On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/17/23 4:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue
>>>>> that transcends
>>>>> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups --
>>>>> are threatened with extinction
>>>>> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following
>>>>> announcement
>>>>> appears on every GG thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>>>>
>>>>> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
>>>>> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
>>>>> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
>>>>> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into
>>>>> switching
>>>>> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
>>>>> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
>>>>> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am
>>>>> willing to pay it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, on to responding to your comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>>>>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad
>>>>>>>>>>> hominem* fallacy,"
>>>>>>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
>>>>>>> and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
>>>>>>> and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
>>>>>>> So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
>>>>>>>>> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
>>>>>>>>> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
>>>>>>>>> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
>>>>>>>>> be a fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
>>>>>>>> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
>>>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the
>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>> Do you deny this?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>>>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about
>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you  ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
>>>>> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in
>>>>> "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much,
>>>>> I will break"
>>>>>
>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life,
>>>>>>> Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you
>>>>> displayed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>
>>>> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
>>>> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
>>>> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
>>>>
>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>
>>> I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
>>> September as a backup)
>>
>>
>> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
>> reason.
>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
>messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
>that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.

On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/23 4:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue
>>>>>> that transcends
>>>>>> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups --
>>>>>> are threatened with extinction
>>>>>> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following
>>>>>> announcement
>>>>>> appears on every GG thread:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
>>>>>> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
>>>>>> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
>>>>>> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into
>>>>>> switching
>>>>>> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
>>>>>> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
>>>>>> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am
>>>>>> willing to pay it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, on to responding to your comments below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>>>>>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad
>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem* fallacy,"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
>>>>>>>> and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
>>>>>>>> and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
>>>>>>>> So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
>>>>>>>>>> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
>>>>>>>>>> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
>>>>>>>>>> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
>>>>>>>>>> be a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
>>>>>>>>> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
>>>>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the
>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>> Do you deny this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>>>>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about
>>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you  ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
>>>>>> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in
>>>>>> "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much,
>>>>>> I will break"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life,
>>>>>>>> Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you
>>>>>> displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
>>>>> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
>>>>> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>
>>>> I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
>>>> September as a backup)
>>>
>>>
>>> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
>> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
>> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
>
>
> One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
> see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
> delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
> insist ES works "just fine".
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
So far so good. We'll see.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:50:42 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/23 4:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue
>>>>>>> that transcends
>>>>>>> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups --
>>>>>>> are threatened with extinction
>>>>>>> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following
>>>>>>> announcement
>>>>>>> appears on every GG thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
>>>>>>> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
>>>>>>> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
>>>>>>> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into
>>>>>>> switching
>>>>>>> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
>>>>>>> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
>>>>>>> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am
>>>>>>> willing to pay it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now, on to responding to your comments below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem* fallacy,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
>>>>>>>>> and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
>>>>>>>>> and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
>>>>>>>>> So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
>>>>>>>>>>> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
>>>>>>>>>>> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
>>>>>>>>>>> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
>>>>>>>>>>> be a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
>>>>>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the
>>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>>> Do you deny this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>>>>>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about
>>>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you  ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
>>>>>>> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in
>>>>>>> "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much,
>>>>>>> I will break"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life,
>>>>>>>>> Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you
>>>>>>> displayed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
>>>>>> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
>>>>>> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
>>>>> September as a backup)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>>
>>> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
>>> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
>>> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
>>
>>
>> One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
>> see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
>> delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
>> insist ES works "just fine".
>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>So far so good. We'll see.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:50:42 -0800
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
> > <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

[snipped again]

> >> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
> >> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
> >> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
> >
> >
> > One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
> > see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
> > delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
> > insist ES works "just fine".
> >
> > --
> > To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >
> So far so good. We'll see.
>

I thought you'd agreed with me that shorter, relevant posts were better?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:27:03 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> . . . B has a history of lying. . . .

I'm going to leave this here
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=QbK_PLUS_LJnXDL9v6FtzC9ofmw=
It has a political tinge to it but also has some nice practical examples of how
being a documented liar can have an impact. Yes, it drifts afield but it's still
rather funny if you can read a legal finding and laugh.

On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/23 4:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue
>>>>>> that transcends
>>>>>> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups --
>>>>>> are threatened with extinction
>>>>>> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following
>>>>>> announcement
>>>>>> appears on every GG thread:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
>>>>>> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
>>>>>> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
>>>>>> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into
>>>>>> switching
>>>>>> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
>>>>>> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
>>>>>> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am
>>>>>> willing to pay it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, on to responding to your comments below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>>>>>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad
>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem* fallacy,"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
>>>>>>>> and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
>>>>>>>> and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
>>>>>>>> So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
>>>>>>>>>> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
>>>>>>>>>> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
>>>>>>>>>> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
>>>>>>>>>> be a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
>>>>>>>>> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
>>>>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the
>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>> Do you deny this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>>>>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about
>>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you  ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
>>>>>> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in
>>>>>> "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much,
>>>>>> I will break"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life,
>>>>>>>> Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you
>>>>>> displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
>>>>> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
>>>>> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>
>>>> I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
>>>> September as a backup)
>>>
>>>
>>> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
>> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
>> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
>
>
> One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
> see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
> delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
> insist ES works "just fine".
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
Eternal September let me down. I'm on solani now...

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:43:24 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/23 4:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue
>>>>>>> that transcends
>>>>>>> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups --
>>>>>>> are threatened with extinction
>>>>>>> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following
>>>>>>> announcement
>>>>>>> appears on every GG thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
>>>>>>> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
>>>>>>> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
>>>>>>> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into
>>>>>>> switching
>>>>>>> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
>>>>>>> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
>>>>>>> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am
>>>>>>> willing to pay it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now, on to responding to your comments below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem* fallacy,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
>>>>>>>>> and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
>>>>>>>>> and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
>>>>>>>>> So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
>>>>>>>>>>> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
>>>>>>>>>>> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
>>>>>>>>>>> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
>>>>>>>>>>> be a fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
>>>>>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the
>>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>>> Do you deny this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>>>>>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about
>>>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you  ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
>>>>>>> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in
>>>>>>> "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much,
>>>>>>> I will break"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life,
>>>>>>>>> Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you
>>>>>>> displayed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
>>>>>> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
>>>>>> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
>>>>> September as a backup)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>>
>>> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
>>> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
>>> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
>>
>>
>> One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
>> see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
>> delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
>> insist ES works "just fine".
>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>Eternal September let me down. I'm on solani now...

I'm sorry to be so late in responding, Öö . These last two weeks
were almost completely taken with preparing, and then grading,
final exams, along with some family obligations.

Today is my last day this year for posting, but I hope we can pick up this OOL theme
when I return from my break. It has a timelessness that personal comments lack.

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:37:02 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 22:27:01 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:47:00 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

> > > For me the issue is not what words Tour says but what he has done.
> >
> > So, aren't you interested in what we know and do not know about
> > the origins of life? Specifically, life as we know it, based on protein enzymes.
> >
> > This is what makes OOL so fascinating for me: the Central Doctrine
> > of the biochemistry of life as we know it is that information passes from nucleotides
> > to polypeptides (which are either proteins or the main ingredients of proteins)
> > but almost no information passes in the opposite direction.
> >
> Yes, and so all peptides used in life are of rather limited set of possible
> peptide space.

And the ribozymes of which we know are a far more limited set. The ones
I talk about here have vanished, supplanted by protein enzymes,
yet they were indispensable for getting life as we know it started.

>That highly likely makes the choices taken (and solutions
> built from such choices) suboptimal. Proteins are still remarkably better
> than ribozymes even as only rather narrow subset of the full potential is
> used.

What is your basis for this comparison? The ribosome is a ribozyme together with
a lot of "helper" proteins, but it can do its essential work [albeit less efficiently]
without them. As for the others I talk about next, we have no idea where
they lie in "polynucleotide" space.

> > To make a long story short, all paths from simple chemicals to life as we know it
> > seem to have to pass through the bottleneck of a ribozyme RNA replicase..
> > I described this concept to Erik Simpson earlier on this thread, but
> > no one here seems to be interested in trying to find another kind of path.

> RdRp and DdRp are available in protein form. I agree that ribozyme RdRp feels
> most logical to have for to go from RNA world to RNA + protein world.
> Protein RdRp we have and it is likely more efficient and robust than ribozyme
> RdRp but obviously could not be there before proteins themselves.

Yes, it requires a very high fidelity genetic code to produce the necessary protein enzymes.
Before then, a DNA genome is probably indispensable. Without knowing what the RdRp ribozymes
are like, we cannot be sure how easy or how hard it is to have mutations to a transcriptase or
reverse transcriptase or DNA replicase -- all necessarily ribozymes before their protein
counterparts have a chance of being produced in abundance.

> > And now comes the punch line: nobody, not even Lee Cronin, the "opponent" of Tour in the
> > debate, has the foggiest idea what ribozyme replicase (either for RNA or DNA, by the way)
> > might look like. By this I mean: what on earth might the sequence of nucleotides making it up be?
> >
> OK I see the only issue is we now do not have any ribozyme RdRp.

It's a huge one, make no mistake.

> But that is logical as even "more modern" protein RdRp is only yet there in some viruses.

Or lost in organisms, being no longer necessary for them. DNA replicase and transcriptase
to RNA are all that we need now, apparently, with mutations taking place in the DNA genomes
of both nuclei and endosymbionts (including mitochondria and chloroplasts).

> So what is the anticipated barrier to existence of ribozyme RdRp before its
> protein competitor emerged?

It's a bit like "lifting yourself up by the bootstraps." Without high fidelity replicators
to start with, how could any promising nucleotide sequence avoid getting degraded
by mutations to "junk RNA" or, at best, something not on a path towards a true replicase?

> Peptides could evolve with ribozyme RdRp forming protein RdRp that competed ribozyme RdRp out.

How do you replicate a polypeptide? We have nothing that does that directly, not even
in viruses, otherwise some kinds could replicate without host cell ribosomes -- unheard of!
> There must be some
> issue on that trajectory I don't see.

Don't forget the Central Dogma of which I wrote above. Its twin is that genetic
information does not flow from one polypeptide to another.

Below, we revert to talking about James Tour, after which you got speculative about AI.
Due to shortness of time, I'll defer any comment I make to after my break.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS One last question: have you started looking at the 3+ hour video I talked about below?

> > > Tour has record of challenges. With Tour there will be conditions and
> > > inconveniences with such challenges.

> > Why don't you confine yourself to this latest one? This is the
> > one that a mainstream OOL researcher took seriously enough
> > to result in an amazing debate.
> >
> > Who cares about the ones where Tour's opponents were incompetent and/or clowns?
> >
> I did totally disappoint in him when he washed floor with "professor" Dave.
> That proved to me that it is political show only, and that is what is Tour's
> goal.
> > > "Challenges" themselves are for
> > > show, but whoever accepts those just gets nothing, even no right to
> > > record:
> > > “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is
> > > not for show but for my edification.”
> > This one was not only recorded, the YouTube recording lasts for over
> > three hours, and I haven't had the time yet to go over the final hour.
> > > <https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-james-tour-accepts-nick-matzkes-offer-to-explain-macroevolution/>
> > >
> > > Why should they then do it if they get nothing? Or what "reward" is that
> > > Tour erases his youtube channel?
> > He won't have the power to erase this one:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > It's part of a prestigious series, with Harvard University hosting.
> >
> I try to find time to listen it at weekend (or to read the subtitles). Thanks.
> > > YouTube is not getting less full of
> > > BS. It is nothing like million of dollars that late James Randi offered
> > > for any paranormal or supernatural evidence whatsoever in his challenge.
> >
> > The origin of life is arguably the most difficult unsolved problem in all the
> > physical sciences. The origin of the cell is far more complicated than the evolution
> > of stars. Astrophysicists have been able to deduce what goes on in stars, depending
> > on where they started on the Herzprung-Russel main sequence.
> > Our sun will leave it before getting any further than carbon in producing heavier elements,
> > and will quickly become a white dwarf after that.
> >
> Oh who knows, we can not even figure out origin of petroleum. It is often located
> twice deeper than any organic sediment is (and so any fossil can be). Or may be
> there was (still is?) some kind of deep underground life? But I am rather
> convinced that manufacturing more potent than our own life-like technologies is
> coming soon anyway or already undergoing. With advance of nanotechnology and
> billions pumped into it each year it is highly likely that we have superior
> to our own biochemistry nanotechnology available soon.
> > The biggest stars can go all the way to iron, then suffer core collapse,
> > then become supernovas, producing all the remaining naturally occurring elements
> > in an unimaginably spectacular chain of reactions, then collapse either into a neutron star or a black hole.
> >
> > Along the way, they will first undergo a "hydrogen flash" while burning helium in earnest, then when
> > the helium is badly depleted, they will undergo a "helium flash". Both happen deep
> > inside, and no one has observed these and many other things
> > which they have deduced simply on well established theoretical grounds.
> >
> > But life is far too complicated for biologists to be good at the theory of its origins to the
> > same spectacular extent -- or even to a much less spectacular extent.
> >
> Issue is that whatever was OOL the result of it advanced in so pitifully sluggish
> pace that the study figuring it out is doomed to bring no economic benefits.
> At same time we have clearly done quite a step ahead in manufacturing
> mental singularities and not even hiding that. We can't yet figure what is economic
> effect of those (besides that it will be extensive).
>
> On worst cases ... within few decades there will be (A) large-scale battle between
> various grey goos controlled by various SkyNets by what current biochemistry including
> ourselves is either (A.1) already thrown aside as worthless or (A.2) kept still in role
> of curiously inferior pets or (B) whatever gods there supposedly exist and sometimes
> intervene stop hiding and (B.1) erase and forbid making SkyNets, (B.2) welcome
> SkyNets and teach them what are the next rules of game.

This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
It is my second reply to this Harshman post.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip of things talked about in first reply>

> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> >>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> >>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> >>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
> >
> >> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
> >> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
> >
> > Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
> > present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.

> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.

Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me but unlike you and Athel
and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.

> >> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
> >> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
> >> that he's a creationist.
> >
> > There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
> > The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
> > I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.
> >
> > It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
> > about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"
> >
> > But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
> > are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
> > God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
> > and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
> >
> > When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
> > "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
> > It says "God made..."
> >
> > So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
> > about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
> > his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.

> > Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here. [1]

After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
gaslighting to boot.

> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
> disconnected and incomprehensible.

Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead to the
conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.

But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the above comments
when I return in January.

[1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
I will resume this theme in January.

> >>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >>>
> >>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
> >>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
> >>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
> >>>
> >>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
> >>> tried to undermine them.
> >
> >> Not relevant to my point.
> >
> > I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.

> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to tell..

The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this sentence another
bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.

> > It's time to move on.

> Sure. Where to?

To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's attitude
towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.

Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical you are every
time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
that particular argument.

> Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?

There you go again.

It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago on a different topic, remember?

But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
that you've never let go of them.

Peter Nyikos

PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice exchange with
your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
that normal adults need to grow out of.

On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
> It is my second reply to this Harshman post.
>
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>
>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>
>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>
>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>
> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
> exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me but unlike you and Athel
> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.

What fight?

>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>
>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.
>>>
>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"
>>>
>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>
>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>> It says "God made..."
>>>
>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>
>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here. [1]
>
> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
> gaslighting to boot.

You have no comprehension of what I do.

>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>
> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead to the
> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
> is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.

No comprehension whatsoever.

> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the above comments
> when I return in January.

Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
reply to and many others that you haven't.

> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
> I will resume this theme in January.
>
>
>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>
>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>
>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>
>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.
>
>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to tell.
>
> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this sentence another
> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.

You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.

>>> It's time to move on.
>
>> Sure. Where to?
>
> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's attitude
> towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.

Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
such subjects?

> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical you are every
> time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
> that particular argument.

No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your judgment
of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not reliable.

> > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>
> There you go again.
>
> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
> Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
> it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago on a different topic, remember?

I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here, in
response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up another
cryptic hint.

> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
> that you've never let go of them.

Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.

> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice exchange with
> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
> that normal adults need to grow out of.

You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
Christmas mean to you?

Is there something wrong with being an atheist?

On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>
>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>
>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>>
>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>
>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are
>>>> moot.
>>
>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>
>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me but
>> unlike you and Athel
>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>
> What fight?
>
>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the
>>>>> claim
>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>
>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye
>>>> in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>
>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>
>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>
>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>
>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here. [1]
>>
>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>> gaslighting to boot.
>
> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>
>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>
>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead
>> to the
>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>
> No comprehension whatsoever.
>
>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on the
>> above comments
>> when I return in January.
>
> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>
>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>
>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>
>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
>>>> you displayed.
>>
>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to
>>> tell.
>>
>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>> sentence  another
>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>
> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>
>>>> It's time to move on.
>>
>>> Sure. Where to?
>>
>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>> attitude
>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>
> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
> such subjects?
>
>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical
>> you are every
>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when you or
>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>> that particular argument.
>
> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your judgment
> of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not reliable.
>
>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>
>> There  you go again.
>>
>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago
>> on a different topic, remember?
>
> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here, in
> response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up another
> cryptic hint.
>
>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>> that you've never let go of them.
>
> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice exchange
>> with
>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>
> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
> Christmas mean to you?
>
> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>
For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT. Amazement
followed. ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate. Used on some of
Peter's other recent contributions made them more understandable than
the original. I might try it on some of my deathless prose.

On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are
>>>>> moot.
>>>
>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>
>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>
>> What fight?
>>
>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough
>>>>> for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye
>>>>> in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>
>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>
>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>> [1]
>>>
>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>
>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the
>>>> only
>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>
>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead
>>> to the
>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>
>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>
>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on the
>>> above comments
>>> when I return in January.
>>
>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>
>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
>>>>> you displayed.
>>>
>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to
>>>> tell.
>>>
>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>> sentence  another
>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>
>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>
>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>
>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>
>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>> attitude
>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>
>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
>> such subjects?
>>
>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical
>>> you are every
>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when you or
>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>> that particular argument.
>>
>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>> reliable.
>>
>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>
>>> There  you go again.
>>>
>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago
>>> on a different topic, remember?
>>
>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here,
>> in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up
>> another cryptic hint.
>>
>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>
>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>> exchange with
>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>
>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
>> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
>> Christmas mean to you?
>>
>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>
> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.  Amazement
> followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on some of
> Peter's other recent contributions made them more understandable than
> the original.  I might try it on some of my deathless prose.
>
Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?

On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>
>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>> interested in
>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>
>>> What fight?
>>>
>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough
>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>
>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>
>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>
>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the
>>>>> only
>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead
>>>> to the
>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>
>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>
>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on the
>>>> above comments
>>>> when I return in January.
>>>
>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>
>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
>>>>>> you displayed.
>>>>
>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>> to tell.
>>>>
>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>> sentence  another
>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>
>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>
>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>
>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>> attitude
>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>
>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
>>> such subjects?
>>>
>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when you or
>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>> that particular argument.
>>>
>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>> reliable.
>>>
>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>> those
>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>
>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>
>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago
>>>> on a different topic, remember?
>>>
>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here,
>>> in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up
>>> another cryptic hint.
>>>
>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>
>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>
>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>> exchange with
>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>
>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
>>> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
>>> Christmas mean to you?
>>>
>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>
>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>> deathless prose.
>>
> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>
Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.

On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>> interested in
>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>
>>>> What fight?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>
>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>> going on
>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>> lead to the
>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>> the above comments
>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>
>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
>>>>>>> you displayed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>
>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>
>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>> attitude
>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when you or
>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>
>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>> reliable.
>>>>
>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>
>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>
>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here,
>>>> in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up
>>>> another cryptic hint.
>>>>
>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>> exchange with
>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>> to a
>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>
>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
>>>> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>
>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>
>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>> deathless prose.
>>>
>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>
> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>
I would prefer not to.

On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>> you or
>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>
>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>
>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>
> I would prefer not to.
Good chioce. ChatGTP has clammed up since yesterday. Here's what is
says of the above:

On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>> you or
>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>
>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>
>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>
> I would prefer not to.
>
And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.

On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>> you or
>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>
>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>
>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>
> I would prefer not to.
>
And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.

On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>> you or
>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>
>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>
>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>
> I would prefer not to.
>
And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 21:35:55 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>>> you or
>>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>>
>>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>>
>>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>>
>>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>>
>> I would prefer not to.
>>
>And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
>yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
>nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.

On 12/23/23 10:10 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 21:35:55 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short
>>>>>>>>>>>> quotes--
>>>>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions
>>>>>>>>>> are moot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is
>>>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>>>> exploring the science  behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What fight?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports
>>>>>>>>>>> the claim
>>>>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> enough for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like
>>>>>>>>>> Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it
>>>>>>>>>> here. [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear
>>>>>>>>> (the only
>>>>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was
>>>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours
>>>>>>>> lead to the
>>>>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and  that you are fishing for
>>>>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong,  I will elaborate on
>>>>>>>> the above comments
>>>>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the challenge,
>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second
>>>>>>>>>> paragraph you displayed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard
>>>>>>>>> to tell.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>>>>> sentence  another
>>>>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards  Biblical creationism, free
>>>>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible
>>>>>>> on such subjects?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how
>>>>>>>> hypocritical you are every
>>>>>>>> time you plead with me to  get back to on-topic discussion when
>>>>>>>> you or
>>>>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There  you go again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at  some point, you
>>>>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>>>>> it isn't healthy to be  that way. You did that to me a few weeks
>>>>>>>> ago on a different topic, remember?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that
>>>>>>> here, in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you
>>>>>>> serve up another cryptic hint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS Don't think I am  devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>>>>> exchange with
>>>>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following
>>>>>>>> Hemidactylus's
>>>>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing
>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last
>>>>>>> I heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact
>>>>>>> does Christmas mean to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT.
>>>>>> Amazement followed.  ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate.  Used on
>>>>>> some of Peter's other recent contributions made them more
>>>>>> understandable than the original.  I might try it on some of my
>>>>>> deathless prose.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>>>>>
>>>> Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.
>>>>
>>> I would prefer not to.
>>>
>> And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
>> yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
>> nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.
>
>
> You seem to be having problems with GG too. Methinks the Usenet Gods
> are angry with you.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
They seem to be.

On Saturday 23 December 2023 at 13:17:17 UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
> >>> It is my second reply to this Harshman post.
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
> >>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> >>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> >>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> >>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
> >>>>>>> roundtable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
> >>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are
> >>>>> moot.
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
> >>>
> >>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
> >>> exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
> >>> but unlike you and Athel
> >>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
> >>
> >> What fight?
> >>
> >>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
> >>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the
> >>>>>> claim
> >>>>>> that he's a creationist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
> >>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
> >>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough
> >>>>> for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye
> >>>>> in "Fiddler on the Roof."
> >>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
> >>>>> much, I will break"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
> >>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
> >>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
> >>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
> >>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
> >>>>> It says "God made..."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
> >>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
> >>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
> >>>
> >>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>
> >>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
> >>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
> >>> gaslighting to boot.
> >>
> >> You have no comprehension of what I do.
> >>
> >>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the
> >>>> only
> >>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
> >>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
> >>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
> >>>
> >>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead
> >>> to the
> >>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
> >>> is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
> >>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
> >>
> >> No comprehension whatsoever.
> >>
> >>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the
> >>> above comments
> >>> when I return in January.
> >>
> >> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
> >> reply to and many others that you haven't.
> >>
> >>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
> >>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
> >>> I will resume this theme in January.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
> >>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
> >>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
> >>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
> >>>>>>> the challenge,
> >>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
> >>>>> you displayed.
> >>>
> >>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to
> >>>> tell.
> >>>
> >>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
> >>> sentence another
> >>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
> >>
> >> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
> >>
> >>>>> It's time to move on.
> >>>
> >>>> Sure. Where to?
> >>>
> >>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
> >>> attitude
> >>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
> >>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
> >>
> >> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
> >> such subjects?
> >>
> >>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical
> >>> you are every
> >>> time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
> >>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
> >>> that particular argument.
> >>
> >> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
> >> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
> >> reliable.
> >>
> >>> > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
> >>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
> >>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
> >>>
> >>> There you go again.
> >>>
> >>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
> >>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
> >>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
> >>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
> >>> it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago
> >>> on a different topic, remember?
> >>
> >> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here,
> >> in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up
> >> another cryptic hint.
> >>
> >>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
> >>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
> >>> that you've never let go of them.
> >>
> >> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
> >>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>
> >>> PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
> >>> exchange with
> >>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
> >>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
> >>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
> >>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
> >>
> >> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
> >> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
> >> Christmas mean to you?
> >>
> >> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
> >>
> > For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT. Amazement
> > followed. ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate. Used on some of
> > Peter's other recent contributions made them more understandable than
> > the original. I might try it on some of my deathless prose.
> >
> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?

On 12/25/23 7:02 PM, Jim Bozley wrote:
> On Saturday 23 December 2023 at 13:17:17 UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>> It is my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long
>>>>>>>>> roundtable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>>>>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are
>>>>>>> moot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
>>>>> exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me
>>>>> but unlike you and Athel
>>>>> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.
>>>>
>>>> What fight?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>>>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the
>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>>>>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>>>>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough
>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye
>>>>>>> in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>>>>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that
>>>>>>> much, I will break"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>>>>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>>>>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>>>>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>>>>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>>>>>> It says "God made..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>>>>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>>>>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
>>>>> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
>>>>> gaslighting to boot.
>>>>
>>>> You have no comprehension of what I do.
>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>>>>>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>>>>>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead
>>>>> to the
>>>>> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
>>>>> is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
>>>>> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> No comprehension whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the
>>>>> above comments
>>>>> when I return in January.
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
>>>> reply to and many others that you haven't.
>>>>
>>>>> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
>>>>> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
>>>>> I will resume this theme in January.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of
>>>>>>>>> Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of
>>>>>>>>> the challenge,
>>>>>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph
>>>>>>> you displayed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to
>>>>>> tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this
>>>>> sentence another
>>>>> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.
>>>>
>>>> You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Where to?
>>>>>
>>>>> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's
>>>>> attitude
>>>>> towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
>>>>> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
>>>> such subjects?
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical
>>>>> you are every
>>>>> time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
>>>>> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
>>>>> that particular argument.
>>>>
>>>> No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your
>>>> judgment of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not
>>>> reliable.
>>>>
>>>>> > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>>>>>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
>>>>>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
>>>>> Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
>>>>> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
>>>>> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
>>>>> it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago
>>>>> on a different topic, remember?
>>>>
>>>> I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here,
>>>> in response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up
>>>> another cryptic hint.
>>>>
>>>>> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
>>>>> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
>>>>> that you've never let go of them.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice
>>>>> exchange with
>>>>> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
>>>>> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
>>>>> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
>>>>> that normal adults need to grow out of.
>>>>
>>>> You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
>>>> heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
>>>> Christmas mean to you?
>>>>
>>>> Is there something wrong with being an atheist?
>>>>
>>> For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT. Amazement
>>> followed. ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate. Used on some of
>>> Peter's other recent contributions made them more understandable than
>>> the original. I might try it on some of my deathless prose.
>>>
>> Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?
>
> I gave it a shot:
>
> https://chat.openai.com/share/9c4655cc-4347-4720-8fe9-dad95eca247b
>
Not bad. It gets one thing wrong: Peter doesn't criticize me for failing
to understand his points. He criticizes me for pretending not to
understand his points.