• Humans can do math, hence, humans are intelligent animals

    From Peter Nyikos@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Fri Sep 3 18:30:54 2021
    Sorry to have taken so long to return here, Mario.

    All week, my efforts have almost all been directed toward making
    sense of the stunning victory of the Taliban; and, yesterday and
    today, of an amazing anti-abortion law in Texas, utterly unlike any I have heard of before.

    So this will be the only post I make today to sci.bio.paleontology, and I only made one post
    each to talk.origins and sci.anthropology.paleo today. I hope that next week I can be a little
    more active in these three groups.

    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against >>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

    I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
    his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:

    I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
    doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.

    You are too kind to John Harshman here. He doesn't take seriously anybody whose opinions diverge significantly from his. Especially if that person doesn't have
    a doctorate in biology.

    When I returned to sci.bio.paleontology after ten years' absence, his very first
    reply to me consisted of criticizing me for daring to say some negative things about
    a long research article about the size of the largest mammals in various continents at each epoch
    of the Cenozoic. I thoroughly enjoyed that article, but I did point out some ways
    it could be improved, complete with detailed explanations.

    John deleted most of my explanations, to make his criticism seem
    a lot more to the point than it really was. I was more interested in reviving sci.bio.paleontology [which was then on the brink of extinction]
    than in getting into a fight with John, so I simply added
    MORE explanations about why I thought this or that aspect of the article
    could be improved, without even commenting on the fact that I had already given a lot.

    I think he was a bit easier on me after that, but I'd have to check. It's been a long time since I've looked at those early posts.


    I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.


    Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100% sure that you were wrong.

    There are some people who have legitimate medical reasons for not
    having anti-Covid-2 vaccines. When I took the Pfizer vaccine, I was asked whether I had ever had certain physical problems, because there were some
    which would have made me ineligible for the vaccine.


    You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
    later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
    isn't.

    John's dogmatism about so many things may be one reason he
    has never had at tenure-track job at a university or a 4-year college.
    Although he has learned a tremendous number of scientific facts,
    he doesn't talk with the kind of caution one expects of scientists.


    Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
    food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to see? Do you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
    thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change the selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
    advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even more absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates microchip and magnetization theories.)

    That's mild compared to some of the toxic disinformation going around.
    One is that Bill Gates himself has admitted that the mRNA vaccines
    will permanently alter your genome, in a way that your descendants
    will inherit a gene for the viral spike protein.

    Not only is it nonsense that Bill Gates has admitted it, but the thing
    he supposedly "admitted" is pure unsupportable scaremongering.


    Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It
    is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I
    am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is. This
    is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
    I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
    There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
    I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
    only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
    pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.

    Fascinating.

    Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
    I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
    this is smart thing to do.

    I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.

    I must admit, I don't either.

    Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front
    of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
    do. I say that it isn't.

    Why are you comparing vaccination to laying flat down in front of a moving truck?

    Or are you?


    Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
    sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

    Others have noticed this: when we move outside Harshman's areas
    of expertise, he seems incapable of following even simple arguments.

    One person, who called himself "prawnster," even composed a
    little poem about John, in which John is depicted as talking intelligently about all kinds
    of abstruse topics, but when he is squeezed into a corner from which there is no escape, he goes,

    "Stop! Uncle!"
    By feigning the 'tard.

    [that last word is short for "retard", as in "mentally retarded"]


    Peter Nyikos

    ...........................Bing Quote of the Day:

    Why fit in when you were born to stand out?
    —Dr. Seuss

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Isaak@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Fri Sep 3 21:34:27 2021
    On 8/24/21 5:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

    I certainly do have doubts about your sanity, as
    would anyone reading some of the stuff you post.

    Did you have "anyone" in mind besides yourself and Mark Isaak? I suppose Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena would be another, but if Hemidactylus entertained
    any such doubts, he certainly hasn't voiced them. His reply to the same
    post to which you are replying was a masterpiece of "Ignoring the Elephant in the Room."

    Even Mark Isaak might hesitate in pronouncing what you write below as "sane and rational".

    You are not qualified to judge issues of sanity. Your last statement
    above demonstrates as much.

    --
    Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
    "Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
    - Hugh of St. Victor

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Sat Sep 4 06:41:44 2021
    On 4.9.2021. 3:30, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against >>>>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

    I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
    his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:

    I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
    doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.

    You are too kind to John Harshman here. He doesn't take seriously anybody whose
    opinions diverge significantly from his. Especially if that person doesn't have
    a doctorate in biology.

    When I returned to sci.bio.paleontology after ten years' absence, his very first
    reply to me consisted of criticizing me for daring to say some negative things about
    a long research article about the size of the largest mammals in various continents at each epoch
    of the Cenozoic. I thoroughly enjoyed that article, but I did point out some ways
    it could be improved, complete with detailed explanations.

    John deleted most of my explanations, to make his criticism seem
    a lot more to the point than it really was. I was more interested in reviving sci.bio.paleontology [which was then on the brink of extinction]
    than in getting into a fight with John, so I simply added
    MORE explanations about why I thought this or that aspect of the article could be improved, without even commenting on the fact that I had already given a lot.

    I think he was a bit easier on me after that, but I'd have to check. It's been
    a long time since I've looked at those early posts.

    I've just had discussion in the thread "Vaccination", with all those
    guys (Harshman, Simpson, and the third one). Those people are just plain stupid. They don't need to agree with me, but, at least they need to
    show that their brain is working. They failed to show that. Having
    business with those guys is just a waste of time.

    I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.


    Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
    "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100% sure >>> that you were wrong.

    There are some people who have legitimate medical reasons for not
    having anti-Covid-2 vaccines. When I took the Pfizer vaccine, I was asked whether I had ever had certain physical problems, because there were some which would have made me ineligible for the vaccine.


    You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
    later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
    isn't.

    John's dogmatism about so many things may be one reason he
    has never had at tenure-track job at a university or a 4-year college. Although he has learned a tremendous number of scientific facts,
    he doesn't talk with the kind of caution one expects of scientists.


    Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
    food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to see? Do >>> you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
    thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change the >>> selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
    advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the
    beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even more >>> absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates
    microchip and magnetization theories.)

    That's mild compared to some of the toxic disinformation going around.
    One is that Bill Gates himself has admitted that the mRNA vaccines
    will permanently alter your genome, in a way that your descendants
    will inherit a gene for the viral spike protein.

    Not only is it nonsense that Bill Gates has admitted it, but the thing
    he supposedly "admitted" is pure unsupportable scaremongering.


    Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It
    is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I
    am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is. This
    is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
    I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
    There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
    I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
    only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
    pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.

    Fascinating.

    The problem that I had the other day (when my left chin swelled), I
    had some inflammation, or whatever. Just after I posted here I got ill,
    my body "lightened", and I felt coldness, so, obviously my temperature
    raised. This lasted for 2 - 3 hours, and after that I was fresh again.
    After another 24 hours, or something, the swelling went off.

    Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
    I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
    this is smart thing to do.

    I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.

    I must admit, I don't either.

    Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front
    of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
    do. I say that it isn't.

    Why are you comparing vaccination to laying flat down in front of a moving truck?

    Or are you?

    It is better than comparing vaccination to using calculator. In my
    eyes, vaccination leads to temporary benefits, but also to long time
    tragedy. So, in my eyes taking a vaccination is like going straight into
    the mouth of death.

    Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
    sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

    Others have noticed this: when we move outside Harshman's areas
    of expertise, he seems incapable of following even simple arguments.

    One person, who called himself "prawnster," even composed a
    little poem about John, in which John is depicted as talking intelligently about all kinds
    of abstruse topics, but when he is squeezed into a corner from which there is no escape, he goes,

    "Stop! Uncle!"
    By feigning the 'tard.

    [that last word is short for "retard", as in "mentally retarded"]

    I never heard him talking intelligently. The only thing that he does
    is, he connects a discussion to something that he read in some book, and copy/paste the idea from that book, and absolutely nothing else. He
    thinks that he achieved everything in life by managing to understand to
    usual memes. What "credible" majority claims, this is true, and he "understands" this. So, he is quoting the ideas of "credible" majority
    all over the place, and never goes outside of that. Never, ever, he
    showed that he is, actually, thinking.
    The best example is the comparisons of my view on vaccination to the
    usage of computer, or fork, or whatever. This is, about, as simple as
    possible. And he is perfectly happy to be on that level. As long as he
    agrees with the "credible" majority, he is "right".

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sat Sep 4 07:28:25 2021
    On 4.9.2021. 6:41, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 3:30, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against >>>>>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

    I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were
    kidding, with
    his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next: >>>>>
    I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
    doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.

    You are too kind to John Harshman here. He doesn't take seriously
    anybody whose
    opinions diverge significantly from his. Especially if that person
    doesn't have
    a doctorate in biology.

    When I returned to sci.bio.paleontology after ten years' absence, his
    very first
    reply to me consisted of criticizing me for daring to say some
    negative things about
    a long research article about the size of the largest mammals in
    various continents at each epoch
    of the Cenozoic. I thoroughly enjoyed that article, but I did point
    out some ways
    it could be improved, complete with detailed explanations.

    John deleted most of my explanations, to make his criticism seem
    a lot more to the point than it really was. I was more interested in
    reviving
    sci.bio.paleontology [which was then on the brink of extinction]
    than in getting into a fight with John, so I simply added
    MORE explanations about why I thought this or that aspect of the article
    could be improved, without even commenting on the fact that I had
    already given a lot.

    I think he was a bit easier on me after that, but I'd have to check.
    It's been
    a long time since I've looked at those early posts.

            I've just had discussion in the thread "Vaccination", with all
    those guys (Harshman, Simpson, and the third one). Those people are just plain stupid. They don't need to agree with me, but, at least they need
    to show that their brain is working. They failed to show that. Having business with those guys is just a waste of time.

    I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not
    avoiding it for the wrong reasons.


    Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
    "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100%
    sure
    that you were wrong.

    There are some people who have legitimate medical reasons for not
    having anti-Covid-2 vaccines. When I took the Pfizer vaccine, I was asked
    whether I had ever had certain physical problems, because there were some
    which would have made me ineligible for the vaccine.


    You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
    later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
    isn't.

    John's dogmatism about so many things may be one reason he
    has never had at tenure-track job at a university or a 4-year college.
    Although he has learned a tremendous number of scientific facts,
    he doesn't talk with the kind of caution one expects of scientists.


    Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
    food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to
    see? Do
    you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
    thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change
    the
    selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
    advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the >>>> beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even
    more
    absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates >>>> microchip and magnetization theories.)

    That's mild compared to some of the toxic disinformation going around.
    One is that Bill Gates himself has admitted that the mRNA vaccines
    will permanently alter your genome, in a way that your descendants
    will inherit a gene for the viral spike protein.

    Not only is it nonsense that Bill Gates has admitted it, but the thing
    he supposedly "admitted" is pure unsupportable scaremongering.


    Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It
    is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I
    am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is. This >>> is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
    I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
    There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
    I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
    only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
    pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.

    Fascinating.

            The problem that I had the other day (when my left chin swelled), I had some inflammation, or whatever. Just after I posted here
    I got ill, my body "lightened", and I felt coldness, so, obviously my temperature raised. This lasted for 2 - 3 hours, and after that I was
    fresh again. After another 24 hours, or something, the swelling went off.

    Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
    I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
    this is smart thing to do.

    I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.

    I must admit, I don't either.

    Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front
    of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
    do. I say that it isn't.

    Why are you comparing vaccination to laying flat down in front of a
    moving truck?

    Or are you?

            It is better than comparing vaccination to using calculator. In
    my eyes, vaccination leads to temporary benefits, but also to long time tragedy. So, in my eyes taking a vaccination is like going straight into
    the mouth of death.

    Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the terms. I
    wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long term* we will
    have tragedy.
    Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is that using
    "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are unnatural. Not at
    all, this isn't my idea.
    I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we become slower
    runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from home to the car,
    and from car to the work, and nothing else. And that's perfectly alright
    (by me), because we don't have to compete for life by the way of
    running. If, for some reason, we would need to compete for life, by the
    way of running, we would be doomed. But, this will not happen, for sure.
    We don't need to run anymore. We, also, don't need to eat raw food
    anymore. We also, can use calculators to count, we don't have to do this
    in our head, this is perfectly alright.
    But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars, vaccination also
    diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, here is the
    difference, we would not need to compete for life by the way of running,
    but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* to do that, we are
    doomed. The end of story.

    Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
    sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

    Others have noticed this: when we move outside Harshman's areas
    of expertise, he seems incapable of following even simple arguments.

    One person, who called himself "prawnster," even composed a
    little poem about John, in which John is depicted as talking
    intelligently about all kinds
    of abstruse topics, but when he is squeezed into a corner from which
    there is no escape, he goes,

    "Stop! Uncle!"
    By feigning the 'tard.

    [that last word is short for "retard", as in "mentally retarded"]

            I never heard him talking intelligently. The only thing that he
    does is, he connects a discussion to something that he read in some
    book, and copy/paste the idea from that book, and absolutely nothing
    else. He thinks that he achieved everything in life by managing to
    understand to usual memes. What "credible" majority claims, this is
    true, and he "understands" this. So, he is quoting the ideas of
    "credible" majority all over the place, and never goes outside of that. Never, ever, he showed that he is, actually, thinking.
            The best example is the comparisons of my view on vaccination to the usage of computer, or fork, or whatever. This is, about, as
    simple as possible. And he is perfectly happy to be on that level. As
    long as he agrees with the "credible" majority, he is "right".

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sat Sep 4 07:54:40 2021
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 6:41, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 3:30, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against >>>>>>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

    I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were
    kidding, with
    his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next: >>>>>>
    I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
    doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.

    You are too kind to John Harshman here. He doesn't take seriously
    anybody whose
    opinions diverge significantly from his. Especially if that person
    doesn't have
    a doctorate in biology.

    When I returned to sci.bio.paleontology after ten years' absence, his
    very first
    reply to me consisted of criticizing me for daring to say some
    negative things about
    a long research article about the size of the largest mammals in
    various continents at each epoch
    of the Cenozoic. I thoroughly enjoyed that article, but I did point
    out some ways
    it could be improved, complete with detailed explanations.

    John deleted most of my explanations, to make his criticism seem
    a lot more to the point than it really was. I was more interested in
    reviving
    sci.bio.paleontology [which was then on the brink of extinction]
    than in getting into a fight with John, so I simply added
    MORE explanations about why I thought this or that aspect of the article >>> could be improved, without even commenting on the fact that I had
    already given a lot.

    I think he was a bit easier on me after that, but I'd have to check.
    It's been
    a long time since I've looked at those early posts.

             I've just had discussion in the thread "Vaccination", with >> all those guys (Harshman, Simpson, and the third one). Those people
    are just plain stupid. They don't need to agree with me, but, at least
    they need to show that their brain is working. They failed to show
    that. Having business with those guys is just a waste of time.

    I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not
    avoiding it for the wrong reasons.


    Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
    "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100%
    sure
    that you were wrong.

    There are some people who have legitimate medical reasons for not
    having anti-Covid-2 vaccines. When I took the Pfizer vaccine, I was
    asked
    whether I had ever had certain physical problems, because there were
    some
    which would have made me ineligible for the vaccine.


    You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
    later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
    isn't.

    John's dogmatism about so many things may be one reason he
    has never had at tenure-track job at a university or a 4-year college.
    Although he has learned a tremendous number of scientific facts,
    he doesn't talk with the kind of caution one expects of scientists.


    Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
    food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to
    see? Do
    you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
    thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you
    change the
    selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
    advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the >>>>> beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even
    more
    absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill
    Gates
    microchip and magnetization theories.)

    That's mild compared to some of the toxic disinformation going around.
    One is that Bill Gates himself has admitted that the mRNA vaccines
    will permanently alter your genome, in a way that your descendants
    will inherit a gene for the viral spike protein.

    Not only is it nonsense that Bill Gates has admitted it, but the thing
    he supposedly "admitted" is pure unsupportable scaremongering.


    Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It >>>> is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I >>>> am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is.
    This
    is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
    I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
    There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
    I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
    only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
    pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.

    Fascinating.

             The problem that I had the other day (when my left chin
    swelled), I had some inflammation, or whatever. Just after I posted
    here I got ill, my body "lightened", and I felt coldness, so,
    obviously my temperature raised. This lasted for 2 - 3 hours, and
    after that I was fresh again. After another 24 hours, or something,
    the swelling went off.

    Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
    I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
    this is smart thing to do.

    I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.

    I must admit, I don't either.

    Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front >>>> of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
    do. I say that it isn't.

    Why are you comparing vaccination to laying flat down in front of a
    moving truck?

    Or are you?

             It is better than comparing vaccination to using calculator.
    In my eyes, vaccination leads to temporary benefits, but also to long
    time tragedy. So, in my eyes taking a vaccination is like going
    straight into the mouth of death.

            Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the terms.
    I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long term* we
    will have tragedy.
            Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is that
    using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are unnatural. Not
    at all, this isn't my idea.
            I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we become
    slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from home to the
    car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And that's perfectly
    alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to compete for life, by the
    way of running, we would be doomed. But, this will not happen, for sure.
    We don't need to run anymore. We, also, don't need to eat raw food
    anymore. We also, can use calculators to count, we don't have to do this
    in our head, this is perfectly alright.
            But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars, vaccination
    also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the way of running,
    but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* to do that, we are
    doomed. The end of story.

    For example, we had "Black Death" 670 years ago. This was terrible
    illness. 1/3 of the population died. But see this, we survived, and
    today, 670 years later, we are talking about it, no problemo.
    Did Black Death kill children? I never heard that it didn't, it was
    hard illness, it kills everybody that it touches.
    But not the Covid-19, Covid-19 is a mild disease. It doesn't kill.
    Yet, people are dying en masse.
    Will the species that dies out of *mild* diseases will be able to
    survive another 670 years to talk about it? I don't think so.
    But, no scientist ever thinks 670 years ahead (because there is no
    evidence). And, we are asking scientists what is the best thing to do.
    And we are expecting from people who don't look further than their
    noses, to give us good advice. We must idiots.

    Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
    sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

    Others have noticed this: when we move outside Harshman's areas
    of expertise, he seems incapable of following even simple arguments.

    One person, who called himself "prawnster," even composed a
    little poem about John, in which John is depicted as talking
    intelligently about all kinds
    of abstruse topics, but when he is squeezed into a corner from which
    there is no escape, he goes,

    "Stop! Uncle!"
    By feigning the 'tard.

    [that last word is short for "retard", as in "mentally retarded"]

             I never heard him talking intelligently. The only thing that
    he does is, he connects a discussion to something that he read in some
    book, and copy/paste the idea from that book, and absolutely nothing
    else. He thinks that he achieved everything in life by managing to
    understand to usual memes. What "credible" majority claims, this is
    true, and he "understands" this. So, he is quoting the ideas of
    "credible" majority all over the place, and never goes outside of
    that. Never, ever, he showed that he is, actually, thinking.
             The best example is the comparisons of my view on vaccination
    to the usage of computer, or fork, or whatever. This is, about, as
    simple as possible. And he is perfectly happy to be on that level. As
    long as he agrees with the "credible" majority, he is "right".

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Sat Sep 4 09:36:04 2021
    On 9/3/21 6:30 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    Sorry to have taken so long to return here, Mario.

    All week, my efforts have almost all been directed toward making
    sense of the stunning victory of the Taliban; and, yesterday and
    today, of an amazing anti-abortion law in Texas, utterly unlike any I have heard of before.

    So this will be the only post I make today to sci.bio.paleontology, and I only made one post
    each to talk.origins and sci.anthropology.paleo today. I hope that next week I can be a little
    more active in these three groups.

    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against >>>>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

    I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
    his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:

    I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
    doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.

    You are too kind to John Harshman here. He doesn't take seriously anybody whose
    opinions diverge significantly from his. Especially if that person doesn't have
    a doctorate in biology.

    When I returned to sci.bio.paleontology after ten years' absence, his very first
    reply to me consisted of criticizing me for daring to say some negative things about
    a long research article about the size of the largest mammals in various continents at each epoch
    of the Cenozoic. I thoroughly enjoyed that article, but I did point out some ways
    it could be improved, complete with detailed explanations.

    John deleted most of my explanations, to make his criticism seem
    a lot more to the point than it really was. I was more interested in reviving sci.bio.paleontology [which was then on the brink of extinction]
    than in getting into a fight with John, so I simply added
    MORE explanations about why I thought this or that aspect of the article could be improved, without even commenting on the fact that I had already given a lot.

    I think he was a bit easier on me after that, but I'd have to check. It's been
    a long time since I've looked at those early posts.


    I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.


    Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
    "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100% sure >>> that you were wrong.

    There are some people who have legitimate medical reasons for not
    having anti-Covid-2 vaccines. When I took the Pfizer vaccine, I was asked whether I had ever had certain physical problems, because there were some which would have made me ineligible for the vaccine.


    You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
    later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
    isn't.

    John's dogmatism about so many things may be one reason he
    has never had at tenure-track job at a university or a 4-year college. Although he has learned a tremendous number of scientific facts,
    he doesn't talk with the kind of caution one expects of scientists.


    Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
    food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to see? Do >>> you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
    thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change the >>> selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
    advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the
    beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even more >>> absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates
    microchip and magnetization theories.)

    That's mild compared to some of the toxic disinformation going around.
    One is that Bill Gates himself has admitted that the mRNA vaccines
    will permanently alter your genome, in a way that your descendants
    will inherit a gene for the viral spike protein.

    Not only is it nonsense that Bill Gates has admitted it, but the thing
    he supposedly "admitted" is pure unsupportable scaremongering.


    Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It
    is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I
    am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is. This
    is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
    I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
    There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
    I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
    only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
    pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.

    Fascinating.

    Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
    I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
    this is smart thing to do.

    I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.

    I must admit, I don't either.

    Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front
    of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
    do. I say that it isn't.

    Why are you comparing vaccination to laying flat down in front of a moving truck?

    Or are you?


    Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
    sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

    Others have noticed this: when we move outside Harshman's areas
    of expertise, he seems incapable of following even simple arguments.

    One person, who called himself "prawnster," even composed a
    little poem about John, in which John is depicted as talking intelligently about all kinds
    of abstruse topics, but when he is squeezed into a corner from which there is no escape, he goes,

    "Stop! Uncle!"
    By feigning the 'tard.

    [that last word is short for "retard", as in "mentally retarded"]

    This reminds me of nothing so much as Kevin McCarthy sucking up to
    Donald Trump and the Q-Anon people.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sun Sep 5 03:25:53 2021
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
            Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the terms.
    I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long term* we
    will have tragedy.
            Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is that
    using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are unnatural. Not
    at all, this isn't my idea.
            I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we become
    slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from home to the
    car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And that's perfectly
    alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to compete for life, by the
    way of running, we would be doomed. But, this will not happen, for sure.
    We don't need to run anymore. We, also, don't need to eat raw food
    anymore. We also, can use calculators to count, we don't have to do this
    in our head, this is perfectly alright.
            But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars, vaccination
    also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the way of running,
    but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* to do that, we are
    doomed. The end of story.

    I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking so
    simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity has,
    the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
    We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that was
    beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial. Because we are
    driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
    We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved a lot
    of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto our
    defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate
    benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the
    immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term*
    this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their
    horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking
    about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sun Sep 5 03:43:25 2021
    On 5.9.2021. 3:25, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
             Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the
    terms. I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long
    term* we will have tragedy.
             Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is >> that using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are
    unnatural. Not at all, this isn't my idea.
             I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we
    become slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from
    home to the car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And
    that's perfectly alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for
    life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to
    compete for life, by the way of running, we would be doomed. But, this
    will not happen, for sure. We don't need to run anymore. We, also,
    don't need to eat raw food anymore. We also, can use calculators to
    count, we don't have to do this in our head, this is perfectly alright.
             But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars,
    vaccination also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But,
    here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the
    way of running, but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by
    the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit*
    to do that, we are doomed. The end of story.

            I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking so simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity
    has, the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
            We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that
    was beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial. Because we are
    driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
            We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved
    a lot of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto
    our defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the
    immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term*
    this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking
    about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    And now, how to get out of this *deadly*, *catastrophic* situation
    that we got ourselves into? The only way is to stop vaccination.
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea. And it
    turned out that the death toll would be tremendous. It would be even
    worse than Black Death.
    Now, what will stupid humans do? Will they stop the vaccination, and
    have tremendous death toll, or will they "play safe", and wait until we
    all die?
    Now, this is *the real* intelligence test. How will humans pass that
    test, I wonder? Will they pass it at all?
    I mean, we can cope with climate change, just like Biden said, we have
    to invest into our infrastructure. This looks very difficulty, and very
    costly, but no problemo, this can be done.
    Regarding vaccination, we even don't see the problem, yet. This same
    Biden (just like absolutely every politician on Earth), actually, has
    great campaign for *more* vaccination. Greatly encouraged by the
    smartest people on this planet, scientific community. Nobody even dares
    to say anything against vaccination, otherwise his credibility would be
    put in question. He will be called a crazy idiot.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Nyikos@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Sep 9 06:13:13 2021
    On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:43:27 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 5.9.2021. 3:25, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the
    terms. I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long
    term* we will have tragedy.
    Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is
    that using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are
    unnatural. Not at all, this isn't my idea.

    Harshman was pushing your argument towards something he figured
    you would object to, just as I did yesterday in "Vaccination" when you
    used the word "exploit" in an unexplained way.

    I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we
    become slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from
    home to the car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And
    that's perfectly alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for
    life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to
    compete for life, by the way of running, we would be doomed. But, this
    will not happen, for sure. We don't need to run anymore.

    Unless our civilization collapses, which it might do in the next century or two.


    We, also, don't need to eat raw food anymore. We also, can use calculators to
    count, we don't have to do this in our head, this is perfectly alright.

    I prefer doing it on paper if it involves things we CAN count. You know, those little tally marks.
    Skilled abacus users can beat people with calculators where much bigger numbers are involved.

    But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars,
    vaccination also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But,
    here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the
    way of running, but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by
    the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit*
    to do that, we are doomed. The end of story.

    We will always have viruses for what is called the common cold and is
    actually dozens of different diseases because the viruses are so different.


    I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking
    so simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity
    has, the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
    We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that
    was beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial.

    For the short run. But for the long run, we are heading for huge
    problems because we are relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
    Unless something drastic is done, the collapse of our civilization
    will be almost unavoidable by or before 2300.

    This is a much shorter long run than the one you envision for
    disaster to our immune system.


    Because we are driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
    We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved
    a lot of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto
    our defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term*
    this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking
    about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    It's too bad they don't know how to reason with you. I can, but you
    can be awfully stubborn. That's OK, I'm in this for the "long" haul, certainly till the end of 2021.


    And now, how to get out of this *deadly*, *catastrophic* situation
    that we got ourselves into? The only way is to stop vaccination.
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea.

    Did [s]he publish an article about it in some scientific journal?


    And it turned out that the death toll would be tremendous. It would be even worse than Black Death.

    In percentages, or in actual numbers? There is a huge difference.


    Now, what will stupid humans do? Will they stop the vaccination, and
    have tremendous death toll, or will they "play safe", and wait until we
    all die?

    They could have said the same thing about smallpox in 1900. Yet
    by 2000, the disease was eradicated, with a much smaller death
    toll in the meantime, thanks to vigorous vaccination efforts.

    They are working on eradicating polio and measles. I got measles in 1952,
    and I believe my severe myopia (8 diopters) was due in part to it. My oldest sister
    (who is younger than me) got it worse: 12 diopters.

    But measles is making a comeback, thanks to people like yourself.


    Now, this is *the real* intelligence test. How will humans pass that
    test, I wonder? Will they pass it at all?
    I mean, we can cope with climate change, just like Biden said, we have
    to invest into our infrastructure. This looks very difficulty, and very costly, but no problemo, this can be done.

    How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it,
    and it can be done.


    Regarding vaccination, we even don't see the problem, yet. This same
    Biden (just like absolutely every politician on Earth), actually, has
    great campaign for *more* vaccination. Greatly encouraged by the
    smartest people on this planet, scientific community. Nobody even dares
    to say anything against vaccination, otherwise his credibility would be
    put in question. He will be called a crazy idiot.

    Not by me. He will be called badly informed. And a lot of the problem is because governments want to coerce people rather than inform them.
    See my long "stake through the heart" reply to Hemidactylus on "Vaccination"
    to see what could be done, if the experts cared enough.


    Peter Nyikos

    PS In my case, my myopia had a happy ending a little over a decade ago. I developed cataracts,
    and cataract surgery has advanced to where they can correct myopia with the implanted lenses. I now have no myopia in the left eye, and I specifically requested 2 diopters in my right eye so that I don't need reading glasses.
    My sister hasn't developed cataracts to where she is eligible for cataract surgery,
    so she is still handicapped by her 12 diopters.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From *Hemidactylus*@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Thu Sep 9 09:30:15 2021
    Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

    [snip]

    How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it,
    and it can be done.

    That’s not what classical liberal means. Quite the opposite actually.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Thu Sep 9 18:40:07 2021
    On 9.9.2021. 15:13, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:43:27 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 5.9.2021. 3:25, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the
    terms. I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long
    term* we will have tragedy.
    Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is
    that using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are
    unnatural. Not at all, this isn't my idea.

    Harshman was pushing your argument towards something he figured
    you would object to, just as I did yesterday in "Vaccination" when you
    used the word "exploit" in an unexplained way.

    I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we
    become slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from
    home to the car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And
    that's perfectly alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for >>>> life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to
    compete for life, by the way of running, we would be doomed. But, this >>>> will not happen, for sure. We don't need to run anymore.

    Unless our civilization collapses, which it might do in the next century or two.


    We, also, don't need to eat raw food anymore. We also, can use calculators to
    count, we don't have to do this in our head, this is perfectly alright.

    I prefer doing it on paper if it involves things we CAN count. You know, those little tally marks.
    Skilled abacus users can beat people with calculators where much bigger numbers are involved.

    But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars,
    vaccination also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, >>>> here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the
    way of running, but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by
    the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* >>>> to do that, we are doomed. The end of story.

    We will always have viruses for what is called the common cold and is actually dozens of different diseases because the viruses are so different.


    I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking
    so simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity
    has, the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
    We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that
    was beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial.

    For the short run. But for the long run, we are heading for huge
    problems because we are relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
    Unless something drastic is done, the collapse of our civilization
    will be almost unavoidable by or before 2300.

    This is a much shorter long run than the one you envision for
    disaster to our immune system.


    Because we are driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
    We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved
    a lot of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto
    our defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate
    benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even >>> understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the
    immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term*
    this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their
    horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking
    about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    It's too bad they don't know how to reason with you. I can, but you
    can be awfully stubborn. That's OK, I'm in this for the "long" haul, certainly till the end of 2021.

    I started to like this word, "stubborn". That's what my mother used to
    tell me, lol.

    And now, how to get out of this *deadly*, *catastrophic* situation
    that we got ourselves into? The only way is to stop vaccination.
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea.

    Did [s]he publish an article about it in some scientific journal?

    Yes, I've read it somewhere, not too long ago. Maybe a year, maybe few
    years.

    And it turned out that the death toll would be tremendous. It would be even >> worse than Black Death.

    In percentages, or in actual numbers? There is a huge difference.

    In percentage. If we would abandon vaccination all those kid illnesses
    would destroy us. I believe that they accounted also for the lost
    ability (because we were vaccinated) of our defense mechanism to fight
    those illnesses. If for nothing else, but only for the fact that people
    who should die out of those illnesses spread their inability genetically.

    Now, what will stupid humans do? Will they stop the vaccination, and
    have tremendous death toll, or will they "play safe", and wait until we
    all die?

    They could have said the same thing about smallpox in 1900. Yet
    by 2000, the disease was eradicated, with a much smaller death
    toll in the meantime, thanks to vigorous vaccination efforts.

    They are working on eradicating polio and measles. I got measles in 1952,
    and I believe my severe myopia (8 diopters) was due in part to it. My oldest sister
    (who is younger than me) got it worse: 12 diopters.

    But measles is making a comeback, thanks to people like yourself.


    Now, this is *the real* intelligence test. How will humans pass that
    test, I wonder? Will they pass it at all?
    I mean, we can cope with climate change, just like Biden said, we have
    to invest into our infrastructure. This looks very difficulty, and very
    costly, but no problemo, this can be done.

    How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it,
    and it can be done.


    Regarding vaccination, we even don't see the problem, yet. This same
    Biden (just like absolutely every politician on Earth), actually, has
    great campaign for *more* vaccination. Greatly encouraged by the
    smartest people on this planet, scientific community. Nobody even dares
    to say anything against vaccination, otherwise his credibility would be
    put in question. He will be called a crazy idiot.

    Not by me. He will be called badly informed. And a lot of the problem is because governments want to coerce people rather than inform them.
    See my long "stake through the heart" reply to Hemidactylus on "Vaccination" to see what could be done, if the experts cared enough.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Sep 9 18:53:03 2021
    On 9.9.2021. 18:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 9.9.2021. 15:13, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:43:27 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
    wrote:
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea.

    Did [s]he publish an article about it in some scientific journal?

            Yes, I've read it somewhere, not too long ago. Maybe a year, maybe few years.

    Actually, it was about one year, or so, before the Covid crisis.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Nyikos@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 14:57:58 2021
    On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
    Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

    [snip]

    You didn't want to deal with the assertion Mario made, so you snipped it. [restored:]
    I mean, we can cope with climate change, just like Biden said, we have
    to invest into our infrastructure. This looks very difficulty, and very >>> costly, but no problemo, this can be done.
    [end of restoration]

    How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it, and it can be done.

    Why did you snip it? Are you embarrassed by the thought of Biden pushing
    for such an unrealistic aim? [I say "unrealistic" because the only promising way
    to do it would be a crash program in new nuclear reactors, but that would alienate Biden's power base, and we can't have that, can we?]


    That’s not what classical liberal means. Quite the opposite actually.

    Maybe I should have said "old-fashioned liberal" with the understanding
    that the definition of "liberal" is the American, not the British Commonwealth definition. I suppose you are using the latter meaning for "classical."

    I think the perfect litmus test for which of these two kinds of liberal one is...
    right-to-work laws. A British Liberal would love them, while they
    are pure anathema for old-fashioned American liberals. The archetypal
    example of the latter was the perennial Washington Post editorial cartoonist, Herblock. One of his cartoons showed two corporate (very) fat cats
    erecting a gallows, with a furious laborer in the background saying,
    "Well I'll be hanged -- right to work laws!"

    Just today, I saw a poster explaining what these are, and I describe it for the
    benefit of Mario, who might not know. The poster was addressed at graduate students,
    telling them that they were "workers" for whom there is a union on our campus. It pointed out that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. Unlike Herblock, it was factual, and mildly explained that this means that you
    are not obligated to join a union in order to keep a job, and so this was
    just an invitation for them to join. And it gave reasons why a student might like to join.


    Peter Nyikos

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Nyikos@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Fri Sep 10 15:20:54 2021
    The discussion here isn't as heated as it is on the "Vaccination" thread,
    so I'm replying even though it isn't next week yet, unlike on that other thread.

    On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 9.9.2021. 15:13, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:43:27 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 5.9.2021. 3:25, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the
    terms. I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long
    term* we will have tragedy.
    Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is
    that using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are
    unnatural. Not at all, this isn't my idea.

    Harshman was pushing your argument towards something he figured
    you would object to, just as I did yesterday in "Vaccination" when you
    used the word "exploit" in an unexplained way.

    I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we
    become slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from
    home to the car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And
    that's perfectly alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for >>>> life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to
    compete for life, by the way of running, we would be doomed. But, this >>>> will not happen, for sure. We don't need to run anymore.

    Unless our civilization collapses, which it might do in the next century or two.


    We, also, don't need to eat raw food anymore. We also, can use calculators to
    count, we don't have to do this in our head, this is perfectly alright.

    I prefer doing it on paper if it involves things we CAN count. You know, those little tally marks.
    Skilled abacus users can beat people with calculators where much bigger numbers are involved.

    But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars,
    vaccination also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, >>>> here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the >>>> way of running, but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by >>>> the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* >>>> to do that, we are doomed. The end of story.

    We will always have viruses for what is called the common cold and is actually dozens of different diseases because the viruses are so different.


    I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking
    so simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity
    has, the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
    We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that
    was beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial.

    For the short run. But for the long run, we are heading for huge
    problems because we are relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
    Unless something drastic is done, the collapse of our civilization
    will be almost unavoidable by or before 2300.

    This is a much shorter long run than the one you envision for
    disaster to our immune system.


    Because we are driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
    We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved
    a lot of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto
    our defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate >>> benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even >>> understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the
    immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term*
    this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their >>> horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking
    about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    It's too bad they don't know how to reason with you. I can, but you
    can be awfully stubborn. That's OK, I'm in this for the "long" haul, certainly till the end of 2021.
    I started to like this word, "stubborn". That's what my mother used to
    tell me, lol.
    And now, how to get out of this *deadly*, *catastrophic* situation
    that we got ourselves into? The only way is to stop vaccination.
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea.

    Did [s]he publish an article about it in some scientific journal?

    Yes, I've read it somewhere, not too long ago. Maybe a year, maybe few
    years.

    And it turned out that the death toll would be tremendous. It would be even
    worse than Black Death.

    In percentages, or in actual numbers? There is a huge difference.


    In percentage. If we would abandon vaccination all those kid illnesses
    would destroy us.

    I see, so it was not just Covid-19, but ALL vaccinations. Even so, I'm skeptical. The Black Death ended long before vaccinations, and
    yet the terrible death toll was NOT taken up by other diseases.


    I believe that they accounted also for the lost
    ability (because we were vaccinated) of our defense mechanism to fight
    those illnesses.

    You really need to find that article somehow. If it included this,
    then it had to have some very good reasons for doing so.
    This means QUANTITATIVE estimates as to how much loss there
    was to our defense mechanisms. I don't think such data are known at our stage of knowledge.


    If for nothing else, but only for the fact that people
    who should die out of those illnesses spread their inability genetically.

    There is a huge assumption here: the inability to fight off the disease
    is hereditary rather than a function of the environment.

    Sociologists got into the act here, publishing studies showing that
    whether one gets tuberculosis or not is mostly dependent on unhealthy
    living conditions and not on heredity. I was told about this in a course
    in introductory sociology that I took in college. They weren't as keen on basing everything on peer-reviewed literature, like Harshman and the Overdogs of talk.origins are, so I didn't take any notes on where these studies appeared.


    Now, what will stupid humans do? Will they stop the vaccination, and
    have tremendous death toll, or will they "play safe", and wait until we
    all die?

    They could have said the same thing about smallpox in 1900. Yet
    by 2000, the disease was eradicated, with a much smaller death
    toll in the meantime, thanks to vigorous vaccination efforts.

    They are working on eradicating polio and measles. I got measles in 1952, and I believe my severe myopia (8 diopters) was due in part to it. My oldest sister
    (who is younger than me) got it worse: 12 diopters.

    But measles is making a comeback, thanks to people like yourself.


    Now, this is *the real* intelligence test. How will humans pass that
    test, I wonder? Will they pass it at all?

    The real test is whether your proposed test is valid. Since you made no
    reply to the new comments I made, I assume that it is not valid.


    Peter Nyikos

    Regarding vaccination, we even don't see the problem, yet. This same
    Biden (just like absolutely every politician on Earth), actually, has
    great campaign for *more* vaccination. Greatly encouraged by the
    smartest people on this planet, scientific community. Nobody even dares
    to say anything against vaccination, otherwise his credibility would be
    put in question. He will be called a crazy idiot.

    Not by me. He will be called badly informed. And a lot of the problem is because governments want to coerce people rather than inform them.
    See my long "stake through the heart" reply to Hemidactylus on "Vaccination"
    to see what could be done, if the experts cared enough.
    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-e...@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From *Hemidactylus*@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Fri Sep 10 20:04:54 2021
    Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
    Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

    [snip]

    You didn't want to deal with the assertion Mario made, so you snipped it.

    You and Erik might see some value in engaging him further. I don’t. Sorry.
    He crossed a line several times now. Enjoy.

    [restored:]
    I mean, we can cope with climate change, just like Biden said, we have >>>> to invest into our infrastructure. This looks very difficulty, and very >>>> costly, but no problemo, this can be done.
    [end of restoration]

    How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it,
    and it can be done.

    Why did you snip it? Are you embarrassed by the thought of Biden pushing
    for such an unrealistic aim? [I say "unrealistic" because the only promising way
    to do it would be a crash program in new nuclear reactors, but that would alienate Biden's power base, and we can't have that, can we?]

    I snipped it because what I say above. No point.

    That’s not what classical liberal means. Quite the opposite actually.

    Maybe I should have said "old-fashioned liberal" with the understanding
    that the definition of "liberal" is the American, not the British Commonwealth
    definition. I suppose you are using the latter meaning for "classical."

    I think the perfect litmus test for which of these two kinds of liberal one is...
    right-to-work laws. A British Liberal would love them, while they
    are pure anathema for old-fashioned American liberals. The archetypal
    example of the latter was the perennial Washington Post editorial cartoonist, Herblock. One of his cartoons showed two corporate (very) fat cats
    erecting a gallows, with a furious laborer in the background saying,
    "Well I'll be hanged -- right to work laws!"

    Just today, I saw a poster explaining what these are, and I describe it for the
    benefit of Mario, who might not know. The poster was addressed at graduate students,
    telling them that they were "workers" for whom there is a union on our campus.
    It pointed out that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. Unlike Herblock, it was factual, and mildly explained that this means that you
    are not obligated to join a union in order to keep a job, and so this was just an invitation for them to join. And it gave reasons why a student might like to join.

    Unions are a mixed bag. We have seen that now with police unions and the uncrossable blue line. Unions could potentially fight vaccine mandates,
    though maybe not teacher unions. I dunno.

    My main point though was to address your use of “classical liberal”. It goes way back before a shift in meaning post FDR and LBJ. Maybe not quite
    the same emphases as “libertarian” which has its own baggage.

    So does “progressive” have baggage. Spencer was more a liberal in the classic sense of freedom zealot. He seems archaic from the progressive perspective that gave us income taxes, food safety regulations, wildlife
    and forest conservation and eugenics.

    Biden was a corporate shill. MBNA. Delaware as craphole. Making it harder
    for students and other debtors. Plus being behind serial philanderer
    Clinton and a crime bill targeted at black “super predators”. See mass incarceration. But he wasn’t Trump. Full stop.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Peter Nyikos on Sat Sep 11 06:25:31 2021
    On 11.9.2021. 0:20, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    The discussion here isn't as heated as it is on the "Vaccination" thread,
    so I'm replying even though it isn't next week yet, unlike on that other thread.

    On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 9.9.2021. 15:13, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:43:27 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 5.9.2021. 3:25, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 4.9.2021. 7:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    Maybe to explain it a bit better. First, to correct the
    terms. I wanted to say that benefits are *short term*, while *long >>>>>> term* we will have tragedy.
    Now about Harshman. He thought that my idea, generally, is
    that using "unnatural" tools is deadly, because the tools are
    unnatural. Not at all, this isn't my idea.

    Harshman was pushing your argument towards something he figured
    you would object to, just as I did yesterday in "Vaccination" when you
    used the word "exploit" in an unexplained way.

    I'll better explain it with using cars. By using cars we
    become slower runners. At the end we will be able only to walk from >>>>>> home to the car, and from car to the work, and nothing else. And
    that's perfectly alright (by me), because we don't have to compete for >>>>>> life by the way of running. If, for some reason, we would need to
    compete for life, by the way of running, we would be doomed. But, this >>>>>> will not happen, for sure. We don't need to run anymore.

    Unless our civilization collapses, which it might do in the next century or two.


    We, also, don't need to eat raw food anymore. We also, can use calculators to
    count, we don't have to do this in our head, this is perfectly alright. >>>
    I prefer doing it on paper if it involves things we CAN count. You know, those little tally marks.
    Skilled abacus users can beat people with calculators where much bigger numbers are involved.

    But, what about vaccination? Just like using cars,
    vaccination also diminish the abilities of our defense mechanism. But, >>>>>> here is the difference, we would not need to compete for life by the >>>>>> way of running, but, for sure, we would need to compete for life, by >>>>>> the way of fighting viruses. And, if our defense mechanism isn't *fit* >>>>>> to do that, we are doomed. The end of story.

    We will always have viruses for what is called the common cold and is
    actually dozens of different diseases because the viruses are so different. >>>

    I must stress out that it isn't only Harshman who is thinking
    so simply, he is only copying the way of thinking the whole humanity >>>>> has, the whole scientific community has. It goes like this:
    We invented fire, that was beneficial, we invented metal, that
    was beneficial, we invented cars, that was beneficial.

    For the short run. But for the long run, we are heading for huge
    problems because we are relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
    Unless something drastic is done, the collapse of our civilization
    will be almost unavoidable by or before 2300.

    This is a much shorter long run than the one you envision for
    disaster to our immune system.


    Because we are driving cars, we will physically move less well, but who cares, it is
    still beneficial.
    We invented vaccination, it was definitely beneficial, it saved
    a lot of lives. Did they even think about that this will inflict onto >>>>> our defense mechanism? Not at all, they were just seeing the immediate >>>>> benefit. And that's only the first step, which says that they don't even >>>>> understand at all what, actually, they are doing, they just see the
    immediate benefits. And what about the second step, that *long term* >>>>> this will cripple our defense mechanism. This idea isn't even on their >>>>> horizon. When I am talking about this, nobody gets what I am talking >>>>> about, everybody thinks that I am some crazy idiot, talking BS.

    It's too bad they don't know how to reason with you. I can, but you
    can be awfully stubborn. That's OK, I'm in this for the "long" haul, certainly till the end of 2021.
    I started to like this word, "stubborn". That's what my mother used to
    tell me, lol.
    And now, how to get out of this *deadly*, *catastrophic* situation
    that we got ourselves into? The only way is to stop vaccination.
    Actually, somebody in Sweden already researched the idea.

    Did [s]he publish an article about it in some scientific journal?

    Yes, I've read it somewhere, not too long ago. Maybe a year, maybe few
    years.

    And it turned out that the death toll would be tremendous. It would be even
    worse than Black Death.

    In percentages, or in actual numbers? There is a huge difference.


    In percentage. If we would abandon vaccination all those kid illnesses
    would destroy us.

    I see, so it was not just Covid-19, but ALL vaccinations. Even so, I'm skeptical. The Black Death ended long before vaccinations, and
    yet the terrible death toll was NOT taken up by other diseases.

    I already forgot the full scope of that scientific article. I did read
    it all through, because I am (as you can see), and I was, interested in
    the subject. I believe that they did count in our lost ability to fight diseases, as well, into the calculation. So, our lost ability would bump
    up the numbers.
    Or something on the line that I am talking about. You know, we spread
    out abilities genetically. But, just the same, we spread our
    disabilities the same way. Now, in a normal situation, where Evolution
    works, our disabilities make us unsuccessful, and this isn't sexy. Or,
    in this particular case, the individuals who cannot fight those
    illnesses simply die off. But in modern world we allowed this disability
    to spread, so today it is probably even bigger proportion of population
    that has this disability.
    Thinking about those child illnesses, it could be that this thing is
    extremely important for evolution, this is why it is pushed all the way
    to childhood, evolutionary, so that people who has this malfunction
    surely die off before maturity.
    People aren't aware of how important this question is. I am not joking
    when I am saying that immune system is the only thing that keeps us
    alive. And, if you think a bit, this problem could be as old as life
    itself is. I mean, everybody sees the mechanics of large organisms, and
    their competition, but nobody sees even far more basic competition on
    the cell level. First you need to overcome this, only then you are fit
    enough to be involved in larger things.
    And we are experimenting with this, thinking that experimentation is
    beneficial and nothing else, that nothing can go catastrophically wrong,
    that we are in control, that we are the mighty bosses. Hm...
    Actually, we don't understand the situation at all.

    I believe that they accounted also for the lost
    ability (because we were vaccinated) of our defense mechanism to fight
    those illnesses.

    You really need to find that article somehow. If it included this,
    then it had to have some very good reasons for doing so.
    This means QUANTITATIVE estimates as to how much loss there
    was to our defense mechanisms. I don't think such data are known at our stage of knowledge.

    See above.
    The data doesn't need to be known. Of course, this isn't mathematics,
    or mechanics, they researched the models, and those models were in
    accordance to scientific views. And all models showed the disaster.
    This article, actually, was the scientific explanation of why we
    shouldn't abandon vaccination, because at that time there were some
    strong voices in Scandinavia against vaccination. And I am joining those voices, but for the very same reason why those scientists (mind you,
    this was before Covid) thought that we shouldn't abandon vaccination.
    Of course, there is no way that today I can find this article again.
    If you type "vaccination" in Google, it leads you to all possible
    directions. But, experts on those things should be aware of this
    research, this was pretty important, and known research, I believe that
    I even saw talking about it on TV.

    If for nothing else, but only for the fact that people
    who should die out of those illnesses spread their inability genetically.

    There is a huge assumption here: the inability to fight off the disease
    is hereditary rather than a function of the environment.

    Sociologists got into the act here, publishing studies showing that
    whether one gets tuberculosis or not is mostly dependent on unhealthy
    living conditions and not on heredity. I was told about this in a course
    in introductory sociology that I took in college. They weren't as keen on basing everything on peer-reviewed literature, like Harshman and the Overdogs of talk.origins are, so I didn't take any notes on where these studies appeared.

    Yes. But, there shouldn't be "unhealthy" living conditions. Remember
    American Indians, who lived in healthy living conditions, until
    Europeans came, with their diseases.
    The subject is much deeper than the attitudes about it that you can
    read in women's magazines. Viruses will spread, and they *will* kill us,
    and they will not care about what we consider healthy or unhealthy, they
    don't watch TV.
    Unless, of course, we don't intend to live in space suits on this planet.

    Now, what will stupid humans do? Will they stop the vaccination, and
    have tremendous death toll, or will they "play safe", and wait until we >>>> all die?

    They could have said the same thing about smallpox in 1900. Yet
    by 2000, the disease was eradicated, with a much smaller death
    toll in the meantime, thanks to vigorous vaccination efforts.

    They are working on eradicating polio and measles. I got measles in 1952, >>> and I believe my severe myopia (8 diopters) was due in part to it. My oldest sister
    (who is younger than me) got it worse: 12 diopters.

    But measles is making a comeback, thanks to people like yourself.


    Now, this is *the real* intelligence test. How will humans pass that
    test, I wonder? Will they pass it at all?

    The real test is whether your proposed test is valid. Since you made no
    reply to the new comments I made, I assume that it is not valid.

    I don't get this. I reply to anything that I think I can reply.
    The test is definitely valid, but the result of the equation is "peculiar" for a mathematician. I don't know if you have this in
    mathematics (I believe that you have), the result of equation is
    *uncertain*. But the test is valid, never-the-less.
    Imagine this situation. There is a vacation advertised for you and
    your family. This vacation will be, for sure, the best experience of
    your life, you will have fantastic things going on. The only thing is,
    whether you and your family will come back alive from that vacation is *uncertain*. Will you go to this vacation, and do you think that this intelligence test is valid?

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Nyikos@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Tue Sep 21 04:20:20 2021
    For almost a month, I have held off replying to this post of Harshman,
    in the hopes that, with me being thus merciful, he would reform his behavior. But now, on the thread I had begun with these hopes (the one on the "shark toothed" theropod),
    he has gotten even worse.

    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 9:03:56 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/24/21 5:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/20/21 6:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>
    I had written:

    Mario and I get along well, and our numerous disagreements are all friendly,
    and only serve to spice up the conversation. And the topic interested both of us.

    'nuff said?

    Way more than enough. Notice that you take offense when there is no >>>>>> offense offered. Try dialing it back.

    Notice that you cast aspersions on my sanity when I caught you red-handed
    in a lie on a talk.origins thread,

    No, you supposed you had caught me in a lie, in which you were wrong. >>>
    I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,
    neither you nor either of your allies, named below, ever even hinted at the fact
    that you had been accused of a lie, but relentlessly cast aspersions on my
    sanity, as you are doing here.

    Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't think it or >> that it isn't true.

    "mention something" is completely missing the point: none of you made any effort to show that what I wrote was *mistaken*, which any rational, innocent person
    would naturally try to do.

    Or perhaps your accusations were so absurd that nobody saw any reason to bother with them.

    You are hinting at the Last Refuge of an Internet Scoundrel here:
    any airtight reasoning that such scoundrels are powerless to refute,
    they label like you did, only without any qualifiers like "perhaps."
    Your allies in talk.origins are not always so cautious.


    Could that conceivably be it?

    I'm sure you know that the answer is NO. But you are on automatic pilot here, indulging
    in a spiel you have used countless times over the years, with insignificant variations in the wording.


    But you were not innocent, and your behavior in this post (and
    several times in talk.origins, recounted above) is anything but rational.


    I certainly do have doubts about your sanity, as
    would anyone reading some of the stuff you post.

    Did you have "anyone" in mind besides yourself and Mark Isaak? I suppose Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena would be another, but if Hemidactylus entertained
    any such doubts, he certainly hasn't voiced them. His reply to the same post to which you are replying was a masterpiece of "Ignoring the Elephant in the Room."

    You keep projecting attitudes onto other people based on things they
    fail to say.

    You are ignoring the qualifier "but if..." and thereby showing how hollow your "...as anyone reading..."
    allegation was. See below about why I singled out Mark Isaak as the only sure-fire
    person you could point to.


    These are not good inferences.

    GIGO.



    I'm going to fail to go further into this post. Please try not to read anything into that.

    No need to. You have never shown any sign that you ever read my proof.
    And now you have served notice that you never will show any sign of that.

    Everything you have written about it has been filtered through
    a despicable post by Mark Isaak, in which he used his own variation
    on that Last Refuge: frequently, when he is powerless to counter an indictment of himself, he feigns concern over the mental health of his accuser.

    And you repeatedly endorsed his scam by adopting it. As you did above.


    Peter Nyikos

    PS I've left in everything you've "failed to go further into," to let
    people see what you are running away from.

    Even Mark Isaak might hesitate in pronouncing what you write below as "sane and rational".


    The tightened version was here:

    https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/-xa_YvUtAQAJ >>>
    And to this day, no one has dealt with any part of my proof there. It is quite short:

    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Absent from that one-line general statement of yours was any reference to what I had written in the preceding
    three lines. In everyday life, when person makes such a general statement in such a context, people often
    get the impression that he is denying what had been stated. That is what I meant by
    "made it seem like [you were] claiming to have argued science with Dr.Dr. Kleinman...,"
    and it was a lie to say that this displays any inability to read; the opposite is the truth.
    [...]
    It is all about the history of talk.origins, which your kind massively rewrites in their favor.
    "That's just your inability to read" is a prime example of that.

    Considering that you grossly misunderstood the statement, it isn't an >>>> example of what you imagine it is.

    As can be seen, I did not misread your statement; I dealt with it as written,
    without trying to "read your mind" -- something you perennially criticize me for allegedly doing.
    ===============================================================================

    If that is still too intricate for you, I'll gladly rephrase it so anyone on your level of intelligence can understand it.

    I have no interest in discussing this insanity.

    Of course you don't: all the simulation of insanity here is by yourself, and you escalated
    it at the end of this post, big time.

    The crazy part was the obsessive, Queeg-like rant.

    Liar. Queeg's behavior was the polar opposite of even thinking he had >>> caught a culprit red-handed. You have been running a "Queeg" scam
    for years on this pretense that the two behaviors are similar.

    Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
    a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.

    It's interesting to see that this two-line snippet, which is all that Hemidactylus
    preserved of this long post in his reply to it, does not sound at all critical of him.
    Anyone with street smarts might be suspicious of the way he is making an issue of it,
    and wonder how he learned of the post in the first place.


    And I capitalized on that as follows:

    __________________________excerpt with side issue snipped _________________________


    Didn’t Harshman once make allusions to a well known movie pivoting on >>>> missing strawberries and featuring the dad from My Three Sons?

    He did that several times over the years, on similar occasions. This time, he has
    used it as a talisman to avoid even alluding to the fact that he has been caught
    red-handed in a lie, and in misrepresenting what the lie was about.

    It's been similarly used on other occasions, but at least once on behalf of someone else.
    IIRC John's main sidekick, Erik Simpson, was the one in the hot seat on one occasion.

    [...]

    https://youtu.be/edQy5jBxhV8

    Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent? >>>
    I suppose you are familiar with the simile,

    "Like a drowning man grasping at straws."

    Here is a similar metaphor:

    "You are helping a man drowning in his dishonesty in grasping at strawberries."

    ========================= end of excerpt from ===================

    https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/Gvdy_FA1AQAJ >>> Re: A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology

    Where's your sense of humor about the pun at the end?


    following the lead of the perennial "you need to show
    what you wrote to your psychiatrist" Mark Isaak, and supported
    by Hemidactylus to the hilt, with all three of you gossiping about me in a
    typical Internet Hellion Thread Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.

    You are a fine one to talk about dialing back.

    The sheer unmitigated hypocrisy of telling me to "Try dialing it back" [quoted from your first comment above]
    was what motivated me to bring up your shabby behavior in the wake of your lie.

    It is only because Mario doesn't
    care for personal fighting that I'm not documenting what I wrote just now.

    If that's the only reason, that's a problem too.

    Not a problem at all, prevaricator.

    Seriously: anyone reading all this would be likely to doubt your sanity.

    If a normal, intelligent adult with no ax to grind were to read "all this," meaning everything in your post,
    one thing that would surely strike him/her would be what I said this time around:
    you made no effort whatsoever to show that my rational, calm analysis that I reposted was even *mistaken*.

    And then, if that person wanted to avoid making any value judgments about *you*,
    then [s]he might well characterize what you write in this parting shot as "ridiculous nonsense,"
    or words to that effect.


    Just stop.

    That all depends on what, if anything, will be your reaction to this post.


    Peter Nyikos


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)