learn from it [the
explanation]",
An "explanation" that could for my part have been written in Chinese.
prefaced by a possible reason why you seemed unfamiliar with the
practices I described and the reason for those practices.
Quite the contrary actually. I'm all too familiar with messages
consisting of > 200 lines of quoted text, with just one single sentence
or even word added at the bottom (to name just one example of the >phenomenon).
Pretty simple, and hardly "spaghetti".
And my apologies for assuming that you're a newbie, and not
just unfamiliar with current (past 2 decades or so, at least
in t.o and sci.skeptic before it died) conventions.
"Conventions" that coincidentally were established around the same time >Internet in general and usenet in particular became crowded by hordes of >clueless newbies to whom history simply didn't exist.
Conventions my ass! "Forgetting" to prune is simply a product of
laziness and ignorance.
Better now?
It will be when you explain your very first paragraph (the one that
starts with "Doing so is usually ..."
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and >>>>>>>forth attacks".
Better now?
It will be when you explain your very first paragraph (the one that
starts with "Doing so is usually ..."
Happy to. All one need do is read your comment which preceded mine,
and which you snipped, leaving my comment with no antecedents;
thanks for demonstrating why unmarked snippage is a "thing", and
why context matters (a twofer!).
That comment was:
"...a lot of participants don't seem to know how to decently
prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of their
predecessors."
My post explained why responses don't always involve trimming,
and why such trimming, especially "to the bone" as you seem to favor,
is frequently not even desirable;
again, thanks for the practical demonstration.
And now I won't bother you further with rationality as
contrasted with dogma.
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
BC:
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and
forth attacks".
[...]
Better now?
It will be when you explain your very first paragraph (the one that
starts with "Doing so is usually ..."
Happy to. All one need do is read your comment which preceded mine,
Very good! It looks like it is starting to dawn on you.
and which you snipped, leaving my comment with no antecedents;
The antecedents are in the previous message. Besides it should by now
be clear to anyone what this discussion is about. Or do we have to be reminded of it in every post?
thanks for demonstrating why unmarked snippage is a "thing", and
why context matters (a twofer!).
Do you mean "quote mining"? Quote mining alters the context. "Unmarked snippage" (which is a term new to me) just cuts out non essential text.
It also expects the reader to be not too dim to have forgotten what it's about.
Anyway, it was this sentence in your "explanation" that left me puzzled: "taking out of context" (unless the truncated reply addressed *nothing*
but the part left in, which is usually not the case, the above being an exception)".
Inimitable!
That comment was:
"...a lot of participants don't seem to know how to decently
prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of their
predecessors."
See? How hard was that?
My post explained why responses don't always involve trimming,
Euphemism alert! Replace "don't always" with "hardly ever" in your own
copy of Bob's post.
and why such trimming, especially "to the bone" as you seem to favor,
is frequently not even desirable;
Well, at least you seem intelligent enough to grasp what this argument
is about. So fortunately all hope is not lost!
again, thanks for the practical demonstration.
You're welcome.
And now I won't bother you further with rationality as
contrasted with dogma.
OK.
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
Fine but if you keep fucking with both Jillery and Bob fuck you and the
sockpuppets you rode in on.
For an asexual gecko you are very rude.
What happened to your manners?
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
Fine but if you keep fucking with both Jillery and Bob fuck you and the >sockpuppets you rode in on.
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
Fine but if you keep fucking with both Jillery and Bob fuck you and the >>sockpuppets you rode in on.
For an asexual gecko you are very rude.
What happened to your manners?
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does it come naturally >to you?
BC:
Doing so is usually referred to as "unmarked snippage" (if
it's not noted) or "taking out of context" (unless the
truncated reply addressed *nothing* but the part left in,
which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception). And either frequently engenders *more* "back and >>>>>>>>> forth attacks".
[...]
Better now?
It will be when you explain your very first paragraph (the one that
starts with "Doing so is usually ..."
Happy to. All one need do is read your comment which preceded mine,
Very good! It looks like it is starting to dawn on you.
and which you snipped, leaving my comment with no antecedents;
The antecedents are in the previous message. Besides it should by now
be clear to anyone what this discussion is about. Or do we have to be
reminded of it in every post?
thanks for demonstrating why unmarked snippage is a "thing", and
why context matters (a twofer!).
Do you mean "quote mining"? Quote mining alters the context. "Unmarked
snippage" (which is a term new to me) just cuts out non essential text.
It also expects the reader to be not too dim to have forgotten what it's
about.
Anyway, it was this sentence in your "explanation" that left me puzzled:
"taking out of context" (unless the truncated reply addressed *nothing*
but the part left in, which is usually not the case, the above being an
exception)".
Inimitable!
That comment was:
"...a lot of participants don't seem to know how to decently
prune superfluous chunks of text from the messages of their
predecessors."
See? How hard was that?
My post explained why responses don't always involve trimming,
Euphemism alert! Replace "don't always" with "hardly ever" in your own
copy of Bob's post.
and why such trimming, especially "to the bone" as you seem to favor,
is frequently not even desirable;
Well, at least you seem intelligent enough to grasp what this argument
is about. So fortunately all hope is not lost!
again, thanks for the practical demonstration.
You're welcome.
And now I won't bother you further with rationality as
contrasted with dogma.
OK.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 03:38:09 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:10:32?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
My guess is the above post is not the one Daggett meant to attach his comments below. Instead it was to this post, which I copy here for continuity:
****************************************************
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 03:32:56 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>> >>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>> >> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>their dogs.
Your parable above describes two separate problems. And if your
intent is to accurately reflect events in T.O., your parable would
include a third group; those who blame the "guy" for making so much
noise, even as they completely ignore the steaming piles of doggy
doodoo turning their neighborhood into an unhealthy Hellhole. *******************************************************
The following is Daggett's reply in its entirety, followed by my reply
to it:
In my view, that's not the proper extension of the metaphor. Rather,
there are neighbors who have spent significant time actually cleaning
up the mess deposited in their yards, have gone so far as to place a >dispensor for poop bags on their mail post and or left a trash can out >near the curb, and have on occasion chided neighbors who they witness
not cleaning up after their dogs. They recognize the fact that the
problem exists and have done their part to fight it. What they object
to is someone hysterically ranting on about perps and rubes while
kicking the poop around.
The difference is you are projecting that "poop" represents antisocial, >rude, or dishonest language and behavior from posters. I intend it to
mean bogus ID apologetics.
I have little interest in playing cloakroom monitor and scolding every >fool who tells a lie on talk.origins, or who using dishonest rhetoric. >Sure, I get irritated when it's done to me, but I've mostly learned that >whining about it ultimately hurts my ability to refute them on more >substantial points of science.
Over the years, I've witness that the most impressive, and I'd say >effective, contributors to t.o tended to ignore the insults and abuse >thrown at them. I like learning from others. I do write some rather
spicy retorts to the abusive rhetoric but almost always delete them >without posting because I'm convinced their primary benefit is
my own cathartic benefit in writing them, not in their being posted.
You disagree with me on that approach, and perhaps on how
close I come to meeting that standard.
The above contradicts your original parable, which describes the metaphorical dog owners as being casually negligent, while your second version describes them as being proactively responsible. That alters
the entire sense of your parable.
You also characterize my "projection" incorrectly. I neither stated
nor implied my "projection" was about "antisocial, rude, or dishonest language and behavior from posters." In fact, your parable works to
that case AND to bogus ID apologetics. In fact, I emphatically
include bogus ID apologetics in your metaphorical "steaming piles of
doggy doodoo". Both are from the same source.
In either case, my point remains valid. In your original parable,
there are two "problems", not one:
1. your "guy", the one you describe negatively as "screaming and screeching".
2. The casually negligent dog owners.
To which I added a third problem:
3. Those who complain about the noise from 1. while ignoring the
unhealthy stench from 2.
This problem is displayed in T.O. by those who complain about 1., and
in real-life by those who complain about "woke" activism and
activists.
In your modification above, you rehabilitated your original negligent
dog owners. I acknowledge there exist socially responsible
metaphorical dog owners, but they are a subset.
There is a relevant fourth group:
4. those who work effectively to:
A. convince 2. to metaphorically behave socially responsibly, and by
so doing...
B. mitigate the metaphorical doggy doodoo, and by so doing...
C. mitigate the metaphorical "screaming and screeching" coming from
both 1. and 2.
Based on your comments above, our disagreement is whether 4. is most
closely associated with 1, 2, or 3.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 01:26:11 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:...says the obnoxious (or is that "noxious"?) lighter.
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
Fine but if you keep fucking with both Jillery and Bob fuck you and the
sockpuppets you rode in on.
For an asexual gecko you are very rude.
What happened to your manners?
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does it come naturally >>to you?
Option two for the win, Hemi.
Fine but if you keep fucking with both Jillery and Bob fuck you
and the sockpuppets you rode in on.
For an asexual gecko you are very rude.
What happened to your manners?
Fuck manners and you too troll.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Asexual Gecko:
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does it come naturally >>> to you?
Option two for the win, Hemi.
How cute. Bobby and Hemi, they really love each other! Which makes
Hemi's asexuality even more regretful.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery
posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity: >>***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary? >>***********************************
That was just 1 simple...
...question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 03:27:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:48:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>My only response to all of your condescending and
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 05:04:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:57:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:It was a shortening of "jillery", which I assumed (yeah, I
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 20:26:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:43:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>wrote:I didn't imply it was.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni jillery:Since there is apparently only one of her (and since "her"
[Snip further nonsense about all kinds of "opinions"]
Works for me too.
Very good! (For a not very bright person.)
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
If you tell me that it is not my business that's fine by me too. In that
case will refer to you as they, them, their etc.
is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" seems to >>>>>>>indicate unless other evidence emerges), "them", which is
plural, is inappropriate. IMHO, and YMMV.
"jill" is NOT my nym.
<which "jill" seems to indicate> so implies. If you now say "jill"
had no relevance to your comments, then your mention of it is >>>>pointless.
know) would be understood. Mea culpa.
I suppose that's as close to a retraction as you can muster.
I see nothing in what I wrote to even vaguely imply thatAs I have stated several times, "jillery" is aSorry; missed those. So it's basically a made-up word with
neologism which has nothing to do with ANY name.
no significance of any sort. Got it.
All words are made up. Neologisms are recent inventions, and have as >>>>much meaning as any other word. The significance of "jillery" is it's >>>>my chosen Usenet nym, which is my purpose for creating it.
I have also statedNor did I imply it did.
several times, my gender/sex does not inform my opinions expressed in >>>>>>T.O., or their veracity
<and since "her" is appropriate for biological females, which "jill" >>>>seems to indicate> so implies. Either you don't understand the >>>>implications of your words, or you had a sudden compulsion to post >>>>pointless comments. Pick your poison.
your gender, whatever it is and whatever you might imagine
it to be, affects your posts in any way whatsoever.
As I said, then you had no good reason to even mention it.
Or does
simply mentioning a possible gender imply such to you? If
so, you may need professional help to deal with that
obsession.
Yes, please post more willfully stupid personal attacks. I expect
nothing different from you.
, and those who obsess about personal detailsAs you say.
are almost always trolling.
The above are matters of fact and not subject to opinions, yours or >>>>>>otherwise.
self-serving "replies" to me today:
Have A Nice Day.
I won't trouble your fantasies any further in this thread.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:55:07?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 03:38:09 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:10:32?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
My guess is the above post is not the one Daggett meant to attach his
comments below. Instead it was to this post, which I copy here for
continuity:
You are correct in your guess. I thus delete the cross threaded bit.
****************************************************
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 03:32:56 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett*******************************************************
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >> >>> >>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >> >>> >> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >> >>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >> >>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >> >>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
Your parable above describes two separate problems. And if your
intent is to accurately reflect events in T.O., your parable would
include a third group; those who blame the "guy" for making so much
noise, even as they completely ignore the steaming piles of doggy
doodoo turning their neighborhood into an unhealthy Hellhole.
The following is Daggett's reply in its entirety, followed by my reply
to it:
In my view, that's not the proper extension of the metaphor. Rather,
there are neighbors who have spent significant time actually cleaning
up the mess deposited in their yards, have gone so far as to place a
dispensor for poop bags on their mail post and or left a trash can out
near the curb, and have on occasion chided neighbors who they witness
not cleaning up after their dogs. They recognize the fact that the
problem exists and have done their part to fight it. What they object
to is someone hysterically ranting on about perps and rubes while
kicking the poop around.
The difference is you are projecting that "poop" represents antisocial,
rude, or dishonest language and behavior from posters. I intend it to
mean bogus ID apologetics.
I have little interest in playing cloakroom monitor and scolding every
fool who tells a lie on talk.origins, or who using dishonest rhetoric.
Sure, I get irritated when it's done to me, but I've mostly learned that >> >whining about it ultimately hurts my ability to refute them on more
substantial points of science.
Over the years, I've witness that the most impressive, and I'd say
effective, contributors to t.o tended to ignore the insults and abuse
thrown at them. I like learning from others. I do write some rather
spicy retorts to the abusive rhetoric but almost always delete them
without posting because I'm convinced their primary benefit is
my own cathartic benefit in writing them, not in their being posted.
You disagree with me on that approach, and perhaps on how
close I come to meeting that standard.
The above contradicts your original parable, which describes the
metaphorical dog owners as being casually negligent, while your second
version describes them as being proactively responsible. That alters
the entire sense of your parable.
In this you misapprehend.
That there exist some in a neighborhood that do not pick up after
their dogs does not imply that it is a majority. I would have thought
that was obvious but perhaps I presume too much familiarity with
common suburban experiences.
JTEM disgraced me with::
Go on; what did you say that you need to "argue" against, and why?
You first.
For a
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery >>>posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity: >>>***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary? >>>***********************************
That was just 1 simple...
... and silly...
...question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
Or you could have not posted it in the first place, and you would have >avoided looking silly and stupid.
You’ve managed to get me to throw in for both Bob and Jillery despite their >differences.
I don’t care for you. You seem really obsessed with love and
sexuality when it comes to people you just met cute on a usenet group.
John Harshman wrote:
For a
I
h
Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
It's amazing how trolls
You will probably accuse me of trolling when I note that you seem
totally obsessed with trolls and trolling.
who make a point of saying how jillery "isn't
very bright" have no problem posting willfully stupid comments like
the above.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come naturally to them.
We have a live one.
John Harshman wrote:
For a
I honestly don't care. Go ahead and read my post for comprehension.
Or just keep making up shit to react to and pretend you're replying to
me. Your choice.
Abiogenesis still isn't science, and it's not science for the exact same reasons that the Silurian <ahem> "hypothesis" isn't science.
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Youve managed to get me to throw in for both Bob and Jillery despite their >differences. I dont care for you. You seem really obsessed with love and >sexuality when it comes to people you just met cute on a usenet group. What >that means I leave to the lurkers.
Asexual Gecko:
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does it come naturally
to you?
Option two for the win, Hemi.
How cute. Bobby and Hemi, they really love each other! Which makes
Hemi's asexuality even more regretful.
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
I'm beginning to sense the utility of an addition to the
"time-out" file, since as with most denizens thereof there
seem to be few or no meaningful contributions and a surfeit
of what I think of as "JTEMishness".
Or maybe he'll resume nymshifting and remove the necessity
when DIG notices...
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:10:06?PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
That was a mistake, Pancho [Spanish for Frank].
You've quote-mined yourself in a way that makes you look foolish, by
deleting what came before. IMHO Hemidactylus's remark was an unwarranted >insult. You can't expect everyone to take the trouble to read what touched it off.
Are you posting to any other talk.origins threads besides this one?
I'd love to see you post something really on-topic for the purposes to which >talk.origins was set up -- literally, debate about the origins of life, especially
life on earth, with special emphasis on the origins of intelligent life, >especially ours.
See the link I provided in my reply to Hemidactylus a little while ago for inspiration:
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2013_05.html
Here is the url for the reply itself, in case your newsreader doesn't
provide a quick scroll-up for it:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/mEOE_bzRAQAJ
I got the impression earlier that you do not use Google Groups to read talk.origins.
Which newsreader do you use? Google Groups does not provide that information, >although it used to until the latest change, about which Google lied that it >was keeping "all your favorite features."
Peter Nyikos
PS Back in the 1990's, Hemidactylus signed his posts with "Scott Chase."
He has never given any indication that this was not his real name, FWIW.
jillery stupidly said:
JTEM disgraced me with::
Go on; what did you say that you need to "argue" against, and why?
You first.
I started the thread. I did go first, you blithering idiot.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>>>naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery >>>>posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity: >>>>***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary? >>>>***********************************
That was just 1 simple...
... and silly...
Agreed. But it started a nice silly argument between several
participants about jillery and his/her/their/its gender and
*Hemidactyulus* coming out of the closet as an asexual gecko.
...question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
Or you could have not posted it in the first place, and you would have >>avoided looking silly and stupid.
Talking about silly and stupid. Once again you succeeding in making a
fool of yourself by misunderstanding the difference between one single >question and an ongoing silly discussion.
Please try to understand what you read next time.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:55:05?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Frank Zippo <fzi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:We have a live one.
Oh dear! One of jillery's capacitors has started leaking!
It's amazing how trolls
You will probably accuse me of trolling when I note that you seem
totally obsessed with trolls and trolling.
who make a point of saying how jillery "isn't
very bright" have no problem posting willfully stupid comments like
the above.
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come
naturally to them.
Up to the moment you wrote this two days ago, Zippo reminded me of deadrat
in the way he has jillery pegged. The long-gone deadrat called jillery a "Drama Queen"
and even had a title for jillery: "The Sakabeyan of talk.origins."
Since then, Zippo unwisely got into a silly tangle with you over your >moniker, and so my hopes have been dashed to there being another >jillery-savvy regular with the caliber and versatility of deadrat, who
once earned the distinction of having done a POTM (Post of the Month):
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2013_05.html
Other long-gone, high caliber regulars who had astutely taken the measure of jilley
included Roger Shrubber, Richard Norman, and Nick Keighley [sp?].
Peter Nyikos
PS It's sad to see how much talk.origins has deteriorated since 2013.
Do you know whether it is still possible to add something to the Talk.Origins Archive,
where the linked webpage appeared?
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
[Bobby and Hemi find consolation in each other's arms]
I'm beginning to sense the utility of an addition to the
"time-out" file, since as with most denizens thereof there
seem to be few or no meaningful contributions and a surfeit
of what I think of as "JTEMishness".
Or maybe he'll resume nymshifting and remove the necessity
when DIG notices...
Why don't you and your asexual girlfriend "Hemi" write an angry letter
to DIG and ask him/her/them/it to have me removed immediately &
permanently from this nice and cozy snakep^H^H^H^H^H^Hnewsgroup? (You
should probably do the writing as you seem to have a quite way with
words, as your killfile threatening text above shows.)
Maybe you could even set your childish wars with your usual enemies >temporarily aside and ask them for support. With their backing ousting
me should be a piece of cake!
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
[Bobby and Hemi find consolation in each other's arms]
I'm beginning to sense the utility of an addition to the
"time-out" file, since as with most denizens thereof there
seem to be few or no meaningful contributions and a surfeit
of what I think of as "JTEMishness".
Or maybe he'll resume nymshifting and remove the necessity
when DIG notices...
Why don't you and your asexual girlfriend "Hemi" write an angry letter
to DIG and ask him/her/them/it to have me removed immediately &
permanently from this nice and cozy snakep^H^H^H^H^H^Hnewsgroup? (You
should probably do the writing as you seem to have a quite way with
words, as your killfile threatening text above shows.)
Maybe you could even set your childish wars with your usual enemies >temporarily aside and ask them for support. With their backing ousting
me should be a piece of cake!
FYI, any mention of jillery or mention or characteristics of jillery will almost always
get a response.
Threads started by jillery have often been informative,
replies
from jillery are generally not so much, particularly recently when jillery is in an
aggravated state.
This post will almost certainly draw fire.
Why don't you and your asexual girlfriend "Hemi" write an angry letter
to DIG and ask him/her/them/it to have me removed immediately &
permanently from this nice and cozy snakep^H^H^H^H^H^Hnewsgroup? (You >>should probably do the writing as you seem to have a quite way with
words, as your killfile threatening text above shows.)
Maybe you could even set your childish wars with your usual enemies >>temporarily aside and ask them for support. With their backing ousting
me should be a piece of cake!
Nah, you'renot worth the trouble, little as it would be;
trolls very seldom are. I'l just watch.
Popcorn, anyone?
That was just 1 simple... [question]
... and silly...
Agreed. But it started a nice silly argument between several
participants about jillery and his/her/their/its gender and
*Hemidactyulus* coming out of the closet as an asexual gecko.
So you admit you're posting mindless noise for the sake of it.
Talking about silly and stupid. Once again you succeeding in making a
fool of yourself by misunderstanding the difference between one single >>question and an ongoing silly discussion.
That difference doesn't inform the irony of your comments.
Please try to understand what you read next time.
You first.
Gisulat ni jillery:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>> naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery
posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity:
***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you***********************************
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or >>none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
Or not answer at all.
Why is it so important to you?
Your relentless quips
about me, such as being a “sissy” or Bob’s asexual girlfriend,
show you to
be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades.
You have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
Maybe I missed something thoughtful
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>> from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
Or not answer at all.
I read a post of someone referring to jillery as a "she". So I thought
I'd ask. Nothing wrong with that or is it?
Why is it so important to you?
It isn't. So I stopped asking and abstained from participating in the "discussion" that followed. Until you came with your rather pompous
"asexual gecko" remark and asked if anyone had a problem with *that*.
To be honest I fully expected you to take my "objection" with a grain of salt. But you didn't. So I took advantage of it. How bad of me!
Your relentless quips
about me, such as being a “sissy” or Bob’s asexual girlfriend,
Oh dear! You really are The Princess On The Pea, aren't you?
show you to
be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >> feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades.
Well it has, hasn't it? This Talk Origins FAQ speaks of a nice, cozy environment with people discussing evolution vs creation in an orderly
and civilized fashion. Not at all the situation I encountered when I
arrived.
You have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
Oh dear! Let's write down and commemorate the date I posted my first
message in here as the date talk.origins finally lost the last vestiges
of its innocence and became the unpleasant viper pit it is today.
But I'm going to better my life and straighten out my act, so I dumped
JTEM, jillery, Bobby and, after this post, you in my killfile and try to follow the serious discussions in here from now on. And when I bump into another silly brawler I kill him too.
Let's see what will be left in here after I finished my cleaning
operation.
Bye!
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
Your relentless quips
about me, such as being a “sissy” or Bob’s asexual girlfriend,
Oh dear! You really are The Princess On The Pea, aren't you?
Gisulat ni Öö Tiib:
Maybe I missed something thoughtfulYes, you did.
This rant
Maybe I missed something thoughtful
Yes, you did.
Then cite if it matters ... I don't want to dig the boring trash.
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place.
JTEM truthed:
jillery stupidly said:
JTEM disgraced me with::
Go on; what did you say that you need to "argue" against, and why?
You first.
I started the thread. I did go first, you blithering idiot.
That you started this topic
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place.
Your "Argument" here is that you lack any grasp of the issues, not to mention imagination, thus you have to be right.
First off, you entirely misunderstood what I said so I'll repeat it:
Abiogenesis isn't science, and it isn't science for the exact same reason that the silurian "hypothesis" isn't science.
Next, you can Google "Panspermia."
You haven't shown much of a command of Google, to say the least, not
so far and I'm merely being polite with the "So far." No, you're not good
at these things. But if you ask someone for help, maybe one of the other incarcerated felons in your cell block, you could not only find information on "Panspermia" but some details on the subject.
Good luck with that.
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni jillery:Or not answer at all. Why is it so important to you? Your relentless quips >about me, such as being a sissy or Bobs asexual girlfriend, show you to
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>> naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery
posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity:
***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you***********************************
from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades. You
have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
Gisulat ni Öö Tiib:
Maybe I missed something thoughtful
Yes, you did.
Then cite if it matters ... I don't want to dig the boring trash.Well, you could for starters read the comment you cut from my
preprevious post, on the current sorry state of talk.origins, the "unpleasant viper pit" as I called it.
Then start thinking and try to imagine you are totally new to this
unholy cesspool.
Every day the regulars are routinely bashing each other's head in, but
when someone new comes in here and makes a bit off fun of the kinder-
garten style brawls one gets indignant and compares the newcomer to a
party pooper.
I think it's stupid, ignorant and hypocritical.
Btw, in the same post from which you cut the bulk I announced my new direction, including my intention to put idiots away in my killfile.
If you want me to add you just say so.
It's a troll.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place.
The unintentional irony of asking Peter Nyikos to google "panspermia" is beyond all measure.
John Harshman wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place.
The unintentional irony of asking Peter Nyikos to google "panspermia" is
beyond all measure.
What is ironic is pretending to be different people who both just happen to misunderstand Panspermia the exact same way.
On 5/2/23 2:18 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:The unintentional irony of asking Peter Nyikos to google "panspermia" is >>> beyond all measure.
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place. >>
What is ironic is pretending to be different people who both just happen to >> misunderstand Panspermia the exact same way.
Note to Peter: JTEM thinks we're all the same person; you, me, jillery,
lots of others. Deeply delusional.
On Tue, 02 May 2023 10:22:16 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:It's a troll. And like all trolls it will just keep poking
Gisulat ni jillery:Or not answer at all. Why is it so important to you? Your relentless quips >> about me, such as being a sissy or Bobs asexual girlfriend, show you to
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>>> naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery
posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity:
***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>> from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?***********************************
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or
none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >> feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades. You
have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
to get a reaction, which I why I've decided it can just keep
talking to itself.
Note to
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 10:22:16 +0000, the following appearedHe was nothing but a quick speed bump or ephemeral skid mark in the scheme
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:It's a troll. And like all trolls it will just keep poking
Gisulat ni jillery:Or not answer at all. Why is it so important to you? Your relentless quips >>> about me, such as being a ?sissy? or Bob?s asexual girlfriend, show you to >>> be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >>> feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades. You >>> have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Some make willfully stupid remarks while others have stupidity come >>>>>>>>> naturally to them.
We have a live one.
I'm beginning to believe you're correct.
The ongoing silly discussion about jillery's gender proves it.
The irony, it burns.
And for those who claim to be distracted by such phrases when jillery >>>>> posts them, the following demonstrates its veracity:
***********************************
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:17:36 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>> from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?***********************************
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or >>>> none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
to get a reaction, which I why I've decided it can just keep
talking to itself.
of things.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/23 2:18 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Thats kinda how I was reading him, but was hesitant to opine.
John Harshman wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:The unintentional irony of asking Peter Nyikos to google "panspermia" is >>>> beyond all measure.
Unless you are a creationist, you know that abiogenesis has taken place. >>>
What is ironic is pretending to be different people who both just happen to >>> misunderstand Panspermia the exact same way.
Note to Peter: JTEM thinks we're all the same person; you, me, jillery,
lots of others. Deeply delusional.
jillery wrote:
JTEM played with himself:
jillery wrote:
JTEM wet himself:
Go on; what did you say that you need to "argue" against, and why?
You first.
I started the thread. I did go first, you blithering idiot.
That you started this topic doesn't inform your willfully stupid
question above. I posted no comment about your OP. YOU started YOUR
troll in reply to my reply to NOT YOU.
So, once again, to the willfully stupid troll: You first.
Gisulat ni *Hemidactylus*:
And now for something completely different. How should I address you >>>>>from now on? Male? Female? Both? Fluid? Non-binary?
That was just 1 simple question you could have answered with yes, no or >>>none of your business. And then it would be schluss for me.
Or not answer at all.
I read a post of someone referring to jillery as a "she". So I thought
I'd ask. Nothing wrong with that or is it?
Why is it so important to you?
It isn't.
So I stopped asking and abstained from participating in the
"discussion" that followed. Until you came with your rather pompous
"asexual gecko" remark and asked if anyone had a problem with *that*.
To be honest I fully expected you to take my "objection" with a grain of >salt. But you didn't. So I took advantage of it. How bad of me!
Your relentless quips
about me, such as being a “sissy” or Bob’s asexual girlfriend,
Oh dear! You really are The Princess On The Pea, aren't you?
show you to
be nothing but an abusive bigot. And a shit poster, ironically from someone >>feigning a lament for how talk.origins has changed over the decades.
Well it has, hasn't it? This Talk Origins FAQ speaks of a nice, cozy >environment with people discussing evolution vs creation in an orderly
and civilized fashion. Not at all the situation I encountered when I
arrived.
You have single-handedly shown how downhill the group can go. Congrats.
Oh dear! Let's write down and commemorate the date I posted my first
message in here as the date talk.origins finally lost the last vestiges
of its innocence and became the unpleasant viper pit it is today.
But I'm going to better my life and straighten out my act, so I dumped
JTEM, jillery, Bobby and, after this post, you in my killfile and try to >follow the serious discussions in here from now on. And when I bump into >another silly brawler I kill him too.
Let's see what will be left in here after I finished my cleaning
operation.
Bye!
Gisulat ni Öö Tiib:
Maybe I missed something thoughtful
Yes, you did.
Then cite if it matters ... I don't want to dig the boring trash.
Well, you could for starters read the comment you cut from my
preprevious post, on the current sorry state of talk.origins, the
"unpleasant viper pit" as I called it.
Then start thinking and try to imagine you are totally new to this
unholy cesspool.
Every day the regulars are routinely bashing each other's head in, but
when someone new comes in here and makes a bit off fun of the kinder-
garten style brawls one gets indignant and compares the newcomer to a
party pooper.
I think it's stupid, ignorant and hypocritical.
Btw, in the same post from which you cut the bulk I announced my new >direction, including my intention to put idiots away in my killfile.
If you want me to add you just say so.
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:10:06?PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
That was a mistake, Pancho [Spanish for Frank].
You've quote-mined yourself in a way that makes you look foolish, by >deleting what came before. IMHO Hemidactylus's remark was an unwarranted >insult. You can't expect everyone to take the trouble to read what touched it off.
Are you posting to any other talk.origins threads besides this one?
I'd love to see you post something really on-topic for the purposes to which
talk.origins was set up -- literally, debate about the origins of life, especially
life on earth, with special emphasis on the origins of intelligent life, >especially ours.
See the link I provided in my reply to Hemidactylus a little while ago for inspiration:
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2013_05.html
Here is the url for the reply itself, in case your newsreader doesn't >provide a quick scroll-up for it:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/mEOE_bzRAQAJ
I got the impression earlier that you do not use Google Groups to read talk.origins.
Which newsreader do you use? Google Groups does not provide that information,
although it used to until the latest change, about which Google lied that it
was keeping "all your favorite features."
Peter Nyikos
PS Back in the 1990's, Hemidactylus signed his posts with "Scott Chase." >He has never given any indication that this was not his real name, FWIW.
Allow me to sleep on it & answer later.
--
Zippo
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:10:06?PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
That was a mistake, Pancho [Spanish for Frank].
You've quote-mined yourself in a way that makes you look foolish, by
deleting what came before. IMHO Hemidactylus's remark was an unwarranted >>> insult. You can't expect everyone to take the trouble to read what touched it off.
Are you posting to any other talk.origins threads besides this one?
I'd love to see you post something really on-topic for the purposes to which
talk.origins was set up -- literally, debate about the origins of life, especially
life on earth, with special emphasis on the origins of intelligent life, >>> especially ours.
See the link I provided in my reply to Hemidactylus a little while ago for inspiration:
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2013_05.html
Here is the url for the reply itself, in case your newsreader doesn't
provide a quick scroll-up for it:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/mEOE_bzRAQAJ
I got the impression earlier that you do not use Google Groups to read talk.origins.
Which newsreader do you use? Google Groups does not provide that information,
although it used to until the latest change, about which Google lied that it
was keeping "all your favorite features."
Peter Nyikos
PS Back in the 1990's, Hemidactylus signed his posts with "Scott Chase." >>> He has never given any indication that this was not his real name, FWIW.
Allow me to sleep on it & answer later.
--
Zippo
Have you decided yet whether to start posting on-topic?
If you have an idea for an on-topic post, I suggest you start a new
thread with it. I will gladly join and try to contribute to it.
If not, I highly recommend that you look at the thread,
"The IDiocy that never existed." Please begin your reading with
my first post to the thread, and then read my reply to Öö Tiib,
to get a good idea of some of the issues involved. They are:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/EcMg3wOgBAAJ
Re: The IDiocy that never existed
May 2, 2023, 9:10:08 AM
and about half an hour later:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/wgMEdMLJBAAJ
If you have any questions or comments on what I wrote there,
please let me know what they are, and I will gladly respond to them.
Judging from your behavior here, you may be strongly tempted
to argue with the two people who have responded to me so far,
but it is important that you first let it be known that you are seriously interested in the science-related issues that are involved in the thread.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:10:06?PM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
["Unmarked snippage"]
Do you try really hard to be an obnoxious jackass or does
it come naturally to you?
I'd rather be an obnoxious jackass than an asexual gecko.
That was a mistake, Pancho [Spanish for Frank].
You've quote-mined yourself in a way that makes you look foolish, by
deleting what came before. IMHO Hemidactylus's remark was an unwarranted >>> insult. You can't expect everyone to take the trouble to read what touched it off.
Are you posting to any other talk.origins threads besides this one?
I'd love to see you post something really on-topic for the purposes to which
talk.origins was set up -- literally, debate about the origins of life, especially
life on earth, with special emphasis on the origins of intelligent life, >>> especially ours.
See the link I provided in my reply to Hemidactylus a little while ago for inspiration:
https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2013_05.html
Here is the url for the reply itself, in case your newsreader doesn't >>> provide a quick scroll-up for it:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/mEOE_bzRAQAJ >>>
I got the impression earlier that you do not use Google Groups to read talk.origins.
Which newsreader do you use? Google Groups does not provide that information,
although it used to until the latest change, about which Google lied that it
was keeping "all your favorite features."
Peter Nyikos
PS Back in the 1990's, Hemidactylus signed his posts with "Scott Chase." >>> He has never given any indication that this was not his real name, FWIW.
Allow me to sleep on it & answer later.
--
Zippo
Have you decided yet whether to start posting on-topic?
If you have an idea for an on-topic post, I suggest you start a new
thread with it. I will gladly join and try to contribute to it.
If not, I highly recommend that you look at the thread,
"The IDiocy that never existed." Please begin your reading with
my first post to the thread, and then read my reply to Öö Tiib,
to get a good idea of some of the issues involved. They are:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/EcMg3wOgBAAJ
Re: The IDiocy that never existed
May 2, 2023, 9:10:08 AM
and about half an hour later:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/wgMEdMLJBAAJ
If you have any questions or comments on what I wrote there,
please let me know what they are, and I will gladly respond to them.
Judging from your behavior here, you may be strongly tempted
to argue with the two people who have responded to me so far,
but it is important that you first let it be known that you are seriously interested in the science-related issues that are involved in the thread.
Remind me what your views on Prawnster were again…
On 4/28/23 6:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
You may hallucinate that cutting of other people's text to make it mean >> something different is clever. But that's true only in your private world.
Wrong. It's been true in jillery's private world for over a decade, and it's gotten more and more frequent recently.
That jillery or perhaps others do it too (if indeed that's true) isn't relevant and doesn't make what I said wrong.
Once again you manufacture
an opportunity to launch a pointless attack on your favorite enemies.
And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
resulting from this irrelevant seed.
Have you decided yet whether to start posting on-topic?
If you have an idea for an on-topic post, I suggest you start a new
thread with it. I will gladly join and try to contribute to it.
Gisulat ni peter2...@gmail.com:
Have you decided yet whether to start posting on-topic?
Maybe. If Big DIG allows.
If you have an idea for an on-topic post, I suggest you start a new
thread with it. I will gladly join and try to contribute to it.
I've just downloaded two books; Darwins's Doubt and Signatures In The
Cell by Stephen C. Meyer.
Maybe I could start a nice on-topic discussion
about those. And there's still The Scars Of Evolution by Elaine Morgan,
to give me some ammunition against my Belgian adversary GondwanaTalks Verhaegen, although I fear his bullet-proof vest is nigh inpenetrable.
Also refreshed my message database, meaning the main brawlers in here
will be totally invisible from now on.
A nice fresh restart! :-)
--
Zippo
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:17:07 |
| Calls: | 9,810 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,444 |