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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
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? >>>
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.
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:Your catalog of grievances just gains entries by the day. Is this
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
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? >>>
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.
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 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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling >> far short of acting
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? >>
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 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:
Note the words "enjoy the spectacle", John. Calling this a "grievance,"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. >>
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?
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling
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? >>
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:He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling >>>> far short of acting
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? >>>>
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 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
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:He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in >> on JTEM. Baby steps.
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling >>>> far short of acting
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? >>>>
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?
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:What the hell does comments on some website have to do with the price of
On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in >>>> on JTEM. Baby steps.
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling >>>>>> far short of acting
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? >>>>>>
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?
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
milk. OTOH what was it you recently called Nando on t.o.?
You tell me.
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?
Have you read anything he's
posted in the past week or two?
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
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? >>>
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.
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:What kind of question is that?
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: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.?
John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/28/22 6:02 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:He misplaced his rose colored glasses. At least he seems to have clued in
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 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
You tell me.
Are you proud of using that sort of bigoted language?
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?
"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
Halkieriids and/or tommotiids may (i.e., less certainly) be stem-lophotrochozoans.
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 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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
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? >>>
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 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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik falling far short of acting
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? >>>>>
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.
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.
These are not "my" grievances. They are charges of you and Erik
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? >>>>>>
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.
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.
You really have to stop interpreting silence as agreement. It isn't.
[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.
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 Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshmanwrote:
wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
let's start somewhere, How about here?Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject,
comparable preservation to the Chengjiang known for the Ediacaran or
I prefer to start here:, same reference as below, where I continue at
tra:
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten of
[same reference as Glenn's below]lagerstätten with their exquisite
That was you talking, John. Did you forget about the Newfoundland
fossils of rangeomorphs?
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
the condescendingly smug
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared to
article by Moran, which is one solid mass of *ad hominems* with notsingle attempt to refute
a
anything the "IDiot" Luskin says in the linked article.
Luskin warmed up nicely with: "As I showed in a previous response tomisquoted Meyer, at one point claiming he referred to the Cambrian
Matzke, Matzke repeatedly
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_/blindly
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
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
Re: Deep diversity in Lophotrochozoa.for the clade."
Your lame response to that was: "They might help, though, if they
show what characters are primitive
Here, you forgot a fundamental slogan of cladists, formulatedago: plesimorphies are
decades
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 critiquingthis use of stem taxa,
beginning on p. 418 where he quotes Matzke as saying:the transitional fossils the creationists are allegedly looking for"
"Meyer never presents for his readers...the fact that stem taxa are
You seemed to be mindlessly aping this with the following statementthe same thread:
on
"And these are all the animals Steven Meyer and the creationistsdon't exist."
claim
Unfortunately, Meyer's knowledge of paleontology is too narrow for
himto give an example like the one I gave, which would have
illuminated the tedious 20 pages.
The same applies to Luskin's briefer treatment.
You mean he does cherry-picking easily, as he just inserted a singleNever mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to
thinkof 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 ancestryfrom cladograms.
mental caliber.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
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far downpage."
the
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.
"imagined" is grossly dishonest, as a perusal of the text preserved above will show.[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, >>
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 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshmanwrote:
wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
let's start somewhere, How about here?Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject,
I prefer to start here:, same reference as below, where I continue at
tra:
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten ofcomparable 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 Newfoundlandlagerstätten with their exquisite
fossils of rangeomorphs?Not comparable preservation. Different sorts of things are preserved in different preservational regimes.
See Butterfield N.J. Secular distribution of Burgess-Shale-type preservation. Lethaia 1995; 28:1-13.
This is off-topic.
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe condescendingly smug
article by Moran, which is one solid mass of *ad hominems* with notsingle attempt to refute
a
anything the "IDiot" Luskin says in the linked article.This too is off-topic. But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
Luskin warmed up nicely with: "As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedlymisquoted 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 youblindly
are
relying on Matzke in a bizarre response to my question,
Just what do you mean by "intermediates"?This has nothing to do with Matzke or Luskin or Berlinski or Moran.
You never gave anything like a definition, but went into a spielDo we really need a definition of "intermediate"? OK, sure: an
about lobopods being "stem-members of different ecdysozoan phyla" and another comment which I critiqued as follows:
intermediate fossil has either a combination of primitive and derived character states or intermediate character states or some of both. Stem
taxa commonly display such states.
What's your definition of intermediate?
[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 theyfor the clade."
show what characters are primitive
Here, you forgot a fundamental slogan of cladists, formulatedago: plesimorphies are
decades
useless for establishing relationships.But they aren't, exactly. Every plesiomorphy is a synapomorphy of a
larger group and can show that the taxon in question is a member of that larger group.
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 critiquingthis 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 arethe transitional fossils the creationists are allegedly looking for"
You seemed to be mindlessly aping this with the following statementthe same thread:
on
"And these are all the animals Steven Meyer and the creationistsdon't exist."
claim
I haven't seen this second edition, nor does anything I've said here
have anything to do with Matzke. But how does Meyer deal with that criticism?
Unfortunately, Meyer's knowledge of paleontology is too narrow for
himto 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
thinkof 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 theYou mean he does cherry-picking easily, as he just inserted a single sentence of mine, cherry-picked from a longer discussion and irrelevant
other hand, he sees cherry-pickings easily.
to anything here. And so we're off on a long, irrelevant digression.
And maybe Peter would be capable.
There's no "maybe" about it.You mean you are capable of understanding how stupid that post is?
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 aNow that's a fine example of sea-lioning. You attempt to distract from Berlinski's clueless claims by pointing at what Berlinski imagined to be someone else's clueless claims.
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 ancestryfrom 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 ofmental caliber.
Berlinski's
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far downpage."
the
I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at
Sandwalk. I asked a question about it, I was informed of what was said,
I looked, and yep that's what he said. Now, if you would like to start a
new thread for a discussion of Berlinski's article, feel free.
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshmanwrote:
wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
let's start somewhere, How about here?Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject,
I prefer to start here:, same reference as below, where I continue at
tra:
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten ofcomparable 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 Newfoundlandlagerstätten with their exquisite
fossils of rangeomorphs?Not comparable preservation. Different sorts of things are preserved in different preservational regimes.
See Butterfield N.J. Secular distribution of Burgess-Shale-type preservation. Lethaia 1995; 28:1-13.
This is off-topic.
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe condescendingly smug
article by Moran, which is one solid mass of *ad hominems* with notsingle attempt to refute
a
anything the "IDiot" Luskin says in the linked article.This too is off-topic. But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
Luskin warmed up nicely with: "As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedlymisquoted 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 youblindly
are
relying on Matzke in a bizarre response to my question,
Just what do you mean by "intermediates"?This has nothing to do with Matzke or Luskin or Berlinski or Moran.
You never gave anything like a definition, but went into a spielDo we really need a definition of "intermediate"? OK, sure: an
about lobopods being "stem-members of different ecdysozoan phyla" and another comment which I critiqued as follows:
intermediate fossil has either a combination of primitive and derived character states or intermediate character states or some of both. Stem
taxa commonly display such states.
What's your definition of intermediate?
[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 theyfor the clade."
show what characters are primitive
Here, you forgot a fundamental slogan of cladists, formulatedago: plesimorphies are
decades
useless for establishing relationships.But they aren't, exactly. Every plesiomorphy is a synapomorphy of a
larger group and can show that the taxon in question is a member of that larger group.
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 critiquingthis 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 arethe transitional fossils the creationists are allegedly looking for"
You seemed to be mindlessly aping this with the following statementthe same thread:
on
"And these are all the animals Steven Meyer and the creationistsdon't exist."
claim
I haven't seen this second edition, nor does anything I've said here
have anything to do with Matzke. But how does Meyer deal with that criticism?
Unfortunately, Meyer's knowledge of paleontology is too narrow for
himto 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
thinkof 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 theYou mean he does cherry-picking easily, as he just inserted a single sentence of mine, cherry-picked from a longer discussion and irrelevant
other hand, he sees cherry-pickings easily.
to anything here. And so we're off on a long, irrelevant digression.
And maybe Peter would be capable.
There's no "maybe" about it.You mean you are capable of understanding how stupid that post is?
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 aNow that's a fine example of sea-lioning. You attempt to distract from Berlinski's clueless claims by pointing at what Berlinski imagined to be someone else's clueless claims.
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 ancestryfrom 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 ofmental caliber.
Berlinski's
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far downpage."
the
I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at
Sandwalk. I asked a question about it, I was informed of what was said,
I looked, and yep that's what he said. Now, if you would like to start a
new thread for a discussion of Berlinski's article, feel free.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 1:47:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
let's start somewhere, How about here?Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject,
I prefer to start here:, same reference as below, where I continue at tra:
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten ofcomparable 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 Newfoundlandlagerstätten with their exquisite
fossils of rangeomorphs?Not comparable preservation. Different sorts of things are preserved in different preservational regimes.
See Butterfield N.J. Secular distribution of Burgess-Shale-type preservation. Lethaia 1995; 28:1-13.
This is off-topic.
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe condescendingly smug
article by Moran, which is one solid mass of *ad hominems* with notsingle attempt to refute
a
anything the "IDiot" Luskin says in the linked article.This too is off-topic. But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
Luskin warmed up nicely with: "As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedlymisquoted 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 youblindly
are
relying on Matzke in a bizarre response to my question,
Just what do you mean by "intermediates"?This has nothing to do with Matzke or Luskin or Berlinski or Moran.
You never gave anything like a definition, but went into a spielDo we really need a definition of "intermediate"? OK, sure: an intermediate fossil has either a combination of primitive and derived character states or intermediate character states or some of both. Stem taxa commonly display such states.
about lobopods being "stem-members of different ecdysozoan phyla" and another comment which I critiqued as follows:
What's your definition of intermediate?
[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 theyfor the clade."
show what characters are primitive
Here, you forgot a fundamental slogan of cladists, formulatedago: plesimorphies are
decades
useless for establishing relationships.But they aren't, exactly. Every plesiomorphy is a synapomorphy of a
larger group and can show that the taxon in question is a member of that larger group.
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 critiquingthis 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 arethe transitional fossils the creationists are allegedly looking for"
You seemed to be mindlessly aping this with the following statementthe same thread:
on
"And these are all the animals Steven Meyer and the creationistsdon't exist."
claim
I haven't seen this second edition, nor does anything I've said here
have anything to do with Matzke. But how does Meyer deal with that criticism?
Unfortunately, Meyer's knowledge of paleontology is too narrow for
himto 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
thinkof 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 theYou mean he does cherry-picking easily, as he just inserted a single sentence of mine, cherry-picked from a longer discussion and irrelevant
other hand, he sees cherry-pickings easily.
to anything here. And so we're off on a long, irrelevant digression.
And maybe Peter would be capable.
There's no "maybe" about it.You mean you are capable of understanding how stupid that post is?
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 aNow that's a fine example of sea-lioning. You attempt to distract from Berlinski's clueless claims by pointing at what Berlinski imagined to be someone else's clueless claims.
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 ancestryfrom cladograms.
You mean if the "story" is an example of your idea of "raconteuring". Yours is not so good a story, Erik.As usual, I ask if you had a point to make and if so what it was.
I looked at the Berlinski reference, and noted that DI lauds him (among other things) as aI have one: you cherry-picked the rotation as a sample ofmental caliber.
Berlinski's
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far downpage."
the
I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at Sandwalk. I asked a question about it, I was informed of what was said,
I looked, and yep that's what he said. Now, if you would like to start a new thread for a discussion of Berlinski's article, feel free.
"raconteur". Just to make sure I knew what that meant, I looked it up. Sure enough, it
means he tells good stories. If that "one man clade" story is a characteristic
example, DI is even more screwed up than I thought.
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshmanwrote:
wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
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 [later on].
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten ofcomparable 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?
Not comparable preservation. Different sorts of things are preserved in different preservational regimes.
See Butterfield N.J. Secular distribution of Burgess-Shale-type preservation. Lethaia 1995; 28:1-13.
This is off-topic.
"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 tothe 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.
This too is off-topic.
But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
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.
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]
Now that's a fine example of sea-lioning. You attempt to distract from Berlinski's clueless claims by pointing at what Berlinski imagined to be someone else's clueless claims.
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 ofI cherry-picked nothing.
Berlinski's mental caliber.
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far down
the page."
That was the subject of the discussion at Sandwalk.
I asked a question about it,
I was informed of what was said,
I looked, and yep that's what he said.
Now, if you would like to start a
new thread for a discussion of Berlinski's article, feel free.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 4:47:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshmanwrote:
wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
comparable preservation to the Chengjiang known for the Ediacaran or
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 [later on].
"It's quite uncontroversial that there are no lagerstätten of
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?
Not comparable preservation. Different sorts of things are preserved in
different preservational regimes.
See Butterfield N.J. Secular distribution of Burgess-Shale-type
preservation. Lethaia 1995; 28:1-13.
Does it assert that volcanic ash at Mistaken Point does not preserve as fine detail
as the Burgess shale? Why not?
Both are listed along with the Chengjiang as Konservat-Lagerstätten:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte
If you look at the two cladograms Berlinski provides, the second makes it *look* like
there is a synapomorphy involving A and B, while the first makes
it look like there is a synapomorphy between A and a clade
in which B and C are synapomorphic. Perhaps neither is true,
but perhaps one interpretation is true and the other false.
The thing is, cladograms don't distinguish between a case where
two new species are formed, and the more common case
where a new species splits off from an old one while the
old one continues to be in stasis. This is right at the foundation of Punctuated Equilibrium theory.
This may be why you dislike PE: it spoils the pretty "legal fiction"
of two new taxa coming off at each node.
But back to what Berlinski actually said. He was talking about
direct ancestry, and these were cladograms, not phylograms,
and so the first could really have A being ancestral to B,
if there were 0 apomorphies between A and the LCA of A and B.
But the second cladogram makes such a possibility look remote.
<snip for focus>
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.
Please do, in a way that deals with what I wrote this time around.
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]
Now that's a fine example of sea-lioning. You attempt to distract from
Berlinski's clueless claims by pointing at what Berlinski imagined to be
someone else's clueless claims.
Now there's a fine example of trash talk. There are lots of
ways to misread cladograms, and you are pretending that there is
"someone else" to whom Berlinski was referring when he was obviously lecturing about one kind of misreading into which plenty of people could fall.
Matzke tried to make it clear to you that there are lots of people who fall into
misreadings of cladograms [see below], but you are ignoring that in order
to score worthless debating points against me and Berlinski.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 1:47:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:<snip of things I dealt with in my reply to Harshman>
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
let's start somewhere, How about here?Incidentally, have you read any of Glenn's recent production?
If you are interested in seeing gains of entries on the subject,
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe 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.
This too is off-topic.
But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to
thinkof 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.
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.
I have one: you cherry-picked the rotation as a sample of Berlinski's mental caliber.I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at Sandwalk.
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far down the page."
I looked at the Berlinski reference, and noted that DI lauds him (among other things) as a
"raconteur". Just to make sure I knew what that meant, I looked it up. Sure enough, it
means he tells good stories.
If that "one man clade" story is a characteristic
example, DI is even more screwed up than I thought.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:11:43 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:of the tips at the top. This is the origin of myths like "rats are more closely related to humans than mice are", I think.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 1:47:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
<snip of things I dealt with in my reply to Harshman>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?
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe 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.
The egocentric Harshman ignored what I wrote about Moran, butThis too is off-topic.
that is not obvious from his next two sentences; only from the third.
<snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply to John's post>But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based on reading Berlinski's thing.
Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to
thinkof 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!
<snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply to John's post>The irony, it burns. You.
<snip of things dealt with in my reply to John yesterday evening>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.
I have one: you cherry-picked the rotation as a sample of Berlinski's mental caliber.I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at Sandwalk.
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far down the page."
And now we come to your contribution, Erik:
I looked at the Berlinski reference, and noted that DI lauds him (among other things) as aStephen Jay Gould was a great raconteur, as great as they come in biology.
"raconteur". Just to make sure I knew what that meant, I looked it up. Sure enough, it
means he tells good stories.
If that "one man clade" story is a characteristicYou are being led by the nose by Harshman here.
example, DI is even more screwed up than I thought.
Take a look at the reply to him by Matzke ("NickM") that he
grossly under-represented [1]:
"Hi John -- I'm not getting what you're not getting. It is common for e.g. students (and certain sorts of insufficiently educated biologists) to misinterpret cladograms (usually upwards-pointing ones) by giving significance to the left-to-right order
"It is also common for us evolutionary biologists to correct our students and to make the point that the branches can be rotated about the nodes without effecting the information in the cladogram, which is just the information of grouping relationshipsand sometimes the order of character state changes, if that is plotted. There are even several articles in education journals pointing this out and making exercises of this activity.
"But, Berlinski goes and does some node rotations and thinks he has a serious point, which I think is hilarious.You speak from an ignorance that I have no interest in addressing.
"You presumably know all of this already so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. The Berlinski post is at the DI's Evolution News and Views."
-- https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
--comments section, Monday, July 22, 2013 1:10:00 PM
[1] The following half-truth is what John said about the above reply by Matzke:
"I was informed of what was said, I looked, and yep that's what he said." Before you stick to your guns, Erik, take a good look at my reply to John yesterday evening;
it was built in part on Matzke's full reply above, not just the first two sentences that I quoted back then.
Oh, and before you decide Harshman's reply of a few minutes ago lets you off the
hook on what I wrote, note that it can (charitably) be interpreted as stalling for time until he can
look things up. In no way does he attempt to prove that Berlinski was being stupid;
he doesn't quote a blessed thing from Berlinski's article.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
P.S. Note, by the way, how Matzke was suitably impressed by Harshman's credentials [Ph.D. from a "top ten" university, article in PNAS with 18 co-authors]:
"You presumably know all of this already so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me."
The unrelievedly credentialist *ad hominem* article by Moran was paying handsome dividends for our own John Harshman.
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:28:18 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:of the tips at the top. This is the origin of myths like "rats are more closely related to humans than mice are", I think.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:11:43 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 1:47:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/30/22 5:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:wrote:
On 9/29/22 10:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman
<snip of things I dealt with in my reply to Harshman>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?
wrong? Oh yeah: he's an IDiot.""How can anyone be at once so condescendingly smug and so
mindlessly
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
That is pure *argumentum ad hominem*, but it is nothing compared tothe 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.
The egocentric Harshman ignored what I wrote about Moran, butThis too is off-topic.
that is not obvious from his next two sentences; only from the third.
<snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply to John's post>But since you mention it, that wasn't an ad
hominem argument. It wasn't an argument at all. It was an opinion based
on reading Berlinski's thing.
Never mind that Berlinski is far from mindless, you appear to
thinkof 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!
<snip of things to be dealt with in separate reply to John's post>The irony, it burns. You.
<snip of things dealt with in my reply to John yesterday evening>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.
I have one: you cherry-picked the rotation as a sample of Berlinski's mental caliber.I cherry-picked nothing. That was the subject of the discussion at Sandwalk.
Clue: there is a reason why "The rotational bit is fairly far down the page."
And now we come to your contribution, Erik:
I looked at the Berlinski reference, and noted that DI lauds him (among other things) as aStephen Jay Gould was a great raconteur, as great as they come in biology.
"raconteur". Just to make sure I knew what that meant, I looked it up. Sure enough, it
means he tells good stories.
If that "one man clade" story is a characteristicYou are being led by the nose by Harshman here.
example, DI is even more screwed up than I thought.
Take a look at the reply to him by Matzke ("NickM") that he
grossly under-represented [1]:
"Hi John -- I'm not getting what you're not getting. It is common for e.g. students (and certain sorts of insufficiently educated biologists) to misinterpret cladograms (usually upwards-pointing ones) by giving significance to the left-to-right order
relationships and sometimes the order of character state changes, if that is plotted. There are even several articles in education journals pointing this out and making exercises of this activity."It is also common for us evolutionary biologists to correct our students and to make the point that the branches can be rotated about the nodes without effecting the information in the cladogram, which is just the information of grouping
"But, Berlinski goes and does some node rotations and thinks he has a serious point, which I think is hilarious.
"You presumably know all of this already so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. The Berlinski post is at the DI's Evolution News and Views."
-- https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-irony.html
--comments section, Monday, July 22, 2013 1:10:00 PM
[1] The following half-truth is what John said about the above reply by Matzke:
"I was informed of what was said, I looked, and yep that's what he said." Before you stick to your guns, Erik, take a good look at my reply to John yesterday evening;
it was built in part on Matzke's full reply above, not just the first two sentences that I quoted back then.
Oh, and before you decide Harshman's reply of a few minutes ago lets you off the
hook on what I wrote, note that it can (charitably) be interpreted as stalling for time until he can
look things up. In no way does he attempt to prove that Berlinski was being stupid;
he doesn't quote a blessed thing from Berlinski's article.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
P.S. Note, by the way, how Matzke was suitably impressed by Harshman's credentials [Ph.D. from a "top ten" university, article in PNAS with 18 co-authors]:
"You presumably know all of this already so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me."
The unrelievedly credentialist *ad hominem* article by Moran was paying handsome dividends for our own John Harshman.
You speak from an ignorance that I have no interest in addressing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 81:07:26 |
| Calls: | 6,807 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,400,819 |