On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Replying to a post Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:26:02 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/2/23 10:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:10:39 AM UTC-4, Ron.Dean wrote: >>> On 7/12/23 7:59 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is my second reply to this post. The concluding reply will come either tomorrow or early next week.
Rather than wait, I'm taking this opportunity to announce this here.
If you ever pull this crap on me again, chopping up a post and replying to it in multiple parts, I won't respond. It's an obnoxious behavior laden
with self-glorification on your part. So when you feel the need to spew your nonsense and be assured I won't bother to debunk it, go ahead and split up your response into multiple parts. But understand that just about
nobody else does what you do, and you'll be discrediting yourself.
This is highly reminiscent of the post for which I nominated you for July Chez Watt:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/BzTo5u_f6t4/m/04o4TlgdBQAJ
Almost exactly the same length, with simulated exasperation [compare: "That is an absolutely horrible analogy."], and a last sentence that
is almost as farfetched as the last one there.
However, I will not nominate it for an August Chez Watt, and I hope no one else does either. I don't want to risk it being taken literally by more people than have already done so.
I have been an educator all my adult life, and to literally do as you say would be turning my back on my essential nature.
You do understand, don't you?
Peter Nyikos, The Outlier
PS That nickname is inspired by Mark Isaak's correction of an earlier derogatory word that he had used. It fits your last sentence like a glove.
As it's become a topic of sorts, your response here is delusional.
Nonsense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
while making my very serious point abundantly clear in that long line ending
in the words "essential nature."
I wasn't joking. You amazingly did recognize a prior post where I
did make a joke about auto-repair. It was an obvious joke, and you
seemed so proud to have recognized that.
Mistaken/insincere "seemed so proud" put-down noted.
It took Ernest Major's encouragement to give me the courage
to actually nominate your post. Even so, it was almost
a day before I hit upon a Category that didn't detract from the
brilliant surrealism of your post.
But it seems like you
didn't quite grasp the joke.
Wishful thinking noted.
And then there are a suite of posts where people criticize you
and you defensively assert they must be joking,
"people" includes many, like yourself and Harshman,
who fit the description that I told Harshman about:
`One of several reasons why I describe you as being "The most cunningly dishonest person in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology" is that your comments run the entire spectrum from obvious jokes to shameless lies, with a gradualism that Darwin had hoped
for evolution to follow.' --
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/7SnK33k4AgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
Don't get your hopes up for beating Harshman for that superlative, even within t.o.
There are other reasons he deserves it, and you don't come within a country mile
of fulfilling all of them.
and further, if
they don't explicitly deny they were joking that you win. Then,
you play at more "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetorical games
that seem to make you feel very clever.
You may think of talk.origins as a game, but I don't.
I treat it as a game (as in the OP) when I think there
is a chance of peaceful coexistence on the thread.
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't wish for
peaceful coexistence. A sincere thanks to you for relieving
me of the burden of a one-sided striving for it with you.
It's pathetic.
...glass houses...stones.
Mostly, I feel like avoiding calling you on it because it seems
like picking on the emotionally disturbed. I'm very sincere here.
You are gaslighting here, hence indulging in an antithesis of sincerity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
You tried to gaslight me in the same way on the subject of a song
you proudly displayed some words of, but I showed you just
how wrong you were about that.
I often wonder if I should avoid all responses to you on mental
health grounds.
More gaslighting, unsupported by any resemblance of
reason or sincerity.
But you persist, in your abusive way. And you do
so under the color of your stature as an academic. It's wrong.
I'm at a loss about how to deal with your poison. But you've been
ramping it up lately. You are not well. Seek help.
You are getting to sound like a one-trick pony.
I'd accuse you of libel, but that's more seriousness than a twit
like you deserves.
Peter Nyikos
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)