Some people might trivialize these videos as "someone is wrong on the Internet", but that would be willful blindness. Anti-evolution PRATTs
are no different from flat-earth PRATTs are no different from
Moon-landing hoax PRATTs are no different from alien-conspiracy PRATTs
are no different from stolen election PRATTs.
jillery wrote:
Some people might trivialize these videos as "someone is wrong on the
Internet", but that would be willful blindness. Anti-evolution PRATTs
are no different from flat-earth PRATTs are no different from
Moon-landing hoax PRATTs are no different from alien-conspiracy PRATTs
are no different from stolen election PRATTs.
Wait. You're saying that Dubya Bush won Florida fair & square?
HYPOCRISY IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!
Instead of wetting your pants over WHAT people say, why not try to grasp
WHY they say it? Ultimately, that is the key to convincing them that they're >wrong.
Here's something that I've only been recommending for like 20 years now:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook" >and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
The fact is, very often the people running around denouncing the outliers >are the idiots...
Again: Try to figure out WHY someone holds a position, says something.
DON'T merely decide that you know, that you somehow "Figured it out."
Ask them. Test their answer. Look for consistency... of lack thereof.
JTEM wrote:
Wait. You're saying that Dubya Bush won Florida fair & square?
Since you asked, no. You're welcome.
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook" >and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Gisulat ni JTEM is my hero:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >>of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Gisulat ni JTEM is my hero:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >>of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
JTEM is my hero:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >>>of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
JTEM is a putz:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>>>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three
of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >logic department.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:12:31 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:There; fixed it. :-)
JTEM is a putz:
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>>>>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three
of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>logic department.
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:06:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:12:31 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:There; fixed it. :-)
JTEM is a putz:
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait
for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three
of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>>logic department.
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
Even if JTEM posted an intentional self-parody
, current events have
demonstrated there are too many people who are inclined to believe
even the most blatantly obvious willful stupidity.
Plus the fact
there are a number of people who count non-response as affirmation,
justifies affirmatively calling out willful stupidity. You don't have
to do it. That doesn't make you better than those who do.
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>logic department.
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something
like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>>logic department.
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
I'm sure his groundwork is solid, but there's something wrong with his >reasoning in this particular case.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something
like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>>logic department.
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
I'm sure his groundwork is solid, but there's something wrong with his >reasoning in this particular case.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 23:53:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:25:49 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:06:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I wrote that I believe it was intentional, not that it was a
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:12:31 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:There; fixed it. :-)
JTEM is a putz:
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait
for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three
of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>>>>logic department.
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
Even if JTEM posted an intentional self-parody
self-parody (whatever that might mean in this context).
I don't dispute what you wrote.
, current events haveAbsolutely; I see it every day.
demonstrated there are too many people who are inclined to believe
even the most blatantly obvious willful stupidity.
The irrational beliefs of such people are not only not my
Plus the fact
there are a number of people who count non-response as affirmation,
problem, they're impossible to refute other than with facts,
which too many today rate below "feelings" as a way to come
to decisions and conclusions.
I assume that since I never even implied such, that you're
justifies affirmatively calling out willful stupidity. You don't have
to do it. That doesn't make you better than those who do.
not referring to me, but to the general "you".
Assume away.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a
JTEM is my hero:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:13:29 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 23:53:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I didn't say you did.
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:25:49 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:06:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:I wrote that I believe it was intentional, not that it was a
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:12:31 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:There; fixed it. :-)
JTEM is a putz:
I suspect that you're as sure as I am that he made no
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait
for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three
of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
Perhaps in morphing a conspiracy *among the hijackers* into
a conspiracy with those *not* among the hijackers? IOW an
amalgam of rapidly-moving goalposts and the straw on which
they rest?
We are all waiting for JTEM coming to realize the mistake he made in the >>>>>>logic department.
mistake; it was stated exactly as he intended, to have the
result he intended. IOW, his fallacious "reasoning" was
almost certainly intentional.
Even if JTEM posted an intentional self-parody
self-parody (whatever that might mean in this context).
I don't dispute what you wrote.
Given no contradiction I will; thanks., current events haveAbsolutely; I see it every day.
demonstrated there are too many people who are inclined to believe
even the most blatantly obvious willful stupidity.
The irrational beliefs of such people are not only not my
Plus the fact
there are a number of people who count non-response as affirmation,
problem, they're impossible to refute other than with facts,
which too many today rate below "feelings" as a way to come
to decisions and conclusions.
I assume that since I never even implied such, that you're
justifies affirmatively calling out willful stupidity. You don't have >>>>to do it. That doesn't make you better than those who do.
not referring to me, but to the general "you".
Assume away.
There; fixed it. :-)
Even if JTEM posted an intentional self-parody, current events have demonstrated there are too many people who are inclined to believe
even the most blatantly obvious willful stupidity.
Rebutting willful stupidity
“Two percent of the people think;
three percent of the people think they think;
and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
-- George Bernard Shaw
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something >>like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
JTEM is a whining toddler:
Go up to a random person and start talking about the 9/11 conspiracy. Wait >>>for them to roll their eyes, if not denounce you as a "Conspiracy Theory Kook"
and then ask them:
"How did 19 men coordinate 4 hijackings, all on the same day, crashing three >>>of the planes into buildings and one into a field, if they had not conspired to
do so?"
Find the fallacy in JTEMs reasoning.
There isn't any, you fucking idiot. You're a dog, a well trained dog. You are >trained to bark when you hear certain words, one of them being "Conspiracy."
That is the point of the exercise. It exposes your training.
You BELIEVE you're thinking and you're just responding as trained.
The same dogs that bark when they hear people shouting about a 2020 >conspiracy to steal the election usually admit to the 2000 election theft.
You're retarded. You can't formulate a position & articulate same, but this >is not true for normal people. Listen to their reasons if you want any hope >of convincing them of something else.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
The one I envy, this JTEM who is as a god to me:
There isn't any, you fucking idiot. You're a dog, a well trained dog. You are
trained to bark when you hear certain words, one of them being "Conspiracy."
JTEM is sooo pleased with himself for his
Yet another symptom of the personality disorder, Pancho Sanza wrote:
So we may add "Mind reader" to your already impressively long list of delusions.
I mean, even after spelling it out, dispelling any ambiguity you needed to image,
you persist in your stupidity. Quite impressive, actually. You suffer from no >ordinary psychosis.
Quick! Invent another sock puppet! Agree with yourself before you begin to see
how idiotic you are!
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something >>>like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
[Snip]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something >>>like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
[Snip]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 12:25:39 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<spansanza@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
JTEM is a putz:
There; fixed it. :-)
I wouldn't do that. I see "putz" as a personal insult, whereas something >>>>like "crackpot" is more general, less offensive. IMHO.
[Snip]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
"putz" is about personality. Granted, he appears to be both,
but I suspect he doesn't actually espouse most of his
crackpottery; it's primarily his chosen way to incite
flamewars when his personality doesn't suffice. IOW, his
crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >doesn't suffice.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at >sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually >>espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at >sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and >defend the reputation of his hero.
Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
t.o says you're too generous.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a
Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine
crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality
doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson ><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a
Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine
crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>> >>doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
Whatever you call it, it deserves to be noted because:
1. Some people agree with it.
2. Not noting it can be regarded as affirmation.
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a
Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine
crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality
doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:41:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson >><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:While I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, as on
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >>>> >Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >>>> >crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he >>>> >was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over >>>> >heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and >>>> >defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>>> >>doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse. >>>> >
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally >>>> >>a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the >>>> >poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
Whatever you call it, it deserves to be noted because:
1. Some people agree with it.
2. Not noting it can be regarded as affirmation.
other things, it's also worth noting that:
1) Those who agree with him, and with his pal marc, will
almost certainly continue to agree, since people generally
cannot be argued out of a position or belief not arrived at
rationally.
2) In general, those who regard silence as affirmation
belong to the group noted in 1).
I acknowledge there will always be those who handwave away facts out
of habit.
JTEM my god of usenet I worshipped him as he wrote:
See? I can do it as well!
Pancho Sanza
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:04:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:41:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson >>><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:While I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, as on
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >>>>> >Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >>>>> >crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he >>>>> >was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over >>>>> >heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and >>>>> >defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>>>> >>doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse. >>>>> >
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally >>>>> >>a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the >>>>> >poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
Whatever you call it, it deserves to be noted because:
1. Some people agree with it.
2. Not noting it can be regarded as affirmation.
other things, it's also worth noting that:
1) Those who agree with him, and with his pal marc, will
almost certainly continue to agree, since people generally
cannot be argued out of a position or belief not arrived at
rationally.
2) In general, those who regard silence as affirmation
belong to the group noted in 1).
I acknowledge there will always be those who handwave away facts out
of habit. The point is to proactively prune their excuses.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:21:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:04:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>It's not habit, it's inability to think rationally about >emotionally-arrived-at prejudices.
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:41:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson >>>><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:While I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, as on
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all. >>>>
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >>>>>> >Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >>>>>> >crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he >>>>>> >was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually >>>>>> >>espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick >>>>>> >and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over >>>>>> >heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and >>>>>> >defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality
doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse. >>>>>> >
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally >>>>>> >>a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the >>>>>> >poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
Whatever you call it, it deserves to be noted because:
1. Some people agree with it.
2. Not noting it can be regarded as affirmation.
other things, it's also worth noting that:
1) Those who agree with him, and with his pal marc, will
almost certainly continue to agree, since people generally
cannot be argued out of a position or belief not arrived at
rationally.
2) In general, those who regard silence as affirmation
belong to the group noted in 1).
I acknowledge there will always be those who handwave away facts out
of habit. The point is to proactively prune their excuses.
and if such "pruning" had
any effect I would agree. But see 1; ref: Jabriol, Peter,
marc, JTEM et al. "It's for the lurkers" doesn't have much
effect unless the lurkers are rational, and if they are it's
not required.
jillery wrote:
I acknowledge there will always be those who handwave away facts out
of habit.
Like the way you pretended that the LCA is established by fossils to have >lived 13 million years ago or more?
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a
Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine
crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he
was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>>> doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally
a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:It's cited at the top - JTEM the Annoying Putz Who Calls
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:Who?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a
Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine
crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he >>>> was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and
defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>>>> doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse.
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally >>>>> a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:10:29 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 23:15:13 +0200, the following appearedI'll second that. I can't see that he deserves any attention at all.
in talk.origins, posted by Pancho Sanza
<span...@gmail.com>:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:Not ruling it out, but that's how trolls operate.
[JTEM is a putz]
All in all, I think "putz" is rather mild.
"Never let your adversary drag you down to his level."
Just an observation: "Crackpot" is about beliefs, while
"putz" is about personality.
Like GondwanaTalks Verhaegen aka "littoral homo" our friend JTEM is a >>> Believer in the Aquatic Ape Fairytale. Which imho makes him a genuine >>> crackpot. Where the undue aggression originates I don't know, Maybe he >>> was abused as a child or something.
Granted, he appears to be both, but I suspect he doesn't actually
espouse most of his crackpottery;
Actually his crackpottery has a softer side. Take a look at
sci.anthropology.paleo and witness him sucking GondwanaTalk's dick
and whispering sweet nothings into his ear.
So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that JTEM is simply head over
heels with "littoral homo" and prepared to do anything to protect and >>> defend the reputation of his hero.
You could be correct; years of experience with his posts in
it's primarily his chosen way to incite flamewars when his personality >>>> doesn't suffice.
I wouldn't call it a flamewar when it's just trite insults and abuse. >>>
IOW, his crackpottery is simply trolling, while his putzery (totally >>>> a word) is him. IMHO, and YMMV.
As I see it, rather than trolling he is just venting his spleen, the
poor bloke.
t.o says you're too generous.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Who?
JTEM trolled:
Like the way you pretended that the LCA is established by fossils to have >lived 13 million years ago or more?
Cite. Oh wait... you don't know how.... nevermind.
It's cited at
jillery wrote:
JTEM trolled:
Like the way you pretended that the LCA is established by fossils to have >> >lived 13 million years ago or more?
Cite. Oh wait... you don't know how.... nevermind.
You're literally "Arguing" that you have no idea what you've said, that you >need me to "Prove" to you that you said these stupid things.
It's called "Disassociation." You "Disassociate" from your own stupid trolling.
You are MAJOR fucked up...
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/p3caqYWOZh4/m/ez7b693PBAAJ
I envy JTEM, he is my hero
You're literally "Arguing" that you have no idea what you've said, that you >need me to "Prove" to you that you said these stupid things.
It's called "Disassociation." You "Disassociate" from your own stupid trolling.
You are MAJOR fucked up...
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/p3caqYWOZh4/m/ez7b693PBAAJ
There. That's my reply to YOUR cite, YOUR argument. Scroll up if you think it
was a different alter you used to post it and I merely misattributed it.
The above is a link to one of YOUR posts
Willfully stupid, jillery lied:
You're literally "Arguing" that you have no idea what you've said, that you
need me to "Prove" to you that you said these stupid things.
It's called "Disassociation." You "Disassociate" from your own stupid trolling.
You are MAJOR fucked up...
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/p3caqYWOZh4/m/ez7b693PBAAJ
There. That's my reply to YOUR cite, YOUR argument. Scroll up if you think it
was a different alter you used to post it and I merely misattributed it.
The above is a link to one of YOUR posts, which doesn't even try to
show what you claim it shows, which once again shows you don't know
how to cite.
Wow. And you figured that out on your own?
You have
jillery wrote:
You have
Omg, you are SUCH a fucking idiot! Lol!
There are paste eating retards who would be embarrassed by
a comparison to you...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 68:28:40 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,885 |