A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898

I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.

I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.

So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.

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

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> >
> > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
>
> I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
>
> So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account. Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs". If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes. I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles, and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.

On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898

I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:34:55 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> >
> > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
> sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
> previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.

Yes. There are a bunch of surprises in there. Follow up research should be
interesting.

On 8/23/22 8:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
>>
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
>
> I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.

You need some newer references. Thalattosaurs are a distinctive group;
they're mentioned by Romer 1966 in the chapter on lepidosaurs, and never
associated with plesiosaurs to my knowledge. Sauropterygia is a
well-known taxon that includes plesiosaurs, placodonts, and a few
others; they're also in Romer 1966. in the chapter on euryapsids.

> I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
>
> So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > >
> > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> >
> > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> >
> > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

> I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.

"It's all about you, isn't it?"

Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.

> Still, the phylogenetics of early
> Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> amateurs".

You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.

> If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.

When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.

And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.

Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.

> I'd have thought you might have
> been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,

Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?

> and the increasing agreement of
> morphological vs. genetic analysis.

Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?

Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.

Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".

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

PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> >
> > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898

> I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
> sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
> previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.

Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs.
Wasn't that a surprise for you too?

Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
of which Erik made so much.

By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.

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

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > >
> > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > >
> > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > University of South Carolina
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> "It's all about you, isn't it?"
>
> Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
> > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > amateurs".
> You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> where you know they don't belong.
> > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> that it labored long and arduously.
>
> And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
>
> Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
> > I'd have thought you might have
> > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > and the increasing agreement of
> > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
>
> Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
>
> Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you

From "not happy" to "happiness"...LOL! In a very real way, authors of scientific papers should be concerned with whether others are satisfied with their assumptions and results. That should not be restricted to a select group of "others". That Erik wants you to believe they aren't concerned says volumes about Erik, and not a peep about the authors themselves.
Arrogance doesn't necessarily indicate a conscious motive to troll, but regardless...it is ironic, and quite curious, that the result is the same, and that arrogant people often do not see that.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > >
> > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > >
> > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > University of South Carolina
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> "It's all about you, isn't it?"
>
> Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
> > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > amateurs".
> You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> where you know they don't belong.
> > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> that it labored long and arduously.
>
> And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
>
> Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
> > I'd have thought you might have
> > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > and the increasing agreement of
> > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
>
> Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
>
> Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you

I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait. You don't
seem interested, and raised objections. In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
No trolling intended. If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.

On 8/23/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
>>>
>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
>
>> I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
>> sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
>> previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
>
> Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs.
> Wasn't that a surprise for you too?

It would have been if I had noticed, but I was concentrating on
Sauropterygia.

> Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
> of which Erik made so much.
>
>
> By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
> with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
> it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
> turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.

I had no trouble reading the tree. And of course Science likes to cut
space to the bone, so two versions of the same tree would be very
unlikely to make it into the paper.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > > >
> > > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > > >
> > > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> > "It's all about you, isn't it?"
> >
> > Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.

> > > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > amateurs".

> > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > where you know they don't belong.

> > > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> > When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> > less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> > that it labored long and arduously.
> >
> > And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> > nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
> >
> > Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> > an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.

> > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,

> > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?

> > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> >
> > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?

> > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you

> I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.

Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:

[repeated from above]
> > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > amateurs".
> > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > where you know they don't belong.
[end of copy]

> You don't seem interested, and raised objections.

That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.

> In the past you did show great interest in
> the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.

I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?

To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.

> No trolling intended.

If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.

> If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.

More flamebait.

Peter Nyikos

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> > > "It's all about you, isn't it?"
> > >
> > > Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
>
> > > > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > amateurs".
>
> > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > where you know they don't belong.
>
> > > > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> > > When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> > > less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> > > that it labored long and arduously.
> > >
> > > And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> > > nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
> > >
> > > Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> > > an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
>
> > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
>
> > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
>
> > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
>
> > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > >
> > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > University of South Carolina
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
>
> > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
>
> > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> said this time around, not about the OP:
>
> [repeated from above]
> > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > amateurs".
> > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > where you know they don't belong.
> [end of copy]
> > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > In the past you did show great interest in
> > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
>
> To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> between lines of text which it is hiding.
>
> > No trolling intended.
>
> If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> More flamebait.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.

I'm also not "flamebaiting" you, whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good. Otherwise, I'm gone.

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > > > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > > > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > > > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > > > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > > > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> > > > "It's all about you, isn't it?"
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
> >
> > > > > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > amateurs".
> >
> > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > where you know they don't belong.
> >
> > > > > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> > > > When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> > > > less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> > > > that it labored long and arduously.
> > > >
> > > > And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> > > > nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
> > > >
> > > > Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> > > > an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
> >
> > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> >
> > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> >
> > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> >
> > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> >
> > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> >
> > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.

> > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > said this time around, not about the OP:
> >
> > [repeated from above]
> > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > amateurs".
> > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > [end of copy]
> > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.

> > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> >
> > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> >
> > > No trolling intended.
> >
> > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> > More flamebait.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.

What part of the above didn't you understand?

[repeated from above]
> > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> >
> > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > between lines of text which it is hiding.
[end of copy]

The text to which I was referring is this

[also repeated from above]
> > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?

>
> I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,

For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.

> whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> stick to paleo, good.

[also repeated from above]
> > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.

> > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
[end of copy]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
trolling this time around.

Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.

Peter Nyikos

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > > > > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > > > > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > > > > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > > > > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > > > > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
> > > > > "It's all about you, isn't it?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
> > >
> > > > > > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > amateurs".
> > >
> > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > >
> > > > > > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> > > > > When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> > > > > less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> > > > > that it labored long and arduously.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> > > > > nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> > > > > an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
> > >
> > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > >
> > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > >
> > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> > >
> > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > >
> > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > >
> > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
>
> > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > said this time around, not about the OP:
> > >
> > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > [end of copy]
> > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
>
> > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > >
> > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > >
> > > > No trolling intended.
> > >
> > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> > > More flamebait.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
>
> > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
> What part of the above didn't you understand?
>
> [repeated from above]
> > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > >
> > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> [end of copy]
>
> The text to which I was referring is this
>
> [also repeated from above]
> > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
>
>
> >
> > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
> See also below.
> > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > stick to paleo, good.
> [also repeated from above]
> > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
>
> > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> [end of copy]
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> trolling this time around.
>
> Why don't you post something from the article that you
> would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> > No trolling intended.
>>
>> If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
>> > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
>> More flamebait.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
>to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
>
>I'm also not "flamebaiting" you, whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
>stick to paleo, good. Otherwise, I'm gone.

ISTM the peter is incapable of separating substance from noise.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 3:51:58 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> > > > I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
> > > > for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
> > > >
> > > > I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
> > > > listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
> > > >
> > > > So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
> > > > It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
> > > > except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > University of South Carolina
> > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.

You addressed this taunt expertly below, Glenn.

> > "It's all about you, isn't it?"
> >
> > Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.

> > > Still, the phylogenetics of early
> > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > amateurs".

> > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > where you know they don't belong.

> > > If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
> > When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
> > less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
> > that it labored long and arduously.
> >
> > And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
> > nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
> >
> > Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
> > an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.

> > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,

> > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?

Erik never answered this question.

> > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> >
> > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> >
> > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

> > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you

Erik breezed by this PS as though it weren't there, and in his latest reply
he gave the pathetic excuse that he doesn't read my longer posts "to the end, or not at all".
But his earlier reply (to the same post to which you are replying here) started IMMEDIATELY below the PS.

> From "not happy" to "happiness"...LOL! In a very real way, authors of scientific papers should be concerned with whether others are satisfied with their assumptions and results.

More relevantly, concerned about the way they try to make things easy for people outside their specialty.
To the caption of their huge, elaborate tree, they could easily have added that Thalattosauria
is a small group that has been scantily studied up to now, while Sauropterygia includes the
well-known plesiosaurs.

> That should not be restricted to a select group of "others". That Erik wants you to believe they aren't concerned says volumes about Erik, and not a peep about the authors themselves.

> Arrogance doesn't necessarily indicate a conscious motive to troll, but regardless...it is ironic, and quite curious, that the result is the same, and that arrogant people often do not see that.

Erik has crossed swords enough with me over the last (FULL, I believe) decade that he
has no excuse for not seeing it in hindsight, at least. That's why I kept holding his feet
to the fire on this thread.

Anyway, in a few minutes, I will be replying to his latest post, where I will be changing
the accusations from "flamebait" to "trolling," which doesn't imply such specific conscious intent.

Peter Nyikos

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

> > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > >
> > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > >
> > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.

> > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?

You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:

> > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".

> > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > >
> > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > >
> > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> >
> > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > said this time around, not about the OP:

I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.

> > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > [end of copy]

You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.

> > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> >
> > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.

> > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.

> > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > >
> > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > >
> > > > > No trolling intended.

What is your definition of trolling, Erik?

Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
when called out on it.

I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:

> > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.

> > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.

> > > > More flamebait.

I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."

And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:

> > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.

> > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> >
> > [repeated from above]
> > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > >
> > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > [end of copy]
> >
> > The text to which I was referring is this
> >
> > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?

<crickets>

> > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."

That's another form of trolling.

> > See also below.

> > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > stick to paleo, good.

You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.

> > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> >
> > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > [end of copy]
> >
> > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > trolling this time around.

Here came the invitation:

> > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> Let me be perfectly clear:

You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)

> I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> who is saying what to whom.

Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.

I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]

> The repeated material above is a case in point.

I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.

>The following is not an insult:

True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.

>the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.

You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
>
> > > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
> answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
> > > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > > >
> > > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> > >
> > > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > > said this time around, not about the OP:
> I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
> because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
> that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
> > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > > [end of copy]
> You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.
> > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > >
> > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
>
> > > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
>
> > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > >
> > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > >
> > > > > > No trolling intended.
> What is your definition of trolling, Erik?
>
> Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
> copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
> when called out on it.
>
> I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
> > > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
>
>
> > > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
>
> > > > > More flamebait.
> I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."
>
>
> And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
> after I called out on it:
> > > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
>
> > > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> > >
> > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > >
> > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > [end of copy]
> > >
> > > The text to which I was referring is this
> > >
> > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> <crickets>
> > > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
> That's another form of trolling.
> > > See also below.
>
> > > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > > stick to paleo, good.
> You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.
> > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > >
> > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > [end of copy]
> > >
> > > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > > trolling this time around.
> Here came the invitation:
> > > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
>
> > Let me be perfectly clear:
> You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
> > I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> > to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > who is saying what to whom.
> Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> Re: Bad Form, Peter
> small excerpt:
> It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
> over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
> when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
>
> I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
> that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
> The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
> and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
> type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
> [end of excerpt]
>
>
> > The repeated material above is a case in point.
>
> I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
> of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
> >The following is not an insult:
> True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
> >the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> > I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
> You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
> mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
> as well as declining my invitation [see above].
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> >
> > > > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> > You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
> > answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
> > > > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> > > >
> > > > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > > > said this time around, not about the OP:
> > I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
> > because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
> > that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
> > > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > > > [end of copy]
> > You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.
> > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > >
> > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> >
> > > > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> >
> > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No trolling intended.
> > What is your definition of trolling, Erik?
> >
> > Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
> > copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
> > when called out on it.
> >
> > I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
> > > > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> >
> > > > > > More flamebait.
> > I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."
> >
> >
> > And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
> > after I called out on it:
> > > > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
> >
> > > > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> > > >
> > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > [end of copy]
> > > >
> > > > The text to which I was referring is this
> > > >
> > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > <crickets>
> > > > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > > > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
> > That's another form of trolling.
> > > > See also below.
> >
> > > > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > > > stick to paleo, good.
> > You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.
> > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > >
> > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > > [end of copy]
> > > >
> > > > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > > > trolling this time around.
> > Here came the invitation:
> > > > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > > > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> >
> > > Let me be perfectly clear:
> > You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
> > > I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> > > to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > > who is saying what to whom.
> > Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> > the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> > Re: Bad Form, Peter
> > small excerpt:
> > It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
> > over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
> > when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
> >
> > I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
> > that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
> > The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
> > and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
> > type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
> > [end of excerpt]
> >
> >
> > > The repeated material above is a case in point.
> >
> > I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
> > of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
> > >The following is not an insult:
> > True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
> > >the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> > > I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
> > You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
> > mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
> > as well as declining my invitation [see above].
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> > > You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
> > > answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
> > > > > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > > > > said this time around, not about the OP:
> > > I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
> > > because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
> > > that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
> > > > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > > > > [end of copy]
> > > You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.
> > > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > >
> > > > > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> > >
> > > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No trolling intended.
> > > What is your definition of trolling, Erik?
> > >
> > > Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
> > > copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
> > > when called out on it.
> > >
> > > I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
> > > > > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> > >
> > > > > > > More flamebait.
> > > I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."
> > >
> > >
> > > And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
> > > after I called out on it:
> > > > > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > > > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
> > >
> > > > > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> > > > >
> > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > > [end of copy]
> > > > >
> > > > > The text to which I was referring is this
> > > > >
> > > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > <crickets>
> > > > > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > > > > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
> > > That's another form of trolling.
> > > > > See also below.
> > >
> > > > > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > > > > stick to paleo, good.
> > > You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.
> > > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > > > [end of copy]
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > > > > trolling this time around.
> > > Here came the invitation:
> > > > > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > > > > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let me be perfectly clear:
> > > You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
> > > > I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> > > > to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > > > who is saying what to whom.
> > > Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> > > the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> > > Re: Bad Form, Peter
> > > small excerpt:
> > > It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
> > > over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
> > > when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
> > >
> > > I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
> > > that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
> > > The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
> > > and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
> > > type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
> > > [end of excerpt]
> > >
> > >
> > > > The repeated material above is a case in point.
> > >
> > > I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
> > > of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
> > > >The following is not an insult:
> > > True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
> > > >the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> > > > I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
> > > You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
> > > mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
> > > as well as declining my invitation [see above].
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> You are being disingenuous here, as usual, Erik:
> > This post is a perfect example of the sort of thing I have absolutely no intention of reading through ( haven't).
> > It's clear to me we have nothing to discuss.
> Especially since jillery has shackled herself to you with the following ridiculous
> projection of a deficiency of hers onto me, in direct reply to you:
> "ISTM the peter is incapable of separating substance from noise."
> This shackling was NOT the main reason I wrote the following in the above post,
> which stands on its own merits:
>
> [repeated from above]
> > > > I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > > > who is saying what to whom.
> > > Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> > > the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> > > Re: Bad Form, Peter
> [end of repetition]
>
> The jillery's shackling was already predictable from the intellectual prostitution
> of the integrity of both of you in opposite directions over the years.
>
> IIRC both of you have acted all that time as though you were ignorant of what
> the other was doing. Now it is out in the open.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:47:41 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd have thought you might have
> > > > > > > > > > > been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and the increasing agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > > morphological vs. genetic analysis.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
> > > > You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct
> > > > answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
> > > > > > > > > > Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
> > > > > > > > > > All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
> > > > > > > > > > all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
> > > > > > > > > > to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
> > > > > > > > > > PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
> > > > > > > > said this time around, not about the OP:
> > > > I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]
> > > > because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
> > > > that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
> > > > > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > > > Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
> > > > > > > > > > > amateurs".
> > > > > > > > > > You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
> > > > > > > > > > even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
> > > > > > > > > > where you know they don't belong.
> > > > > > > > [end of copy]
> > > > You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.
> > > > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the past you did show great interest in
> > > > > > > > > the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
> > > > > > > > > constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No trolling intended.
> > > > What is your definition of trolling, Erik?
> > > >
> > > > Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
> > > > copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
> > > > when called out on it.
> > > >
> > > > I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
> > > > > > > > If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > More flamebait.
> > > > I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
> > > > after I called out on it:
> > > > > > > If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
> > > > > > > to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
> > > >
> > > > > > What part of the above didn't you understand?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
> > > > > > > > by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
> > > > > > > > between lines of text which it is hiding.
> > > > > > [end of copy]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The text to which I was referring is this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > > Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
> > > > <crickets>
> > > > > > > I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
> > > > > > For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
> > > > That's another form of trolling.
> > > > > > See also below.
> > > >
> > > > > > > whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
> > > > > > > stick to paleo, good.
> > > > You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.
> > > > > > [also repeated from above]
> > > > > > > > > You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
> > > > > > > > my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
> > > > > > [end of copy]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
> > > > > > trolling this time around.
> > > > Here came the invitation:
> > > > > > Why don't you post something from the article that you
> > > > > > would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Let me be perfectly clear:
> > > > You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
> > > > > I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
> > > > > to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > > > > who is saying what to whom.
> > > > Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> > > > the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> > > > Re: Bad Form, Peter
> > > > small excerpt:
> > > > It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
> > > > over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
> > > > when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
> > > >
> > > > I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
> > > > that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
> > > > The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
> > > > and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
> > > > type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
> > > > [end of excerpt]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The repeated material above is a case in point.
> > > >
> > > > I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
> > > > of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
> > > > >The following is not an insult:
> > > > True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
> > > > >the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
> > > > > I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
> > > > You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
> > > > mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
> > > > as well as declining my invitation [see above].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > You are being disingenuous here, as usual, Erik:
> > > This post is a perfect example of the sort of thing I have absolutely no intention of reading through ( haven't).
> > > It's clear to me we have nothing to discuss.
> > Especially since jillery has shackled herself to you with the following ridiculous
> > projection of a deficiency of hers onto me, in direct reply to you:
> > "ISTM the peter is incapable of separating substance from noise."
> > This shackling was NOT the main reason I wrote the following in the above post,
> > which stands on its own merits:
> >
> > [repeated from above]
> > > > > I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
> > > > > who is saying what to whom.
> > > > Jillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
> > > > the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
> > > > Re: Bad Form, Peter
> > [end of repetition]
> >
> > The jillery's shackling was already predictable from the intellectual prostitution
> > of the integrity of both of you in opposite directions over the years.
> >
> > IIRC both of you have acted all that time as though you were ignorant of what
> > the other was doing. Now it is out in the open.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> Last call: Reading your recent posts make my brain itch. Engaging you is like scratching; makes the itch worse.
> What items of interest to me seem always to be accompanied by many more lines of boasting, insults,
> irrelevant digressions and denunciations of third parties who may or may not be following the conversations.
> As if it could be made even more unappealing, much of it is highly repetitive and in a word, boring. So just forget
> it. I know the denunciations will continue, probably for years, and that bothers me not at all. After all, I don't itch
> anymore.
I'm pretty sure your happiness is not a factor that Peter takes into account.

Reviewing this thread as part of a recent discussion/debate on the "False Dichotomy..." thread,
I noticed that there were a couple of loose ends on it.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:19:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/23/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
> >
> >> I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
> >> sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
> >> previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
> >
> > Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs.
> > Wasn't that a surprise for you too?

> It would have been if I had noticed, but I was concentrating on
> Sauropterygia.

Both were surprises for me; I hadn't even been aware of ichthyosaurs being
in the sauropsid crown group. Were you?

Carroll (1988) hadn't placed either them or the sauropterygians inside
what we now consider to be the crown group:
"The placodonts appear to be derived from among early diapsids, but we cannot be more specific about their ancestry at present. Nothosaurs and plesiosaurs are united by unique features of the skull and shoulder girdle that support their inclusion in a distinct order, Sauropterygia, which may be a sister group of the lepidosaurs." [p. 241]

Benton (2005) third edition has the placodonts in a clade with sauropterigians on Fig.6.6, p. 150,
with lepdidosauroformes as the sister group, but ichthyosaurs are outside the sauropsid crown group.

> > Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
> > of which Erik made so much.

The only increasing agreement, at least according to the article Erik linked, was in
the placement of turtles, where previously the morphological evidence was
at odds with the molecular. Carroll, relying only on the morphological, placed
turtles outside Diapsida. Ironically, this resulted in sauropterytgians being inside
the sauropsid crown group, for an entirely different reason than this article has them.

> >
> > By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
> > with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
> > it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
> > turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.

> I had no trouble reading the tree.

This was the only hard part for me. The twofold division above is extremely tall
and extremely thin, crammed into the "G" portion of the Permian.

>And of course Science likes to cut
> space to the bone, so two versions of the same tree would be very
> unlikely to make it into the paper.

What with all the nodes labeled with dates, it would have been child's play
to expand the "G" portion of the tree two or threefold with a little note at the
bottom about that.

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

On 9/26/22 4:53 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Reviewing this thread as part of a recent discussion/debate on the "False Dichotomy..." thread,
> I noticed that there were a couple of loose ends on it.
>
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:19:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/23/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
>>>
>>>> I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
>>>> sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
>>>> previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
>>>
>>> Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs.
>>> Wasn't that a surprise for you too?
>
>> It would have been if I had noticed, but I was concentrating on
>> Sauropterygia.
>
> Both were surprises for me; I hadn't even been aware of ichthyosaurs being
> in the sauropsid crown group. Were you?

Yes. Most people who put sauropterygians outside the squamate +
archosaur node also put turtles as primitively anapsid, and so included
all sorts of things in the sauropsid crown group.

It seems to me that ichthyosaurs have traditionally been considered
"euryapsids", with turtles as "anapsids" outside the group. Then again,
I can't recall whether they were also outside sauroposids, maybe even
outside synapsids + other groups with holes in the head.

> Carroll (1988) hadn't placed either them or the sauropterygians inside
> what we now consider to be the crown group:
> "The placodonts appear to be derived from among early diapsids, but we cannot be more specific about their ancestry at present. Nothosaurs and plesiosaurs are united by unique features of the skull and shoulder girdle that support their inclusion in a distinct order, Sauropterygia, which may be a sister group of the lepidosaurs." [p. 241]
>
> Benton (2005) third edition has the placodonts in a clade with sauropterigians on Fig.6.6, p. 150,
> with lepdidosauroformes as the sister group, but ichthyosaurs are outside the sauropsid crown group.

Where did Benton put turtles?

>>> Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
>>> of which Erik made so much.
>
> The only increasing agreement, at least according to the article Erik linked, was in
> the placement of turtles, where previously the morphological evidence was
> at odds with the molecular. Carroll, relying only on the morphological, placed
> turtles outside Diapsida. Ironically, this resulted in sauropterytgians being inside
> the sauropsid crown group, for an entirely different reason than this article has them.

Exactly.

>>>
>>> By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
>>> with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
>>> it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
>>> turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.
>
>> I had no trouble reading the tree.
>
> This was the only hard part for me. The twofold division above is extremely tall
> and extremely thin, crammed into the "G" portion of the Permian.
>
>> And of course Science likes to cut
>> space to the bone, so two versions of the same tree would be very
>> unlikely to make it into the paper.
>
> What with all the nodes labeled with dates, it would have been child's play
> to expand the "G" portion of the tree two or threefold with a little note at the
> bottom about that.

Science doesn't usually mess with the authors' figures except to correct
factual errors, if they even do that. And to cut them for reasons of
space. And reviewers seldom go into issues of graphic clarity. Such is
the process.