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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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"]
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:
I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
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: >>>>>
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".
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:
I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
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: >>>>>>
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".
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"]
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.
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.
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.
How, pray tell? Biden is a classical liberal: throw enough money at it,
and it can be done.
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.
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.
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
[end of restoration]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.
That’s not what classical liberal means. Quite the opposite actually.
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 youI started to like this word, "stubborn". That's what my mother used to
can be awfully stubborn. That's OK, I'm in this for the "long" haul, certainly till the end of 2021.
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?
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
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:]
[end of restoration]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.
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.
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:I started to like this word, "stubborn". That's what my mother used to
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.
I prefer doing it on paper if it involves things we CAN count. You know, those little tally marks.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. >>>
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.
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.
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:
I had written:On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>
I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,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. >>>
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.
Could that conceivably be it?
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.
These are not good inferences.
I'm going to fail to go further into this post. Please try not to read anything into that.
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/edQy5jBxhV8I suppose you are familiar with the simile,
Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent? >>>
"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
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 87:53:44 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,252 |