Discussion:
Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb. Coincidence?
(too old to reply)
p***@gmail.com
2024-02-21 13:55:26 UTC
Permalink
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?

There is no god.

Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
erik simpson
2024-02-21 16:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
At least for now, TO has lost its classic reason to be. Who knows
what's ahead. At least check in from time to time. Nothing is
off-topic now.
Mark Isaak
2024-02-26 17:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb,
https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight.
Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too
-- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
At least for now, TO has lost its classic reason to be.  Who knows
what's ahead.  At least check in from time to time.  Nothing is
off-topic now.
Has there been any statement of cause of death? Something stuck in his
craw, perhaps?
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
erik simpson
2024-02-26 17:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Isaak
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb,
https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight.
Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that,
too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
At least for now, TO has lost its classic reason to be.  Who knows
what's ahead.  At least check in from time to time.  Nothing is
off-topic now.
Has there been any statement of cause of death? Something stuck in his
craw, perhaps?
I don't know of any statement, but I haven't looked hard. He was about
78; not a young man.
*Hemidactylus*
2024-02-28 02:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by erik simpson
Post by Mark Isaak
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb,
https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight.
Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that,
too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
At least for now, TO has lost its classic reason to be.  Who knows
what's ahead.  At least check in from time to time.  Nothing is
off-topic now.
Has there been any statement of cause of death? Something stuck in his
craw, perhaps?
I don't know of any statement, but I haven't looked hard. He was about
78; not a young man.
He was 51 when I first encountered him here. I’m 56 now. I guess that’s how
age and years work but wow, just wow!
MarkE
2024-02-21 22:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
PZ, I concede that Peter could be (was) obsessive and worse, but is there a moment for grace and mercy, rather than always "being hated and hating"? Not intended judgmentally, but to offer another way:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:1-7)
p***@gmail.com
2024-02-21 23:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkE
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:1-7)
You will not persuade me by quoting the Bible at me. Quite the contrary.
Burkhard
2024-02-22 15:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by MarkE
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:1-7)
You will not persuade me by quoting the Bible at me. Quite the contrary.
In case the bible verse was too distracting, herewith a secular endorsement of the content of MarkE's point
John Harshman
2024-02-22 22:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burkhard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by MarkE
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:1-7)
You will not persuade me by quoting the Bible at me. Quite the contrary.
In case the bible verse was too distracting, herewith a secular endorsement of the content of MarkE's point
De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Ron Dean
2024-02-28 22:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope you
are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with cancer. I
sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't know. Neither do you!
Post by p***@gmail.com
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
John Harshman
2024-02-28 22:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope you
are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with cancer. I
sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb,
https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight.
Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that, too
-- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
Ron Dean
2024-02-29 02:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope you
are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with cancer. I
sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_ for
an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb,
https://pandasthumb.org/ ) where you can continue the good fight.
Unfortunately, blogs are in decline, too (I blame google for that,
too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle continues!
John Harshman
2024-02-29 02:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't know.
Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_ for
an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular cluelessness
in that case are not entirely clear. But its general nature is clear. HTH.
jillery
2024-02-29 04:13:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:55:44 -0800, John Harshman
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't know.
Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_ for
an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular cluelessness
in that case are not entirely clear. But its general nature is clear. HTH.
Charitably, he could be posting a self-parody of someone who doesn't
understand how baseless opinions lack persuasive power.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Ron Dean
2024-02-29 04:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't
know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular cluelessness
in that case are not entirely clear. But its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming that
PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
jillery
2024-02-29 14:21:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:50:27 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't
know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular cluelessness
in that case are not entirely clear. But its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming that
PZ was joking?
Your mind is like a steel trap.
Post by Ron Dean
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
erik simpson
2024-02-29 16:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:50:27 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't
know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular cluelessness
in that case are not entirely clear. But its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming that
PZ was joking?
Your mind is like a steel trap.
Post by Ron Dean
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think his mind resembles the peace of God.
John Harshman
2024-02-29 14:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't
know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular
cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But its general
nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming that
PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried baking?
Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll think of
something. Well, you probably won't.
Ron Dean
2024-03-01 05:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one
obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I hope
you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight with
cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I don't
know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your immediate
example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding seriously to a
joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of humor and so are
unable to recognize it, or that you just read that sentence while
ignoring the prior context. The details of your particular
cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But its general
nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming that
PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried baking?
Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll think of
something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
Ernest Major
2024-03-01 09:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one
obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly _know_
for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But its
general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just another
mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron Dean
2024-03-01 23:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
jillery
2024-03-02 04:00:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
You could at least try to lie more artfully; you need the practice:
****************************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
Message-ID: <f2ODN.94845$***@fx05.iad>
References: <6276c971-c5ae-4b08-bfa4-***@googlegroups.com>

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false. Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
erik simpson
2024-03-02 04:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
****************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false. Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
THere's a big difference between "seeing" and "reading". Ron D.
exemplifies that difference.
Ron Dean
2024-03-02 05:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
  >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
  >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
  I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
****************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
  Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false.  Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
THere's a big difference between "seeing" and "reading".  Ron D.
exemplifies that difference.
Yes, I saw and read only the statement I responded to. At the time, I
had no interest in further involvement.
erik simpson
2024-03-02 06:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by jillery
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
  >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
  >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
  I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
****************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
  Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false.  Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
THere's a big difference between "seeing" and "reading".  Ron D.
exemplifies that difference.
Yes, I saw and read only the statement I responded to. At the time, I
had no interest in further involvement.
You're a very stubborn man. Try reading more than that single line.
Ron Dean
2024-03-02 05:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
****************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false. Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.
I responded only to what I saw. Are you claiming the statement, "There
is no God" was PZ's statement?
Post by jillery
Post by Ron Dean
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery
2024-03-02 14:40:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:25:44 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by jillery
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
down on your original interpretation when corrected.
I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
****************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
Coincidence?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
Post by Ron Dean
Post by Ernest Major
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
************************************
The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false. Not only
does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
now claim you hadn't seen.
I responded only to what I saw.
Lie. You *saw* the entirety of PZ's post. You *replied* to PZ's
comments to which Harshman and Major refer. It's physically
impossible for you to have posted what you did, and not have seen what
you say you did not see.

Instead, you continue to mindlessly quotemine a single line taken out
of context, despite having that context rubbed in your face.
Post by Ron Dean
Are you claiming the statement, "There
is no God" was PZ's statement?
Since you asked, no. I made no such claim, not because it's false,
but because it's trivially and factually correct that PZ posted "There
is no God".

My turn. Are you claiming that you, Ron Dean, did *not* post the post
I cited? That your doppelganger spoofed your account?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
John Harshman
2024-03-02 15:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernest Major
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by John Harshman
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
 >
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is
impossible. Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's
worth! But I hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a
long term fight with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again
some day. But I don't know. Neither do you!
The clueless is strong in this one.
 >
The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
_know_ for an absolute fact!
It's belief and belief _only_.
I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read
that sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of
your particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear.
But its general nature is clear. HTH.
I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
that PZ was joking?
I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind,
we'll think of something. Well, you probably won't.
I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an
idiomatic way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post
didn't reach me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one
thing to miss this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump
Syndrome) to double down on your original interpretation when corrected.
 I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
....to a goldeen turn.
Robert Carnegie
2024-03-07 22:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
We've established that the statement was
presented as a joke. I perceive that
you aren't comfortable with it being a
joke. I give respect to that stance.

I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for. But I think that
what most of us are in talk.origins for
is repetitive arguments between apologists
of science and misguided or dishonest
creationists, and I am just as happy to
have less of that. But if I don't accept
the role of apologist, then someone who
likes it less than I do will receive it.
Richmond
2024-03-07 23:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for.
What is that?
Robert Carnegie
2024-03-10 13:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richmond
Post by Robert Carnegie
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for.
What is that?
It is what I described in the sentence
that I typed after the word "for".
Richmond
2024-03-10 13:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Richmond
Post by Robert Carnegie
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for.
What is that?
It is what I described in the sentence
that I typed after the word "for".
I see, I thought you were excluding yourself from that "most people"
when you said you were happy to have less of it.
Robert Carnegie
2024-03-14 20:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richmond
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Richmond
Post by Robert Carnegie
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for.
What is that?
It is what I described in the sentence
that I typed after the word "for".
I see, I thought you were excluding yourself from that "most people"
when you said you were happy to have less of it.
Of creationism? Yes. It's a paradox
and maybe I didn't explain myself well.

And some people don't use the group only
for that, but also bring in scientific claims
or hypotheses about origins, of life, of stars,
of the duck-billed platypus - with no creationism
directly provoking this.
panther2020
2024-04-03 01:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb....
First I'd heard of that. How old was Peter?
erik simpson
2024-04-03 05:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb....
First I'd heard of that.  How old was Peter?
He was 78.

*Hemidactylus*
2024-03-07 23:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
We've established that the statement was
presented as a joke. I perceive that
you aren't comfortable with it being a
joke. I give respect to that stance.
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for. But I think that
what most of us are in talk.origins for
is repetitive arguments between apologists
of science and misguided or dishonest
creationists, and I am just as happy to
have less of that. But if I don't accept
the role of apologist, then someone who
likes it less than I do will receive it.
Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
are not returning in the near future.
erik simpson
2024-03-08 00:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by *Hemidactylus*
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
We've established that the statement was
presented as a joke. I perceive that
you aren't comfortable with it being a
joke. I give respect to that stance.
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for. But I think that
what most of us are in talk.origins for
is repetitive arguments between apologists
of science and misguided or dishonest
creationists, and I am just as happy to
have less of that. But if I don't accept
the role of apologist, then someone who
likes it less than I do will receive it.
Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
are not returning in the near future.
Peter generated a lot of stuff to chew on. I'm going to miss Bill
Rogers, Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett if they don't relent.
Martin Harran
2024-03-08 09:28:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:07:12 -0800, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ron Dean
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
We've established that the statement was
presented as a joke. I perceive that
you aren't comfortable with it being a
joke. I give respect to that stance.
I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for. But I think that
what most of us are in talk.origins for
is repetitive arguments between apologists
of science and misguided or dishonest
creationists, and I am just as happy to
have less of that. But if I don't accept
the role of apologist, then someone who
likes it less than I do will receive it.
Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
are not returning in the near future.
Peter generated a lot of stuff to chew on. I'm going to miss Bill
Rogers, Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett if they don't relent.
+1
Dgb
2024-02-29 14:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem,
exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots
who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're
finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
There is no god.
Some of us old people have moved on to blogs (mine for instance,
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/, or Larry Moran's,
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/, or the Panda's Thumb, https://pandasthumb.org/
) where you can continue the good fight. Unfortunately, blogs are in decline,
too (I blame google for that, too -- they killed easy RSS access). The battle
continues!
Thank you for your comments.

Sadly, the link you have provided to your own Blog doesn't 'work'.

The other two are just fine.
Loading...