nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> [or words to that effect].
>
> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.

What the HELL is all this about?

This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
demand "Proof" that any posts exists.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/696644730120994816

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

....to John Harshman:
> > To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> > you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> > with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> > [or words to that effect].
> >
> > There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> > this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> > JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> > will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> > one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> > you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> > to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.

> What the HELL is all this about?

Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
"feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.

> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.

It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.

Peter Nyikos

On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...to John Harshman:
>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>
>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>
>
>> What the HELL is all this about?
>
> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>
>
>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>
> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.

Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > ...to John Harshman:
> >>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>
> >>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >
> >
> >> What the HELL is all this about?
> >
> > Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> > I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> > to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> > look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> > "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.

Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.

> >
> >> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >
> > It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> > to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> > difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> > Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.

> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?

These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.

You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.

That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.

Peter Nyikos

Harpman, Heartman, Hashman or John Harshman wrote:

> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?

Have you recently had your meds adjusted, or are you as bad as ever?

Are you even the real Harptan?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Neanderthals

On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>
>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>
>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>
> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>
>>>
>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>
>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
>
>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>
> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>
> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>
> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.

Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
virtuous?

Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>
> >>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >
> > Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> > as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>
> >>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
> >
> >> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >
> > These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> > like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> > in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >
> > You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> > on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> > I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> > didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >
> > That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> virtuous?
>
> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?

If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject, let's start somewhere, How about here?

"How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so mindlessly wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot. "

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html

Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to think of yourself as being 'right" and so not condescending or smug, when you call someone who isn't even part of the conversation an "IDiot" - and without any support!

The irony, it burns. You.

On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>
>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
>>>
>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>
>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>
>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>
>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>> virtuous?
>>
>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>
> If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject, let's start somewhere, How about here?
>
> "How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so mindlessly wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot."
>
> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
>
> Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to think of yourself as being 'right" and so not condescending or smug, when you call someone who isn't even part of the conversation an "IDiot" - and without any support!
>
> The irony, it burns. You.

Obviously you haven't read the blog post that quote mine of me is
referring to. Nor have you read the context on Sandwalk, in which it's
explained how mindless Berlinski's post is, notably on the meaning of
rotated branches on cladograms. I'm guessing you would not be capable of
understanding how stupid that post is, even when it was explained to you
in detail. But who knows? And maybe Peter would be capable.

But here's a link:
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade/

The rotational bit is fairly far down the page. If anyone needs an
explanation of its sheer stupidity, I would be willing to supply one.

As usual, I ask if you had a point to make and if so what it was.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:50:38 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>>
> >>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
> >>>
> >>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>>
> >>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> >>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>
> >>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> >>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> >>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>
> >>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >> virtuous?
> >>
> >> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >
> > If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject, let's start somewhere, How about here?
> >
> > "How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so mindlessly wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot."
> >
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
> >
> > Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to think of yourself as being 'right" and so not condescending or smug, when you call someone who isn't even part of the conversation an "IDiot" - and without any support!
> >
> > The irony, it burns. You.
> Obviously you haven't read the blog post that quote mine of me is
> referring to. Nor have you read the context on Sandwalk, in which it's
> explained how mindless Berlinski's post is, notably on the meaning of
> rotated branches on cladograms. I'm guessing you would not be capable of
> understanding how stupid that post is, even when it was explained to you
> in detail. But who knows? And maybe Peter would be capable.
>
> But here's a link:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade/
>
> The rotational bit is fairly far down the page. If anyone needs an
> explanation of its sheer stupidity, I would be willing to supply one.
>
> As usual, I ask if you had a point to make and if so what it was.

The irony, it burns. You.

John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>
>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>
>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>
>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
>>>> on a post-by-post basis.
>>
>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>
>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
>> far short of acting
>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
>> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>
>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't
>> identify a single one.
>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>
>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>
> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> virtuous?
>
> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>
He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
on JTEM. Baby steps.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>
> >>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>
> >> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
> >>>> on a post-by-post basis.
> >>
> >>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>
> >> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
> >> far short of acting
> >> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
> >> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>
> >> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> >> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't
> >> identify a single one.
> >> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>
> >> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >
> > Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> > worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> > produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> > virtuous?
> >
> > Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >
> He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
> on JTEM. Baby steps.

Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:

"All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> > >>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...to John Harshman:
> > >>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> > >>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> > >>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> > >>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> > >>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> > >>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> > >>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> > >>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> > >>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> > >>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> > >>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> > >>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> > >>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> > >>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> > >>
> > >> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> > >> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> > >>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> > >>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> > >>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> > >>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> > >>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
> > >>>> on a post-by-post basis.
> > >>
> > >>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> > >>
> > >> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
> > >> far short of acting
> > >> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
> > >> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> > >> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> > >>
> > >> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> > >> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't
> > >> identify a single one.
> > >> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> > >> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> > >>
> > >> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> > >
> > > Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> > > worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> > > produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> > > virtuous?
> > >
> > > Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> > >
> > He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
> > on JTEM. Baby steps.
> Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:
>
> "All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html

seemingly from a moderator with hammer power:

'Blocked for the strawman, the tu quoque fallacy, etc."

Lovely people, these.

Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>>
>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
>>>>>> on a post-by-post basis.
>>>>
>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>>
>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
>>>> far short of acting
>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
>>>> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>>
>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
>>>> these *non sequiturs*
>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I
>>>> asked for examples, you couldn't
>>>> identify a single one.
>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>>>
>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>>> virtuous?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>>>
>> He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
>> on JTEM. Baby steps.
>
> Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:
>
> "All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical
> piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html
>
What the hell does comments on some website have to do with the price of
milk. OTOH what was it you recently called Nando on t.o.?

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:36:31 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
> >>>>>> on a post-by-post basis.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>>>
> >>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
> >>>> far short of acting
> >>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
> >>>> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
> >>>> these *non sequiturs*
> >>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I
> >>>> asked for examples, you couldn't
> >>>> identify a single one.
> >>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >>>
> >>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >>> virtuous?
> >>>
> >>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >>>
> >> He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
> >> on JTEM. Baby steps.
> >
> > Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:
> >
> > "All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical
> > piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."
> >
> > http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html
> >
> What the hell does comments on some website have to do with the price of
> milk. OTOH what was it you recently called Nando on t.o.?

You tell me.

Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:36:31 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
>>>>>>>> on a post-by-post basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
>>>>>> far short of acting
>>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
>>>>>> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
>>>>>> these *non sequiturs*
>>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I
>>>>>> asked for examples, you couldn't
>>>>>> identify a single one.
>>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>>>>> virtuous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>>>>>
>>>> He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
>>>> on JTEM. Baby steps.
>>>
>>> Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:
>>>
>>> "All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical
>>> piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."
>>>
>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html
>>>
>> What the hell does comments on some website have to do with the price of
>> milk. OTOH what was it you recently called Nando on t.o.?
>
> You tell me.
>
Are you proud of using that sort of bigoted language?

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>
> >>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >
> > Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> > as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>
> >>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
> >
> >> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >
> > These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> > like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> > in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >
> > You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> > on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> > I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> > didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >
> > That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.

You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
described it:

> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> virtuous?

Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.

You made that very clear on another thread.
Would you like to know how?

[1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?

> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?

You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.

You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
[excerpt:]
> Have you read anything he's
> posted in the past week or two?

Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
[end of excerpt]

Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
either post, nor of my answer to your question above.

Have you been on drugs lately?

Peter Nyikos

PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.

On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>
>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
>>>
>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>
>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>
>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>
>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>
> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
> described it:
>
>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>> virtuous?
>
> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
>
> You made that very clear on another thread.
> Would you like to know how?
>
> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
>
>
>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>
> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
>
> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
> [excerpt:]
>> Have you read anything he's
>> posted in the past week or two?
>
> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
> [end of excerpt]
>
> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
>
> Have you been on drugs lately?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.

Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,
your absence can only improve the newsgroup.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 4:51:58 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:36:31 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >>>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference
> >>>>>>>> on a post-by-post basis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
> >>>>>> far short of acting
> >>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly
> >>>>>> clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
> >>>>>> these *non sequiturs*
> >>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I
> >>>>>> asked for examples, you couldn't
> >>>>>> identify a single one.
> >>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >>>>> virtuous?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >>>>>
> >>>> He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
> >>>> on JTEM. Baby steps.
> >>>
> >>> Mr Congeniality is back. Enjoy:
> >>>
> >>> "All godbots are fundamentally dishonest. Elsewhere this hypocritical
> >>> piece of garbage speculates that Muslims may have burned Notre Dame."
> >>>
> >>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html
> >>>
> >> What the hell does comments on some website have to do with the price of
> >> milk. OTOH what was it you recently called Nando on t.o.?
> >
> > You tell me.
> >
> Are you proud of using that sort of bigoted language?
What kind of question is that?

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> >> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >
> > If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject, let's start somewhere, How about here?
> >

I prefer to start here:, same reference as below, where I continue at tra:

"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten of comparable preservation to the Chengjiang known for the Ediacaran or early Cambrian before the Chengjiang."
[same reference as Glenn's below]

That was you talking, John. Did you forget about the Newfoundland lagerstätten with their exquisite
fossils of rangeomorphs?

> > "How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so mindlessly wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot."
> >
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html

That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared to the condescendingly smug
article by Moran, which is one solid mass of *ad hominems* with not a single attempt to refute
anything the "IDiot" Luskin says in the linked article.

Luskin warmed up nicely with:
"As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedly misquoted Meyer, at one point claiming he referred to the Cambrian explosion as “instantaneous,” when Meyer nowhere makes that claim."
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_/

There is a link to the "previous response":
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen/

There is a lot of stem group talk there, which indicates that you are blindly
relying on Matzke in a bizarre response to my question,

Just what do you mean by "intermediates"?

You never gave anything like a definition, but went into a spiel
about lobopods being "stem-members of different ecdysozoan phyla"
and another comment which I critiqued as follows:

[begin repost]
> Halkieriids and/or tommotiids may (i.e., less certainly) be stem-lophotrochozoans.

IOW, they may be outside the crown group of all lophotrochozoans.
The following analogy comes to mind: the Sparassodonta, a clade which
includes the formidable saber-tooth Thylacosmilus, are stem-marsupials.
But no paleontologist would claim that they shed any light on the
relationship between marsupials and eutherians, or between the
various (crown) marsupial orders.
[end repost]
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/nPHcf7WKAAAJ
Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.

Your lame response to that was:
"They might help, though, if they show what characters are primitive for the clade."

Here, you forgot a fundamental slogan of cladists, formulated decades ago: plesimorphies are
useless for establishing relationships.

And so you completely lost sight of my question,
Just what do you mean by "intermediates"?

Meyer spends something like 20 pages of DD 2nd edition critiquing this use of stem taxa,
beginning on p. 418 where he quotes Matzke as saying:

"Meyer never presents for his readers...the fact that stem taxa are the transitional fossils the creationists are allegedly looking for"

You seemed to be mindlessly aping this with the following statement on the same thread:

"And these are all the animals Steven Meyer and the creationists claim don't exist."

Unfortunately, Meyer's knowledge of paleontology is too narrow for him to give
an example like the one I gave, which would have illuminated the tedious 20 pages.
The same applies to Luskin's briefer treatment.

> > Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to think of yourself as being 'right" and so not condescending or smug, when you call someone who isn't even part of the conversation an "IDiot" - and without any support!
> >
> > The irony, it burns. You.
> Obviously you haven't read the blog post that quote mine of me is
> referring to. Nor have you read the context on Sandwalk, in which it's
> explained how mindless Berlinski's post is, notably on the meaning of
> rotated branches on cladograms. I'm guessing you would not be capable of
> understanding how stupid that post is, even when it was explained to you
> in detail. But who knows?

Glenn isn't big on details, but that's where the devil is. On the other hand, he sees
cherry-pickings easily.

> And maybe Peter would be capable.

There's no "maybe" about it.

> But here's a link:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade/
>
> The rotational bit is fairly far down the page. If anyone needs an
> explanation of its sheer stupidity, I would be willing to supply one.

I don't know why Berlinski thought that the rotation made a difference
in the sheer stupidity that EITHER diagram showed A to be ancestral to B,
or B to be ancestral to C. It's as idiotic as using cladograms
to deduce that Thylacosmilus is ancestral to any (crown group) marsupial.
[see the analogy above]

And that was Berlinski's point all along: you cannot infer ancestry from cladograms.

> As usual, I ask if you had a point to make and if so what it was.

I have one: you cherry-picked the rotation as a sample of Berlinski's mental caliber.
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far down the page.."

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

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>>
> >>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
> >>>
> >>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>>
> >>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> >>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>
> >>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> >>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> >>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>
> >>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult.. Far from it.
> >
> > You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
> > described it:
> >
> >> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >> virtuous?
> >
> > Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
> > whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
> > a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
> > you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
> >
> > You made that very clear on another thread.
> > Would you like to know how?

<crickets>

> > [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
> > I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
> > since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
> >
> >
> >> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >
> > You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
> > Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
> >
> > You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
> > [excerpt:]
> >> Have you read anything he's
> >> posted in the past week or two?
> >
> > Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
> > [end of excerpt]
> >
> > Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
> > either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
> >
> > Have you been on drugs lately?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
> > tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
> > is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.

> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,

"imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.

It is also a crude form of gaslighting.

According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.

The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.

> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.

Only for the likes of you.

Peter Nyikos

On 9/30/22 12:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>>>
>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>>>
>>> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
>>> described it:
>>>
>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>>>> virtuous?
>>>
>>> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
>>> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
>>> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
>>> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
>>>
>>> You made that very clear on another thread.
>>> Would you like to know how?
>
> <crickets>

I think it should have been obvious that I wasn't interested.

>>> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
>>> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
>>> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>>>
>>> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
>>> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
>>>
>>> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
>>> [excerpt:]
>>>> Have you read anything he's
>>>> posted in the past week or two?
>>>
>>> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>
>>> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
>>> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
>>>
>>> Have you been on drugs lately?
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
>>> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
>>> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.
>
>> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
>> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,
>
> "imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.

It only shows that to you. I say "imagined", and I mean "imagined".

> It is also a crude form of gaslighting.
>
> According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
> where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
> happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.
>
> The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
> comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
> eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
> The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
> so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
> to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
> He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
> gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.
>
>
>> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.
>
> Only for the likes of you.

Just ask yourself whether anything you say above is in any way about
paleontology and, if not, whether you should be saying it.

John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/22 12:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a
>>>>>>>> post-by-post basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik
>>>>>> falling far short of acting
>>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your
>>>>>> obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
>>>>>> these *non sequiturs*
>>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you
>>>>>> couldn't identify a single one.
>>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>>>>
>>>> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
>>>> described it:
>>>>
>>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>>>>> virtuous?
>>>>
>>>> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
>>>> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
>>>> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
>>>> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
>>>>
>>>> You made that very clear on another thread.
>>>> Would you like to know how?
>>
>> <crickets>
>
> I think it should have been obvious that I wasn't interested.
>
>>>> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
>>>> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
>>>> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>>>>
>>>> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
>>>> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
>>>>
>>>> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
>>>> [excerpt:]
>>>>> Have you read anything he's
>>>>> posted in the past week or two?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>
>>>> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You
>>>> have shown no awareness of
>>>> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
>>>>
>>>> Have you been on drugs lately?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>
>>>> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
>>>> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
>>>> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.
>>
>>> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
>>> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,
>>
>> "imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.
>
> It only shows that to you. I say "imagined", and I mean "imagined".
>
>> It is also a crude form of gaslighting.
>>
>> According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
>> where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
>> happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.
>>
>> The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
>> comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
>> eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
>> The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
>> so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
>> to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
>> He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
>> gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.
>>
>>
>>> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.
>>
>> Only for the likes of you.
>
> Just ask yourself whether anything you say above is in any way about
> paleontology and, if not, whether you should be saying it.
>
Imagine if he had more time to post. You should be honored and thankful he
prioritized you given the hazardous weather circumstances.

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/30/22 12:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> >>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
> >>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
> >>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
> >>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
> >>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
> >>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
> >>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
> >>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
> >>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
> >>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
> >>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
> >>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
> >>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
> >>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
> >>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
> >>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
> >>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
> >>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
> >>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
> >>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
> >>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
> >>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
> >>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
> >>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >>>
> >>> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
> >>> described it:
> >>>
> >>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >>>> virtuous?
> >>>
> >>> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
> >>> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
> >>> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this happened,
> >>> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
> >>>
> >>> You made that very clear on another thread.
> >>> Would you like to know how?
> >
> > <crickets>

> I think it should have been obvious that I wasn't interested.

Do you sincerely think it is obvious? When you gaslighted me [see definition below]
with multiple asinine charges of megalomania in talk.origins,
you sang an entirely different tune:

========================== excerpt ==================
> You really have to stop interpreting silence as agreement. It isn't.

This pretense at being able to read my mind may indicate a tendency
towards REAL megalomania.

In a polemically saturated forum like talk.origins, the correct interpretation
of silence in the face of such a provocative statement is almost always,
"[S]he couldn't think of a good comeback." And that's the way I interpreted it
each time you fell silent in the wake of my "translation".
======================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/bHyj_wb3CQAJ
Re: Hole In One . . Sep 7, 2022, 10:10:05 AM

> >>> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
> >>> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
> >>> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?

See above about your failure twice now to respond to that last question.

> >>>
> >>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >>>
> >>> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
> >>> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
> >>>
> >>> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
> >>> [excerpt:]
> >>>> Have you read anything he's
> >>>> posted in the past week or two?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
> >>> [end of excerpt]
> >>>
> >>> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
> >>> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
> >>>
> >>> Have you been on drugs lately?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>
> >>> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
> >>> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
> >>> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.
> >
> >> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
> >> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,

> > "imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.

> It only shows that to you. I say "imagined", and I mean "imagined".

You are just going into a broken record routine. You could easily have written,
"I don't think any of the things you describe Erik and Oxyaena and me doing were wrong,"
but that would be too straightforward for a devious person like yourself.

> > It is also a crude form of gaslighting.
> >
> > According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
> > where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
> > happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.
> >
> > The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
> > comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
> > eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
> > The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
> > so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
> > to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
> > He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
> > gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.
> >
> >
> >> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.
> >
> > Only for the likes of you.

On 9/30/22 1:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/22 12:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/22 4:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...to John Harshman:
>>>>>>>>>>> To make it more interesting, you stubbornly insisted that JTEM tell
>>>>>>>>>>> you where he had posted something on the SAME thread,
>>>>>>>>>>> with JTEM stubbornly insisting that you "do your own research"
>>>>>>>>>>> [or words to that effect].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's plenty of unresolved drama on the thread where
>>>>>>>>>>> this happened, and it looks like it's up to me to ask
>>>>>>>>>>> JTEM to "Please" tell us where to find it. The carrot
>>>>>>>>>>> will be that even if the post where he tells us is
>>>>>>>>>>> one of the hundreds of posts that you "don't see because
>>>>>>>>>>> you don't want to see it," *I*, myself, will make sure
>>>>>>>>>>> to record it and to remind you of it whenever appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the HELL is all this about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try and look up the thread to which I was referring. On it,
>>>>>>>>> I decided not to press you to tell where to find the post, but
>>>>>>>>> to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of you making Harshman
>>>>>>>>> look like a troll, and making yourself look like you were
>>>>>>>>> "feeding the troll," but not enough to make him stop looking like a troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"
>>>>>>> as you seem to do below, makes you look like a complete fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It's not uncommon for people to stubbornly REFUSE
>>>>>>>>>> to read posts with a thread they inflict themselves on, only to
>>>>>>>>>> demand "Proof" that any posts exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is uncommon for any s.b.p. regular [which Harshman is, and you are not]
>>>>>>>>> to get into such pointless back-and-forth in s.b.p. There is quite a
>>>>>>>>> difference between s.b.p. and talk.origins, although Harshman and
>>>>>>>>> Simpson are two regulars who have done a lot to reduce the difference on a post-by-post basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you not do a single post without detailing your various grievances?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
>>>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your obsession with trying to paint Glenn
>>>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing these *non sequiturs*
>>>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you couldn't identify a single one.
>>>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
>>>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
>>>>> described it:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
>>>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
>>>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
>>>>>> virtuous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
>>>>> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
>>>>> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this happened,
>>>>> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
>>>>>
>>>>> You made that very clear on another thread.
>>>>> Would you like to know how?
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>
>> I think it should have been obvious that I wasn't interested.
>
> Do you sincerely think it is obvious? When you gaslighted me [see definition below]
> with multiple asinine charges of megalomania in talk.origins,
> you sang an entirely different tune:
>
> ========================== excerpt ===================
>
>> You really have to stop interpreting silence as agreement. It isn't.
>
> This pretense at being able to read my mind may indicate a tendency
> towards REAL megalomania.
>
> In a polemically saturated forum like talk.origins, the correct interpretation
> of silence in the face of such a provocative statement is almost always,
> "[S]he couldn't think of a good comeback." And that's the way I interpreted it
> each time you fell silent in the wake of my "translation".
> ======================== end of excerpt
> from
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/bHyj_wb3CQAJ
> Re: Hole In One . . Sep 7, 2022, 10:10:05 AM
>
>>>>> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
>>>>> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
>>>>> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
>
> See above about your failure twice now to respond to that last question.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
>>>>> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
>>>>>
>>>>> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
>>>>> [excerpt:]
>>>>>> Have you read anything he's
>>>>>> posted in the past week or two?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
>>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>>
>>>>> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You have shown no awareness of
>>>>> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you been on drugs lately?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
>>>>> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
>>>>> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
>>>> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,
>
>>> "imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.
>
>> It only shows that to you. I say "imagined", and I mean "imagined".
>
> You are just going into a broken record routine. You could easily have written,
> "I don't think any of the things you describe Erik and Oxyaena and me doing were wrong,"
> but that would be too straightforward for a devious person like yourself.
>
>
>>> It is also a crude form of gaslighting.
>>>
>>> According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
>>> where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
>>> happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.
>>>
>>> The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
>>> comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
>>> eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
>>> The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
>>> so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
>>> to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
>>> He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
>>> gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.
>>>
>>>
>>>> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.
>>>
>>> Only for the likes of you.
>
>> Just ask yourself whether anything you say above is in any way about
>> paleontology and, if not, whether you should be saying it.
>
> You are just showing what a hypocrite you are about on topic posting.
>
> I purposely waited for almost seven (7) hours after posting a solidly on-topic
> post on this thread to see what you might say about it. Only then did I compose
> the post to which you started replying almost instantaneously. Compare:
>
> My on-topic post: 8:36 AM EDT
>
> My off-topic post: 3:09 PM EDT
>
> Your reply to the latter post: 3:17 PM EDT
>
> And you still haven't replied to the former post. But then, you've been
> a hypocrite about on-topic posting for many years, and see nothing
> wrong with that, and maybe you are even proud of your hypocrisy.

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 3:56:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/30/22 12:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 12:18:23 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/29/22 7:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>> These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik
> >>>>>> falling far short of acting
> >>>>>> like responsible adults. You made that abundantly clear by your
> >>>>>> obsession with trying to paint Glenn
> >>>>>> in July as being anti-science on the basis of perfectly natural comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You tried to justify your obsession by saying that you were basing
> >>>>>> these *non sequiturs*
> >>>>>> on past behavior by Glenn, but when I asked for examples, you
> >>>>>> couldn't identify a single one.
> >>>>>> I suggested that you post to talk.origins to ask others to provide them, but you
> >>>>>> didn't want to do that either. But you did not want to retract your claim either.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is not the kind of behavior one expects from a responsible adult. Far from it.
> >>>>
> >>>> You show no regret for the behavior I describe: instead, you try to shame me for having
> >>>> described it:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
> >>>>> worthwhile spending sci.bio.paleontology posts on? Does it help to
> >>>>> produce a more congenial newsgroup? Or does it just help you feel more
> >>>>> virtuous?
> >>>>
> >>>> Like I told Erik, you and he have only yourselves [1] to blame for what you are
> >>>> whining about. You not only do not regret having destroyed
> >>>> a ca. 2.5 year era of sci.bio.paleontology where nothing like this this happened,
> >>>> you are happy that s.b.p. is in its present sorry state.
> >>>>
> >>>> You made that very clear on another thread.
> >>>> Would you like to know how?
> >>
> >> <crickets>
> >
> > I think it should have been obvious that I wasn't interested.
> >
> >>>> [1] and Oxyaena, who backed you two for all she was worth, and then some.
> >>>> I think sci.bio.paleontology has become a less inhospitable place
> >>>> since she disappeared late last year. Do you wish she were still posting?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
> >>>>
> >>>> You keep ignoring the posts he is doing on the thread,
> >>>> Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.
> >>>>
> >>>> You even asked about this there, and I replied here:
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/OpvUV-GjX0g/m/7efb6M2gBgAJ
> >>>> [excerpt:]
> >>>>> Have you read anything he's
> >>>>> posted in the past week or two?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. He posted on this thread yesterday. Why aren't you showing any awareness that?
> >>>> [end of excerpt]
> >>>>
> >>>> Glenn did a longer post today on the same thread, and I replied. You
> >>>> have shown no awareness of
> >>>> either post, nor of my answer to your question above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you been on drugs lately?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>
> >>>> PS Hurricane Ian is predicted to be a Tropical Storm when it hits Columbia starting
> >>>> tomorrow morning, with winds gusting up to 60 mph. If electricity or internet
> >>>> is down tomorrow, I might have an enforced 3-day break from posting.
> >>
> >>> Unfortunate for many reasons, but an enforced break from posting is not
> >>> among them. Sadly, as your obsession with imagined wrongs the way it is,
> >>
> >> "imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.
> >
> > It only shows that to you. I say "imagined", and I mean "imagined".
> >
> >> It is also a crude form of gaslighting.
> >>
> >> According to the Newport Institute, gaslighting is a form of manipulation
> >> where the manipulator attempts to make their victim believe what’s
> >> happening isn’t actually happening, and that therefore their reality is untrue.
> >>
> >> The Newport Institute says the origin of the word gaslighting
> >> comes from the 1938 play "Angel Street." Alfred Hitchcock
> >> eventually turned the play into the 1944 film "Gaslight."
> >> The story follows a man convincing his wife she is going crazy
> >> so he can steal from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic
> >> to look for his wife’s jewels, the gas light downstairs starts to dim.
> >> He tells his wife it’s all in her imagination,
> >> gaslighting her into believing the lights were not dimming.
> >>
> >>
> >>> your absence can only improve the newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Only for the likes of you.
> >
> > Just ask yourself whether anything you say above is in any way about
> > paleontology and, if not, whether you should be saying it.

> Imagine if he had more time to post.

What do you expect a person so deficient in imagination as John to imagine about that?
Just look at the on-topic post that I did almost 7 hours before John sprang,
"lithe and agile as a tiger" [1] on the next post on this thread, also by me.

I suggest you read that earlier on-topic post [2] and note how he unimaginatively
follows Matzke, to the point of completely losing sight of the question,
`Just what do you mean by "intermediates"? '

[1] Are you old enough to remember the movie "Z"? I'm quoting the English
subtitles, having forgotten the original spoken French.

[2] https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/s4GvNGVaSWg/m/wTDt1Hw0FAAJ
Re: Where's Erik?

> You should be honored and thankful he
> prioritized you given the hazardous weather circumstances.

You'd add weight to this statement if you responded to that on-topic post,
however minimally. Here is one possibility: take a look at Berlinski's
two trees exhibiting "rotation" and pick which of the two

(a) makes B look like a descendant of A to someone who is stupid enough to
think that cladograms show ancestry and

and which of the two

(b) makes A and B look like two descendants from a cladogenesis at their LCA.

The trees can be found fairly far down in the following webpage:

https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade/

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

PS If you do the exercise correctly, you will see how, although
Berlinski's rotation looks like madness, there's method in't.

This, too, shows Harshman's deficiency in imagination.
He was merely following the lead of Matzke, who called
Berlinski's rotational example "hilarious" and botched the
real message by talking about "left" vs "right". This happened on the blog,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html