On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
> > > > > Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> > > > > before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
> > > > > spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
> > > > > > > In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
> > > > > > > to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
> > > > > > > despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip very familiar verbiage>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
> > > > > > with this episode.
> > > > > There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
> > > > > participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
> > > > > Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
> > > > > that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
> > > > > must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
> > > > > Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> > > > >
> > > > > You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > University of So. Carolina at Columbia
> > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > >
> > > > Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
> > > There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
> > > "doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
> > > Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
> > > > "Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.
> > > You never looked at the thread, did you?
> > >
> > >
> > > But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
> > > with a completely on-topic post:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
> > > Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
> > >
> > > Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
> > good".
> This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
> you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
> and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
> > It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
> > generally moved on in the last thirty years.
> That's a highly non-scientific comment.
> > I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
> > phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
> The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
> The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
> the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
> > I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
> > complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
> >
> > Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
> > aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
> You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
> if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
> and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
>
> Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
> to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
> about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
> you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
>
> [1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
> the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
> of Eris, the goddess of discord.
>
>
> In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
> that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
> It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:59:56 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
> > > > > > Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> > > > > > before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
> > > > > > spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
> > > > > > > > In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
> > > > > > > > to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
> > > > > > > > despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip very familiar verbiage>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
> > > > > > > with this episode.
> > > > > > There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
> > > > > > participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
> > > > > > Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
> > > > > > that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
> > > > > > must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
> > > > > > Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > > University of So. Carolina at Columbia
> > > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > >
> > > > > Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
> > > > There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
> > > > "doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
> > > > Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
> > > > > "Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.
> > > > You never looked at the thread, did you?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
> > > > with a completely on-topic post:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
> > > > Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
> > > >
> > > > Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
> > > good".
> > This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
> > you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
> > and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
> > > It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
> > > generally moved on in the last thirty years.
> > That's a highly non-scientific comment.
> > > I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
> > > phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
> > The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
> > The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
> > the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
> > > I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
> > > complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
> > >
> > > Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
> > > aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
> > You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
> > if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
> > and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
> >
> > Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
> > to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
> > about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
> > you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
> >
> > [1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
> > the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
> > of Eris, the goddess of discord.
> >
> >
> > In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
> > that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
> > It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.

It seems they were nonexistent. If you have evidence to the contrary,
please show it.

In the meantime, I note that you aren't exhibiting any fondness for the oasis.

Peter Nyikos

On 9/27/22 7:59 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
>>>>>> Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
>>>>>> before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
>>>>>> spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
>>>>>>>> In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
>>>>>>>> to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
>>>>>>>> despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip very familiar verbiage>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
>>>>>>> with this episode.
>>>>>> There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
>>>>>> participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
>>>>>> Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
>>>>>> that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
>>>>>> must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
>>>>>> Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>> University of So. Carolina at Columbia
>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>
>>>>> Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
>>>> There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
>>>> "doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
>>>> Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
>>>>> "Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.
>>>> You never looked at the thread, did you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
>>>> with a completely on-topic post:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
>>>> Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
>>>>
>>>> Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
>>> good".
>> This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
>> you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
>> and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
>>> It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
>>> generally moved on in the last thirty years.
>> That's a highly non-scientific comment.
>>> I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
>>> phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
>> The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
>> The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
>> the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
>>> I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
>>> complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
>>>
>>> Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
>>> aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
>> You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
>> if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
>> and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
>>
>> Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
>> to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
>> about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
>> you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
>>
>> [1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
>> the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
>> of Eris, the goddess of discord.
>>
>>
>> In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
>> that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
>> It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.

Somebody will have to end this pointless exchange, and you seem the best
candidate for that.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/27/22 7:59 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
> >>>>>> Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> >>>>>> before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
> >>>>>> spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
> >>>>>>>> In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
> >>>>>>>> to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
> >>>>>>>> despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip very familiar verbiage>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
> >>>>>>> with this episode.
> >>>>>> There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
> >>>>>> participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
> >>>>>> Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
> >>>>>> that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
> >>>>>> must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
> >>>>>> Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>> University of So. Carolina at Columbia
> >>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>
> >>>>> Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
> >>>> There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
> >>>> "doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
> >>>> Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
> >>>>> "Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.
> >>>> You never looked at the thread, did you?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
> >>>> with a completely on-topic post:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
> >>>> Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>> Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
> >>> good".
> >> This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
> >> you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
> >> and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
> >>> It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
> >>> generally moved on in the last thirty years.
> >> That's a highly non-scientific comment.
> >>> I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
> >>> phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
> >> The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
> >> The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
> >> the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
> >>> I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
> >>> complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
> >>>
> >>> Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
> >>> aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
> >> You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
> >> if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
> >> and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
> >>
> >> Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
> >> to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
> >> about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
> >> you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
> >>
> >> [1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
> >> the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
> >> of Eris, the goddess of discord.
> >>
> >>
> >> In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
> >> that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
> >> It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >
> > It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.
> Somebody will have to end this pointless exchange, and you seem the best
> candidate for that.
Consider it done.