On 3/28/24 10:06 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>
>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
>>>>>>>>> motivator, such
>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
>>>>>>> Mark had
>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
>>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly
>>>>>> bigoted against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks
>>>>>> and Democrats may be added to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>
>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post,
>>>> and that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further
>>>> bigotry. I must admit that I had not considered the intervention of
>>>> a spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to
>>>> alter text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>
>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is
>>> typical of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right".
>>> If you failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>> spell-checker)
>>
>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>
> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by me)
> for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>
It seems to me that Ron D has been getting an undue amount of attention
for some time. He obviously has a problem with reading not only what
others have written, but also in reading what he has written himself. We
are all getting bogged down with this unending drizzle.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>
>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
>>>>>> may be added to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>
>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
>>>> must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
>>>> text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>
>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
>>> of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
>>> failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>> spell-checker)
>>
>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>
>All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by
>me) for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.

The problem is that bigots are generally unable to recognise their own
bigotry. When Ron Dean says that Osama bin Laden [1] is probably
typical of Islam, he simply doesn't realise how that shows his bigotry
towards Islam - I suspect that in his case, like most bigots IME, that
bigotry is based on total ignorance of the subject about which he is
bigoted.

[1] I'm assuming his changing of that to Obama was unintentional
though I could easily be convinced otherwise.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:15:41 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>It seems to me that Ron D has been getting an undue amount of attention
>for some time. He obviously has a problem with reading not only what
>others have written, but also in reading what he has written himself. We
>are all getting bogged down with this unending drizzle.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot else going on here. I wonder how much
of that has to do with the demise of GG.

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
>>>>>>>> motivator, such
>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
>>>>>> Mark had
>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
>>>>>> what that
>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>
>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and
>>>>> Democrats may be added to the list.
>>>>>
>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>
>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry.
>>> I must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to
>>> alter text that the user did not type himself.
>>>
>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is
>> typical of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If
>> you failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>> spell-checker)
>
> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>
You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and never
meant.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>
>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
>>>>>>>>> motivator, such
>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
>>>>>>> Mark had
>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
>>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly
>>>>>> bigoted against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks
>>>>>> and Democrats may be added to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>
>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post,
>>>> and that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further
>>>> bigotry. I must admit that I had not considered the intervention of
>>>> a spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to
>>>> alter text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>
>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is
>>> typical of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right".
>>> If you failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>> spell-checker)
>>
>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>
> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by me)
> for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>
This no doubt is typical of most Muslin people.

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>>
>>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
>>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
>>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
>>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
>>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
>>>>>>> may be added to the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
>>>>> must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
>>>>> text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>>
>>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
>>>> of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
>>>> failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>>> spell-checker)
>>>
>>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>
>> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by
>> me) for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>
> The problem is that bigots are generally unable to recognise their own
> bigotry. When Ron Dean says that Osama bin Laden [1] is probably
> typical of Islam, he simply doesn't realise how that shows his bigotry
> towards Islam - I suspect that in his case, like most bigots IME, that
> bigotry is based on total ignorance of the subject about which he is
> bigoted.
>
I never said he is typical. I asked the question.
>
> [1] I'm assuming his changing of that to Obama was unintentional
> though I could easily be convinced otherwise.
>
It was the spell checker. And me not checking after the spell-checker!

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
>>>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
>>>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
>>>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
>>>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
>>>>>>>> may be added to the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>>>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
>>>>>> must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>>>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
>>>>>> text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
>>>>> of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
>>>>> failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>>>> spell-checker)
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>>>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>>
>>> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>>> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>>> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>>> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>>> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>>> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by
>>> me) for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>>> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>>
>> The problem is that bigots are generally unable to recognise their own
>> bigotry. When Ron Dean says that Osama bin Laden [1] is probably
>> typical of Islam, he simply doesn't realise how that shows his bigotry
>> towards Islam - I suspect that in his case, like most bigots IME, that
>> bigotry is based on total ignorance of the subject about which he is
>> bigoted.
> >
>I never said he is typical. I asked the question.

You asked a question and followed it with your own opinion:

<quote>

"Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
you're probably right."

</quote>

>>
>> [1] I'm assuming his changing of that to Obama was unintentional
>> though I could easily be convinced otherwise.
>>
>It was the spell checker. And me not checking after the spell-checker!

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:37 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
>>>>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
>>>>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
>>>>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
>>>>>>>>> may be added to the list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>>>>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
>>>>>>> must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>>>>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
>>>>>>> text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
>>>>>> of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
>>>>>> failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>>>>> spell-checker)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>>>>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>>>
>>>> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>>>> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>>>> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>>>> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>>>> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>>>> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by
>>>> me) for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>>>> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>>>
>>> The problem is that bigots are generally unable to recognise their own
>>> bigotry. When Ron Dean says that Osama bin Laden [1] is probably
>>> typical of Islam, he simply doesn't realise how that shows his bigotry
>>> towards Islam - I suspect that in his case, like most bigots IME, that
>>> bigotry is based on total ignorance of the subject about which he is
>>> bigoted.
>>>
>> I never said he is typical. I asked the question.
>
> You asked a question and followed it with your own opinion:
>
> <quote>
>
> "Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
> you're probably right."
>
If so, you're probably right, If not, you are probably right.
>
> </quote>
>
>>>
>>> [1] I'm assuming his changing of that to Obama was unintentional
>>> though I could easily be convinced otherwise.
>>>
>> It was the spell checker. And me not checking after the spell-checker!
>

On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
>>>>>>>>> motivator, such
>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
>>>>>>> Mark had
>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
>>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly
>>>>>> bigoted against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks
>>>>>> and Democrats may be added to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>
>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post,
>>>> and that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further
>>>> bigotry. I must admit that I had not considered the intervention of
>>>> a spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to
>>>> alter text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>
>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is
>>> typical of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right".
>>> If you failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>> spell-checker)
>>
>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>
> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and never
> meant.
>
I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never a
good idea.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:48:18 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:34:15 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:31:54 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> trolled:
>>>>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip uncommented text>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That itself is a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's so easy to accuse anyone of anything so long as you don't have to
>>>>>>> back up your accusation/charge.
>>>>>>> When you don't - this amounts to you bearing false witness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I assert "the sun rose in the east this morning" I really don't have
>>>>>> to provide a video of dawn and a compass to back up my statement. It's
>>>>>> happened regularly enough and often enough that it comes as no surprise.
>>>>>> Likewise, if I post to talk.origins "Ron Dean lied again" it's greeted
>>>>>> with the same amount of surprise (I have no idea if you post to other
>>>>>> groups, or if you behave the same way there as you do here. Nor do I
>>>>>> care.) Jillery in particular has done an amazing job of documenting your
>>>>>> falsehoods, often quoting material you posted in the recent past to
>>>>>> provide evidence. Burkhard also went into great detail about Darwin's
>>>>>> mindset and motivation, providing links that indicated you'd been
>>>>>> apprised of Darwin's own writings on those matters- and you went on to
>>>>>> spout the same falsehoods about Darwin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think people don't remember these things? Do you think your lies
>>>>>> disappear because they fell off your newsreader?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On top of everything else, you hide behind this false outrage in order
>>>>>> to try to evade the arguments that reduce your positions to rubble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But keep at it. Your god of lies loves you more every day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> On other words you have nothing, so you appeal to others to prove your
>>>>> accusations. You are a fraud and a false witness!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be accurate, the other words here are, you stupidly spam your
>>>> stupid lies for the sake of it, while at the same time you stupidly
>>>> lie about others doing what you do. ISTM that's a stupid way to spend
>>>> your spare time, but so many stupid trolls do it. Do you enjoy
>>>> sharing their fleas?
>>>>
>>> It's amazing how many such accusations appear from a few people, but
>>> nothing to back up the charges. In each case I defended my positions
>>> again and again including my contention regard
>>> atheism and evolution.
>>
>>
>> Once again, in this very topic, I documented multiple instances where
>> you, Ron Dean, posted explicit falsehoods multiple times, and failed
>> multiple times to even acknowledge nevermind correct them. That you
>> assert otherwise as you do above is just another instance of a stupid
>> lie.
>>
>In every case where such accusations against me were advanced, I
>defended myself, proving the truth of my argument. The accusation that I
>mingled atheism and evolution was false. I've pointed out that atheist
>generally are evolutionist. But not all evolutionist are atheist. There
>are theist who
>are evolutionist. By the same token there are intellectuals who are
>doubters of evolution.

Every single claim you make about yourself in the above paragraph is
factually incorrect.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:15:41 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/28/24 10:06 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>>
>>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
>>>>>>>>>> motivator, such
>>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
>>>>>>>> Mark had
>>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
>>>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
>>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly
>>>>>>> bigoted against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks
>>>>>>> and Democrats may be added to the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post,
>>>>> and that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further
>>>>> bigotry. I must admit that I had not considered the intervention of
>>>>> a spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to
>>>>> alter text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>>
>>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is
>>>> typical of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right".
>>>> If you failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>>> spell-checker)
>>>
>>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>
>> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by me)
>> for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>>
>It seems to me that Ron D has been getting an undue amount of attention
>for some time. He obviously has a problem with reading not only what
>others have written, but also in reading what he has written himself. We
>are all getting bogged down with this unending drizzle.

Such is the consequence of willful stupidity.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 2024-03-28 23:55:46 +0000, John Harshman said:

> On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and never meant.
>>
> I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never a
> good idea.

Apparently he doesn't understand that "you are probably right" is a
direct quotation of what he wrote. No "reading meaning into" it is
required.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:39:16 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:37 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-03-28 16:52:50 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're probably right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
>>>>>>>>>>> originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
>>>>>>>>>>> morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
>>>>>>>>>>> indicates about Ron Dean…
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
>>>>>>>>>> against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
>>>>>>>>>> may be added to the list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here you are so unfair.  It's easy to make accusations and charges
>>>>>>>>> without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
>>>>>>>>> demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
>>>>>>>>> point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
>>>>>>>> that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
>>>>>>>> must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
>>>>>>>> spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
>>>>>>>> text that the user did not type himself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
>>>>>>> of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
>>>>>>> failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
>>>>>>> spell-checker)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
>>>>>> repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the Muslims that I know (all highly educated women, at the moment)
>>>>> are perfectly decent people. All of them would be very insulted to be
>>>>> described as typical of Osama Ben Laden. None of them wear veils. A few
>>>>> years ago there was a student who did wear a veil, but that was only in
>>>>> her second when her husband came to join the institute. In her first
>>>>> year she didn't, and was perfectly happy to have her photo taken (by
>>>>> me) for a seminar series that my wife was organizing. She likewise had
>>>>> nothing in common with Osama Ben Laden.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that bigots are generally unable to recognise their own
>>>> bigotry. When Ron Dean says that Osama bin Laden [1] is probably
>>>> typical of Islam, he simply doesn't realise how that shows his bigotry
>>>> towards Islam - I suspect that in his case, like most bigots IME, that
>>>> bigotry is based on total ignorance of the subject about which he is
>>>> bigoted.
>>>>
>>> I never said he is typical. I asked the question.
>>
>> You asked a question and followed it with your own opinion:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> "Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>> you're probably right."
> >
>If so, you're probably right, If not, you are probably right.

Perhaps in some remote universe or some far-flung corner of your mind,
that response has some meaning but I guess I'm just not smart enough
to grasp it.

>>
>> </quote>
>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] I'm assuming his changing of that to Obama was unintentional
>>>> though I could easily be convinced otherwise.
>>>>
>>> It was the spell checker. And me not checking after the spell-checker!
>>

On 29/03/2024 12:16, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> "Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
>>> you're probably right."
>>>
>> If so, you're probably right, If not, you are probably right.
> Perhaps in some remote universe or some far-flung corner of your mind,
> that response has some meaning but I guess I'm just not smart enough
> to grasp it.

In the absence of context, one could interpret Ron Dean's modified
sentence as an expression of trust in Mark's judgement. But that would
not be consistent with Ron Dean's history of posting, even ignoring that
it would be an odd way of expressing the sentiment.

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:48:18 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:34:15 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:31:54 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> trolled:
>>>>>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip uncommented text>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
>>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That itself is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's so easy to accuse anyone of anything so long as you don't have to
>>>>>>>> back up your accusation/charge.
>>>>>>>> When you don't - this amounts to you bearing false witness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I assert "the sun rose in the east this morning" I really don't have
>>>>>>> to provide a video of dawn and a compass to back up my statement. It's
>>>>>>> happened regularly enough and often enough that it comes as no surprise.
>>>>>>> Likewise, if I post to talk.origins "Ron Dean lied again" it's greeted
>>>>>>> with the same amount of surprise (I have no idea if you post to other
>>>>>>> groups, or if you behave the same way there as you do here. Nor do I
>>>>>>> care.) Jillery in particular has done an amazing job of documenting your
>>>>>>> falsehoods, often quoting material you posted in the recent past to
>>>>>>> provide evidence. Burkhard also went into great detail about Darwin's
>>>>>>> mindset and motivation, providing links that indicated you'd been
>>>>>>> apprised of Darwin's own writings on those matters- and you went on to
>>>>>>> spout the same falsehoods about Darwin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think people don't remember these things? Do you think your lies
>>>>>>> disappear because they fell off your newsreader?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On top of everything else, you hide behind this false outrage in order
>>>>>>> to try to evade the arguments that reduce your positions to rubble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But keep at it. Your god of lies loves you more every day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> On other words you have nothing, so you appeal to others to prove your
>>>>>> accusations. You are a fraud and a false witness!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be accurate, the other words here are, you stupidly spam your
>>>>> stupid lies for the sake of it, while at the same time you stupidly
>>>>> lie about others doing what you do. ISTM that's a stupid way to spend
>>>>> your spare time, but so many stupid trolls do it. Do you enjoy
>>>>> sharing their fleas?
>>>>>
>>>> It's amazing how many such accusations appear from a few people, but
>>>> nothing to back up the charges. In each case I defended my positions
>>>> again and again including my contention regard
>>>> atheism and evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, in this very topic, I documented multiple instances where
>>> you, Ron Dean, posted explicit falsehoods multiple times, and failed
>>> multiple times to even acknowledge nevermind correct them. That you
>>> assert otherwise as you do above is just another instance of a stupid
>>> lie.
>>>
>> In every case where such accusations against me were advanced, I
>> defended myself, proving the truth of my argument. The accusation that I
>> mingled atheism and evolution was false. I've pointed out that atheist
>> generally are evolutionist. But not all evolutionist are atheist. There
>> are theist who
>> are evolutionist. By the same token there are intellectuals who are
>> doubters of evolution.
>
>
> Every single claim you make about yourself in the above paragraph is
> factually incorrect.
>
All I get from you is unsupported accusations.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On 3/29/24 2:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-28 23:55:46 +0000, John Harshman said:
>
>> On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and
>>> never meant.
>>>
>> I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never a
>> good idea.
>
> Apparently he doesn't understand that "you are probably right" is a
> direct quotation of what he wrote. No "reading meaning into" it is
> required.
>
Reading meaning, finding meaning, divining meaning, all probably futile.
Though I suppose that if you left him at his keyboard for long enough he
would end up typing the complete works of Shakespeare.

On 3/29/24 8:19 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/29/24 2:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-03-28 23:55:46 +0000, John Harshman said:
>>
>>> On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and
>>>> never meant.
>>>>
>>> I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never
>>> a good idea.
>>
>> Apparently he doesn't understand that "you are probably right" is a
>> direct quotation of what he wrote. No "reading meaning into" it is
>> required.
>>
> Reading meaning, finding meaning, divining meaning, all probably futile.
> Though I suppose that if you left him at his keyboard for long enough he
> would end up typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
>
A roomful of monkeys might get the job done quicker.

On 3/29/24 9:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/29/24 8:19 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/29/24 2:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-28 23:55:46 +0000, John Harshman said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and
>>>>> never meant.
>>>>>
>>>> I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never
>>>> a good idea.
>>>
>>> Apparently he doesn't understand that "you are probably right" is a
>>> direct quotation of what he wrote. No "reading meaning into" it is
>>> required.
>>>
>> Reading meaning, finding meaning, divining meaning, all probably
>> futile. Though I suppose that if you left him at his keyboard for long
>> enough he would end up typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
>>
> A roomful of monkeys might get the job done quicker.
>
How do you know "Ron Dean" isn't a roomful of monkeys?

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:51:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/29/24 9:04 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/29/24 8:19 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 3/29/24 2:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-28 23:55:46 +0000, John Harshman said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and
>>>>>> never meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never
>>>>> a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently he doesn't understand that "you are probably right" is a
>>>> direct quotation of what he wrote. No "reading meaning into" it is
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>> Reading meaning, finding meaning, divining meaning, all probably
>>> futile. Though I suppose that if you left him at his keyboard for long
>>> enough he would end up typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
>>>
>> A roomful of monkeys might get the job done quicker.
>>
>How do you know "Ron Dean" isn't a roomful of monkeys?

I confess that is a possibility I have occasionally considered.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:18:46 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

> All I get from you is unsupported accusations.

All I get from you are unsupported denials... and embarrassing typos.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:18:46 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All I get from you is unsupported accusations.
>
>
> All I get from you are unsupported denials... and embarrassing typos.
>

Are you sure that is all you get? because you keep replying.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:40:33 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:18:46 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All I get from you is unsupported accusations.
>>
>>
>> All I get from you are unsupported denials... and embarrassing typos.
>>
>
>Are you sure that is all you get? because you keep replying.

Since you asked, yes. Both are low-hanging fruit. You're welcome.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge