For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
On 8/11/23 4:05 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Agreed. Peter has simply become boring; everything he says is stuff
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
It's not that I don't find the claim ironic and self-refuting. It's just that I don't find it at all interesting or amusing. Not even the irony
is enough to make it worth preservation.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:It's just Peter doing one of his chants. Nothing new there.
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish..
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:----------------------------------
On 8/11/23 4:05 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with "support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
It's not that I don't find the claim ironic and self-refuting. It's just that I don't find it at all interesting or amusing. Not even the ironyAgreed. Peter has simply become boring; everything he says is stuff
is enough to make it worth preservation.
we've heard before.
erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:26:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:----------------------------------
On 8/11/23 4:05 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Agreed. Peter has simply become boring; everything he says is stuff
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:It's not that I don't find the claim ironic and self-refuting. It's just >>> that I don't find it at all interesting or amusing. Not even the irony
.Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
is enough to make it worth preservation.
we've heard before.
Is this one of Peter's other nyms?
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying,
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Of course it isn't. You, Daggett, are weaponizing Chez Watt
in a sneaky way: you use it to rip my statement out of the
context which justifies this reminder of the character
deficiencies of your hero.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying,
Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
> It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM
Inquiring minds want to know.
On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Of course it isn't. You, Daggett, are weaponizing Chez Watt
in a sneaky way: you use it to rip my statement out of the
context which justifies this reminder of the character
deficiencies of your hero.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying,
Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
> It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07?PM
Inquiring minds want to know.
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in >general. And when you accuse me of poor reasoning, it's incumbent on you
to explain exactly what's wrong with my reasoning.
Also, you shouldn't be claiming, much less crowing about, a slapdown or
any other victory, because it just makes you look insecure, in need of >self-validation and in fear that others might not agree.
Finally, it would be btter if you didn't speculate on other people's
motives for actions, especially when it requires the assumption that
they agree with your self-congratulation (above).
Take that as potentially helpful advice, not as an attack.
On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Of course it isn't. You, Daggett, are weaponizing Chez Watt
in a sneaky way: you use it to rip my statement out of the
context which justifies this reminder of the character
deficiencies of your hero.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying,
Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM
Inquiring minds want to know.
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in general.
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
As I said,
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did
not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Of course it isn't. You, Daggett, are weaponizing Chez Watt
in a sneaky way: you use it to rip my statement out of the
context which justifies this reminder of the character
deficiencies of your hero.
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying,
Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM
Inquiring minds want to know.
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in
general.
It would also leave people blind to the fact that your reasoning abilities are far below what is expected of a Ph.D. -- much less one from
one of the most prestigious university in the world. And they seem
to be getting worse instead of better. A prime example is in a whole
series of posts in sci.bio.paleontology in which you are even now involved.
It began with an abysmally stupid comment by you, an ornithologist, of all things:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
When I called you out on this, you could easily have said something
like the following, with no loss of face:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
But your hubris would not let you do that, and a mockery of reasoning by you ensued:
______________________________ excerpt from reply to you, preceded by an earlier comment by me ____________
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
>(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer
trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did
not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their
noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
===================== end of excerpt =======================
from https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/bdabLv4VBQAJ Re: How birds emerged
Aug 18, 2023, 9:50:39 PM
In your reply to the above post, you tried to bail out with a two-liner, in a way that you have done many times
during the last dozen years -- except that this time you preceded your typical spiel with an outright lie:
"Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see there's no point in talking to you." [documented in post linked below]
This was another mockery of reasoning: you "saw" nothing of the sort, as I immediately showed
you by giving a slightly different wording of what you might have written to save face:
"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark."
I also wrote something about your typical bail-out spiel.
"You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/i3T5HqSCAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 23, 2023, 3:53:26 PM
And indeed, you've tried to lord it over me right here, all through the post to which this is the first
of several replies.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:55:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 12:41 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in
general.
It would also leave people blind to the fact that your reasoning abilities >>> are far below what is expected of a Ph.D. -- much less one from
one of the most prestigious university in the world. And they seem
to be getting worse instead of better. A prime example is in a whole
series of posts in sci.bio.paleontology in which you are even now involved. >>>
It began with an abysmally stupid comment by you, an ornithologist, of all things:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
When I called you out on this, you could easily have said something
like the following, with no loss of face:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
But your hubris would not let you do that, and a mockery of reasoning by you ensued:
______________________________ excerpt from reply to you, preceded by an earlier comment by me ____________
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having >>> that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer >>>> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did >>>> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their >>>> noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
===================== end of excerpt =======================
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/bdabLv4VBQAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 18, 2023, 9:50:39 PM
In your reply to the above post, you tried to bail out with a two-liner, in a way that you have done many times
during the last dozen years -- except that this time you preceded your typical spiel with an outright lie:
"Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see >>> there's no point in talking to you." [documented in post linked below]
This was another mockery of reasoning: you "saw" nothing of the sort, as I immediately showed
you by giving a slightly different wording of what you might have written to save face:
"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark."
I also wrote something about your typical bail-out spiel.
"You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/i3T5HqSCAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 23, 2023, 3:53:26 PM
And indeed, you've tried to lord it over me right here, all through the post to which this is the first
of several replies.
You are following the recent talk.origins fad of using the concept of "self parody"
in a totally inappropriate way:
I can only repeat: the very best parody is self parody.
Now, if you weren't addicted to mindlessly using the words
"self-parody," you would *immediately* have recognized that the real self-parody here is yours:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark." --https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/pcvzP5UTBAAJ
[also quoted from above]
It's perfect: you have a Ph.D in ornithology of extant birds,
from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
If you can't see why this is a perfect example of self-parody,
then you are either (1) more deficient in reason than even I thought you were, or
(2) you are already suffering amnesia over what I suggested to you way up there,
as a graceful way of extricating yourself from your self-parody:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
On 8/24/23 12:41 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in
that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in
general.
It would also leave people blind to the fact that your reasoning abilities are far below what is expected of a Ph.D. -- much less one from
one of the most prestigious university in the world. And they seem
to be getting worse instead of better. A prime example is in a whole series of posts in sci.bio.paleontology in which you are even now involved.
It began with an abysmally stupid comment by you, an ornithologist, of all things:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
When I called you out on this, you could easily have said something
like the following, with no loss of face:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
But your hubris would not let you do that, and a mockery of reasoning by you ensued:
______________________________ excerpt from reply to you, preceded by an earlier comment by me ____________
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer >> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did >> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their
noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
===================== end of excerpt =======================
from https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/bdabLv4VBQAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 18, 2023, 9:50:39 PM
In your reply to the above post, you tried to bail out with a two-liner, in a way that you have done many times
during the last dozen years -- except that this time you preceded your typical spiel with an outright lie:
"Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see there's no point in talking to you." [documented in post linked below]
This was another mockery of reasoning: you "saw" nothing of the sort, as I immediately showed
you by giving a slightly different wording of what you might have written to save face:
"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark."
I also wrote something about your typical bail-out spiel.
"You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/i3T5HqSCAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 23, 2023, 3:53:26 PM
And indeed, you've tried to lord it over me right here, all through the post to which this is the first
of several replies.
I can only repeat: the very best parody is self parody.
On 8/25/23 1:41 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:55:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 12:41 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
While we're here: It would be more civil to say that my reasoning in >>>> that particular instance was poor rather than attack my abilities in >>>> general.
It would also leave people blind to the fact that your reasoning abilities
are far below what is expected of a Ph.D. -- much less one from
one of the most prestigious university in the world. And they seem
to be getting worse instead of better. A prime example is in a whole
series of posts in sci.bio.paleontology in which you are even now involved.
It began with an abysmally stupid comment by you, an ornithologist, of all things:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
When I called you out on this, you could easily have said something
like the following, with no loss of face:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
But your hubris would not let you do that, and a mockery of reasoning by you ensued:
______________________________ excerpt from reply to you, preceded by an earlier comment by me ____________
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently >>>> clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having
that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having >>>> beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that >>>> early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early >>>> birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer >>>> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did >>>> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus >>>> might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their >>>> noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that >>> you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
===================== end of excerpt =======================
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/bdabLv4VBQAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 18, 2023, 9:50:39 PM
In your reply to the above post, you tried to bail out with a two-liner, in a way that you have done many times
during the last dozen years -- except that this time you preceded your typical spiel with an outright lie:
"Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see
there's no point in talking to you." [documented in post linked below] >>>
This was another mockery of reasoning: you "saw" nothing of the sort, as I immediately showed
you by giving a slightly different wording of what you might have written to save face:
"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark."
I also wrote something about your typical bail-out spiel.
"You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/i3T5HqSCAAAJ
Re: How birds emerged
Aug 23, 2023, 3:53:26 PM
And indeed, you've tried to lord it over me right here, all through the post to which this is the first
of several replies.
You are following the recent talk.origins fad of using the concept of "self parody"
in a totally inappropriate way:
I can only repeat: the very best parody is self parody.
Now, if you weren't addicted to mindlessly using the words
"self-parody," you would *immediately* have recognized that the real self-parody here is yours:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark." --https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/1Z3BICg4cW4/m/pcvzP5UTBAAJ
[also quoted from above]
It's perfect: you have a Ph.D in ornithology of extant birds,
from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
If you can't see why this is a perfect example of self-parody,
then you are either (1) more deficient in reason than even I thought you were, or
(2) you are already suffering amnesia over what I suggested to you way up there,
as a graceful way of extricating yourself from your self-parody:
"Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing that makes woodpeckers so good at digging into bark."
I don't think you understand what self-parody is.
But you really shoulda world of good.
start taking my advice, the advice you ignored considerably above. Do
[me, John Harshman, and the others posting to this thread besides you]
On 8/17/23 6:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:06:11 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, orDoesn't seem all that che wattish.
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be
self-nullifying,
Very poor reasoning on your part here. What you wrote next
has no rational connection with "self-nullifying."
in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason.
It wasn't meant to be one. It was a reminder that the guilty party
had deserved the description many times before this latest one.
It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a
double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
Might this incredibly tortuous crap be your way of trying
to compensate for the slap-down I gave you in the following
post for your torrent of insincere gaslighting?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JErnX2V7W9E/m/xRZByQZFAgAJ
Re: Close to Chez Watt, but no cigar
Aug 8, 2023, 9:51:07 PM
Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, you shouldn't be claiming, much less crowing about, a slapdown or
any other victory, because it just makes you look insecure, in need of self-validation and in fear that others might not agree.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Replying to a post Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:26:02 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:16:01 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/2/23 10:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:10:39 AM UTC-4, Ron.Dean wrote: >>> On 7/12/23 7:59 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is my second reply to this post. The concluding reply will come either tomorrow or early next week.
Rather than wait, I'm taking this opportunity to announce this here.
If you ever pull this crap on me again, chopping up a post and replying to it in multiple parts, I won't respond. It's an obnoxious behavior laden
with self-glorification on your part. So when you feel the need to spew your nonsense and be assured I won't bother to debunk it, go ahead and split up your response into multiple parts. But understand that just about
nobody else does what you do, and you'll be discrediting yourself.
This is highly reminiscent of the post for which I nominated you for July Chez Watt:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/BzTo5u_f6t4/m/04o4TlgdBQAJ
Almost exactly the same length, with simulated exasperation [compare:
"That is an absolutely horrible analogy."], and a last sentence that
is almost as farfetched as the last one there.
However, I will not nominate it for an August Chez Watt, and I hope no one else does either. I don't want to risk it being taken literally by more people than have already done so.
I have been an educator all my adult life, and to literally do as you say would be turning my back on my essential nature.
You do understand, don't you?
Peter Nyikos, The Outlier
PS That nickname is inspired by Mark Isaak's correction of an earlier derogatory word that he had used. It fits your last sentence like a glove.
As it's become a topic of sorts, your response here is delusional.
I wasn't joking. You amazingly did recognize a prior post where I
did make a joke about auto-repair. It was an obvious joke, and you
seemed so proud to have recognized that.
But it seems like you
didn't quite grasp the joke.
And then there are a suite of posts where people criticize you
and you defensively assert they must be joking,
and further, if
they don't explicitly deny they were joking that you win. Then,
you play at more "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetorical games
that seem to make you feel very clever.
It's pathetic.
Mostly, I feel like avoiding calling you on it because it seems
like picking on the emotionally disturbed. I'm very sincere here.
I often wonder if I should avoid all responses to you on mental
health grounds.
But you persist, in your abusive way. And you do
so under the color of your stature as an academic. It's wrong.
I'm at a loss about how to deal with your poison. But you've been
ramping it up lately. You are not well. Seek help.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish..
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with
"support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
It's just Peter doing one of his chants. Nothing new there.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish..
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with "support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused
of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a
very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
It's just Peter doing one of his chants. Nothing new there.Lawyer Daggett's claim is almost pure polemic, and the "reasoning" is unadulterated sophistry, but the two of you are like two Facebook "friends."
If you were to tell Daggett anything like what I told him about his sophistry,
you would run the risk of Daggett doing something like "unfriending" you, and that is something you want to avoid at all costs, isn't it?
I'm referring to what I told Daggett in direct reply to him, here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/dRckuOc8BgAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 17, 2023, 9:30:07 PM
Lawyer Daggett has been very mindful of the old adage,
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-man-who-is-his-own-lawyer-has-a-fool-for-a-client.html#google_vignette
So he has availed himself to his right to be silent immediately
after your reply here, and let you and John Harshman
conduct his defense for him. But after I did the post
I've linked above, you've let John do all the talking.
However, John wasn't sufficiently mindful of the adage himself,
because he tried to defend himself before he got around, two
paragraphs later, to the defense of Daggett. He couldn't resist
countering what Daggett posted as his August chez watt nomination,
knowing that it applied to him. As a result, he eventually found he had bitten off
more than he could chew, starting with my reply to his "defense" of himself:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/i_yQFoc4AAAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 24, 2023, 3:45:13 PM
John cunningly changed his tactics, using a couple of polemical tricks
to misdirect people from the graphic evidence I had included in the post I've linked just now, but after two successive attempts, with me answering both, he fell silent.
It was then that I tackled his paragraph "defending" Daggett that
he should have put first, and that has become the last post to this
thread as of this writing.
Peter NyikosI'm not interested in your problems. There's much more interesting things to talk about in spb.
PS Since I'm alluding to successive posts along this thread, except for one by jillery,
you can save yourself some time by just scrolling down -- but I do believe you would rather ignore all the posts I've talked about and wait to see whether
anyone will begin a defense of either John or his client.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Category: Each of these things is unlike the other, or
it's not just a memory problem
For you, it is: you are a very poor reasoner. I've lost track
of how many times I've told you that you are "a polemicist
first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third."
Doesn't seem all that che wattish..
I find the juxtaposition of an accusation of poor reasoning with "support" featuring the number of times (unremembered) that
accusation has been made about said reasoning abilities to be self-nullifying, in as much as the number of times someone is accused of being a poor reasoner isn't much of a reason. It is, in fact, a very poor reason. It is sufficiently unself-aware for me to do a double-take when reading it. Your mileage apparently varies.
It's just Peter doing one of his chants. Nothing new there.Lawyer Daggett's claim is almost pure polemic, and the "reasoning" is unadulterated sophistry, but the two of you are like two Facebook "friends."
If you were to tell Daggett anything like what I told him about his sophistry,
you would run the risk of Daggett doing something like "unfriending" you, and that is something you want to avoid at all costs, isn't it?
I'm referring to what I told Daggett in direct reply to him, here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/dRckuOc8BgAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 17, 2023, 9:30:07 PM
Lawyer Daggett has been very mindful of the old adage,
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-man-who-is-his-own-lawyer-has-a-fool-for-a-client.html#google_vignette
So he has availed himself to his right to be silent immediately
after your reply here, and let you and John Harshman
conduct his defense for him. But after I did the post
I've linked above, you've let John do all the talking.
However, John wasn't sufficiently mindful of the adage himself,
because he tried to defend himself before he got around, two
paragraphs later, to the defense of Daggett. He couldn't resist
countering what Daggett posted as his August chez watt nomination,
knowing that it applied to him. As a result, he eventually found he had bitten off
more than he could chew, starting with my reply to his "defense" of himself:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/3n0XVFS8-zM/m/i_yQFoc4AAAJ
Re: chez watt nom August sesame street simplified
Aug 24, 2023, 3:45:13 PM
John cunningly changed his tactics, using a couple of polemical tricks
to misdirect people from the graphic evidence I had included in the post I've linked just now, but after two successive attempts, with me answering both, he fell silent.
It was then that I tackled his paragraph "defending" Daggett that
he should have put first, and that has become the last post to this
thread as of this writing.
Peter Nyikos
PS Since I'm alluding to successive posts along this thread, except for one by jillery,
you can save yourself some time by just scrolling down -- but I do believe you would rather ignore all the posts I've talked about and wait to see whether
anyone will begin a defense of either John or his client.
I'm not interested in [Daggett's] problems.
There's much more interesting things to talk about in spb.
Mario is a badly-educated man with a hyperactive imagination. He is a fountain of
misinformation.
Can't you see that? in addition, I'd like to call your attention to your own fountain of insults. Can't you see that's what you're doing?
I can't believe you're
as unpleasant in real life,
since you have a family and a job.
"Give ir a break".
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22?PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >> > > > > > On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies.
and some snipping.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:26:28 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22?PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11?PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11?PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies. >>and some snipping.
It would also help if a particular poster would give up his irritating
habit of trying to drag in here personal disagreements from other
newsgroups.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies.
and some snipping.
On 2023-09-02 09:26:28 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies. and some snipping.
Yes. There is not nearly enough snipping. Many posters never snip anything.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Over in sci.bio.paleontology you might have a chance of making a change if you
put your mind to it, because there are a lot fewer participants.
In fact, three of us were able, from mid-2015 to early 2018, to maintain
a gentlemanly agreement
to treat sbp like an embassy where we would behave like the best of ambassadors.
.
This entailed doing mostly on-topic discussion and putting
all grievances from talk.origins behind us. We were:
Erik Simpson, John Harshman, and myself, with me
having made the suggestion for the agreement.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:[Massive snip]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:06:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:47 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can dig up at least two other recent posts in s.b.p.
that show how creative you can be when you make personal remarks
in lieu of on-topic comments.
It would make this place a lot nicer if there were just on-topic replies. and some snipping.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Over in sci.bio.paleontology you might have a chance of making a change if you
put your mind to it, because there are a lot fewer participants.
In fact, three of us were able, from mid-2015 to early 2018, to maintain
a gentlemanly agreement
to treat sbp like an embassy where we would behave like the best of ambassadors.
.
This entailed doing mostly on-topic discussion and putting
all grievances from talk.origins behind us. We were:
Erik Simpson, John Harshman, and myself, with me
having made the suggestion for the agreement.
You know, come to think of it, I think I had heard about this before…the embassy thing, the participants, the time period. Uncanny.
PS I really miss "deadrat."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 122:17:10 |
| Calls: | 6,854 |
| Files: | 12,359 |
| Messages: | 5,417,114 |