erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/1/24 8:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> On 01/03/2024 05:01, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 8:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 6:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
>>>>>>>>>>>> disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
>>>>>>>>>>>> one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no god.
>>>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
>>>>>>>>>>> hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
>>>>>>>>>>> with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. Neither do you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The clueless is strong in this one.
>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>> The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> _know_ for an absolute fact!
>>>>>>>>> It's belief and belief _only_.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
>>>>>>>> immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
>>>>>>>> seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
>>>>>>>> humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
>>>>>>>> sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
>>>>>>>> particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
>>>>>>>> its general nature is clear. HTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
>>>>>>> that PZ was joking?
>>>>>>> I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
>>>>>>> another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
>>>>>> baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
>>>>>> think of something. Well, you probably won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
>>>>> For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
>>>>> surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
>>>>> slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an
>>>> idiomatic
>>>> way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't
>>>> reach
>>>> me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
>>>> this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
>>>> down on your original interpretation when corrected.
>>>>
>>>   I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
>>> saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
>>> against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
>>
>>
>> You could at least try to lie more artfully; you need the practice:
>> ****************************************
>> From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: talk.origins
>> Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
>>   Coincidence?
>> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
>> Message-ID: <f2ODN.94845$Iswd.11647@fx05.iad>
>> References: <6276c971-c5ae-4b08-bfa4-d5f525a77251n@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>>>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>>>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>>>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>>>> Google decides to end its support?
>>>>
>>>> There is no god.
>> ************************************
>> The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false.  Not only
>> does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
>> Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
>> now claim you hadn't seen.
>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
> THere's a big difference between "seeing" and "reading".  Ron D.
> exemplifies that difference.
>
Yes, I saw and read only the statement I responded to. At the time, I
had no interest in further involvement.

On 3/1/24 9:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/1/24 8:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> On 01/03/2024 05:01, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 8:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 6:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no god.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
>>>>>>>>>>>> hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
>>>>>>>>>>>> with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. Neither do you!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The clueless is strong in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>>> The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>> _know_ for an absolute fact!
>>>>>>>>>> It's belief and belief _only_.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
>>>>>>>>> immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
>>>>>>>>> seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
>>>>>>>>> humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
>>>>>>>>> particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
>>>>>>>>> its general nature is clear. HTH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
>>>>>>>> that PZ was joking?
>>>>>>>> I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
>>>>>>>> another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
>>>>>>> baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind,
>>>>>>> we'll
>>>>>>> think of something. Well, you probably won't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
>>>>>> For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
>>>>>> surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
>>>>>> slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an
>>>>> idiomatic
>>>>> way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't
>>>>> reach
>>>>> me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
>>>>> this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
>>>>> down on your original interpretation when corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>   I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
>>>> saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
>>>> against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
>>>
>>>
>>> You could at least try to lie more artfully; you need the practice:
>>> ****************************************
>>> From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>>> Newsgroups: talk.origins
>>> Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
>>>   Coincidence?
>>> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
>>> Message-ID: <f2ODN.94845$Iswd.11647@fx05.iad>
>>> References: <6276c971-c5ae-4b08-bfa4-d5f525a77251n@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>>>>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>>>>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>>>>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>>>>> Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no god.
>>> ************************************
>>> The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false.  Not only
>>> does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
>>> Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
>>> now claim you hadn't seen.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>> THere's a big difference between "seeing" and "reading".  Ron D.
>> exemplifies that difference.
>>
> Yes, I saw and read only the statement I responded to. At the time, I
> had no interest in further involvement.
>
You're a very stubborn man. Try reading more than that single line.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:25:44 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:04:08 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> On 01/03/2024 05:01, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 8:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 6:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
>>>>>>>>>>>> disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
>>>>>>>>>>>> one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no god.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's worth! But I
>>>>>>>>>>> hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a long term fight
>>>>>>>>>>> with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again some day. But I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. Neither do you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The clueless is strong in this one.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>> The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> _know_ for an absolute fact!
>>>>>>>>> It's belief and belief _only_.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
>>>>>>>> immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
>>>>>>>> seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
>>>>>>>> humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read that
>>>>>>>> sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of your
>>>>>>>> particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear. But
>>>>>>>> its general nature is clear. HTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
>>>>>>> that PZ was joking?
>>>>>>> I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
>>>>>>> another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
>>>>>> baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind, we'll
>>>>>> think of something. Well, you probably won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
>>>>> For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
>>>>> surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
>>>>> slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an idiomatic
>>>> way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post didn't reach
>>>> me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one thing to miss
>>>> this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump Syndrome) to double
>>>> down on your original interpretation when corrected.
>>>>
>>> I have not seen not seen whatever it was that PZ Myers wrote. I only
>>> saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
>>> against such false accusations. With this, I'm done!
>>
>>
>> You could at least try to lie more artfully; you need the practice:
>> ****************************************
>> From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: talk.origins
>> Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb, Google kills Usenet 22 Feb.
>> Coincidence?
>> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500
>> Message-ID: <f2ODN.94845$Iswd.11647@fx05.iad>
>> References: <6276c971-c5ae-4b08-bfa4-d5f525a77251n@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:00:42 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
>>>>
>>>> There is no god.
>> ************************************
>> The above trivially proves your latest post utterly false. Not only
>> does its quoted text affirm the explanations provided by Harshman and
>> Major, it proves that you directly responded to PZ's post which you
>> now claim you hadn't seen.
> >
>I responded only to what I saw.

Lie. You *saw* the entirety of PZ's post. You *replied* to PZ's
comments to which Harshman and Major refer. It's physically
impossible for you to have posted what you did, and not have seen what
you say you did not see.

Instead, you continue to mindlessly quotemine a single line taken out
of context, despite having that context rubbed in your face.

>Are you claiming the statement, "There
>is no God" was PZ's statement?

Since you asked, no. I made no such claim, not because it's false,
but because it's trivially and factually correct that PZ posted "There
is no God".

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

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

On 3/1/24 3:04 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 01/03/2024 05:01, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 8:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/24 6:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/24 2:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the
>>>>>>>>>> noise problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the
>>>>>>>>>> persistent creationist idiots who had nothing to say but
>>>>>>>>>> disrupted every conversation. Now that we're finally free of
>>>>>>>>>> one obnoxious twit, Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no god.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is
>>>>>>>>> impossible. Therefore, it's just your opinion, for what it's
>>>>>>>>> worth! But I hope you are wrong. We buried my sister after a
>>>>>>>>> long term fight with cancer. I sincerely hope to see her again
>>>>>>>>> some day. But I don't know. Neither do you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The clueless is strong in this one.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>> The truth is we are _all_ clueless, since we cannot possibly
>>>>>>> _know_ for an absolute fact!
>>>>>>> It's belief and belief _only_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it's only right that I explain the nature of your
>>>>>> immediate example of cluelessness. So here: you were responding
>>>>>> seriously to a joke by PZ. It's possible that you have no sense of
>>>>>> humor and so are unable to recognize it, or that you just read
>>>>>> that sentence while ignoring the prior context. The details of
>>>>>> your particular cluelessness in that case are not entirely clear.
>>>>>> But its general nature is clear. HTH.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I responded to the comment "there is no God" so, are you claiming
>>>>> that PZ was joking?
>>>>> I don't care who wrote the phrase "there is no God" it's just
>>>>> another mindless and thoughtless unproven claim.
>>>>>
>>>> Reading and thinking are not among your talents. Have you tried
>>>> baking? Oh, but you probably have to read for that. Never mind,
>>>> we'll think of something. Well, you probably won't.
>>>>
>>> I simply responded only to the comment "there is no God". That's all!
>>> For some reason you cannot deal with this, so what do you do: not
>>> surprising - you resort to belittling, personal assassination  and
>>> slander. I don't have to deal with insults from you!
>>>
>>
>> As I understood, in context the phrase "there is no God" is an
>> idiomatic way of saying that life is unfair. (PZ Myers' original post
>> didn't reach me, so I never saw it in its original context.) It's one
>> thing to miss this on first reading - it's another thing (Trump
>> Syndrome) to double down on your original interpretation when corrected.
> >
>  I have not seen not seen whatever it was that  PZ Myers wrote. I only
> saw the statement I responded to. I have a right to defend myself
> against such false accusations. With this,  I'm done!
>
.....to a goldeen turn.

On 28/02/2024 22:00, Ron Dean wrote:
> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>> Google decides to end its support?
>>
>> There is no god.
> >
> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.

We've established that the statement was
presented as a joke. I perceive that
you aren't comfortable with it being a
joke. I give respect to that stance.

I would say, let's get back to what we
are in talk.origins for. But I think that
what most of us are in talk.origins for
is repetitive arguments between apologists
of science and misguided or dishonest
creationists, and I am just as happy to
have less of that. But if I don't accept
the role of apologist, then someone who
likes it less than I do will receive it.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:

> I would say, let's get back to what we
> are in talk.origins for.

What is that?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 22:00, Ron Dean wrote:
>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>>> Google decides to end its support?
>>>
>>> There is no god.
>>>
>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
>
> We've established that the statement was
> presented as a joke. I perceive that
> you aren't comfortable with it being a
> joke. I give respect to that stance.
>
> I would say, let's get back to what we
> are in talk.origins for. But I think that
> what most of us are in talk.origins for
> is repetitive arguments between apologists
> of science and misguided or dishonest
> creationists, and I am just as happy to
> have less of that. But if I don't accept
> the role of apologist, then someone who
> likes it less than I do will receive it.
>
>

Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
are not returning in the near future.

On 3/7/24 3:18 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 22:00, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>>>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>>>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>>>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>>>> Google decides to end its support?
>>>>
>>>> There is no god.
>>>>
>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
>>
>> We've established that the statement was
>> presented as a joke. I perceive that
>> you aren't comfortable with it being a
>> joke. I give respect to that stance.
>>
>> I would say, let's get back to what we
>> are in talk.origins for. But I think that
>> what most of us are in talk.origins for
>> is repetitive arguments between apologists
>> of science and misguided or dishonest
>> creationists, and I am just as happy to
>> have less of that. But if I don't accept
>> the role of apologist, then someone who
>> likes it less than I do will receive it.
>>
>>
>
> Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
> each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
> are not returning in the near future.
>
Peter generated a lot of stuff to chew on. I'm going to miss Bill
Rogers, Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett if they don't relent.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:07:12 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/7/24 3:18 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 22:00, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> pzmyers@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I mostly abandoned TO many years ago, in part because of the noise
>>>>> problem, exemplified by obsessives like Nyikos and the persistent
>>>>> creationist idiots who had nothing to say but disrupted every
>>>>> conversation. Now that we're finally free of one obnoxious twit,
>>>>> Google decides to end its support?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no god.
>>>>>
>>>> This is _your_ claim, but I see no proof. To know is impossible.
>>>
>>> We've established that the statement was
>>> presented as a joke. I perceive that
>>> you aren't comfortable with it being a
>>> joke. I give respect to that stance.
>>>
>>> I would say, let's get back to what we
>>> are in talk.origins for. But I think that
>>> what most of us are in talk.origins for
>>> is repetitive arguments between apologists
>>> of science and misguided or dishonest
>>> creationists, and I am just as happy to
>>> have less of that. But if I don't accept
>>> the role of apologist, then someone who
>>> likes it less than I do will receive it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Plus we’re acclimating to a post-GG and post-Nyikos talk.origins milieu,
>> each with its own set of adjustments. I guess Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett
>> are not returning in the near future.
>>
>Peter generated a lot of stuff to chew on. I'm going to miss Bill
>Rogers, Burkhard and Lawyer Daggett if they don't relent.

+1

On 07/03/2024 23:02, Richmond wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I would say, let's get back to what we
>> are in talk.origins for.
>
> What is that?

It is what I described in the sentence
that I typed after the word "for".

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:

> On 07/03/2024 23:02, Richmond wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I would say, let's get back to what we
>>> are in talk.origins for.
>> What is that?
>
> It is what I described in the sentence
> that I typed after the word "for".

I see, I thought you were excluding yourself from that "most people"
when you said you were happy to have less of it.

On 10/03/2024 13:43, Richmond wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/03/2024 23:02, Richmond wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I would say, let's get back to what we
>>>> are in talk.origins for.
>>> What is that?
>>
>> It is what I described in the sentence
>> that I typed after the word "for".
>
> I see, I thought you were excluding yourself from that "most people"
> when you said you were happy to have less of it.

Of creationism? Yes. It's a paradox
and maybe I didn't explain myself well.

And some people don't use the group only
for that, but also bring in scientific claims
or hypotheses about origins, of life, of stars,
of the duck-billed platypus - with no creationism
directly provoking this.

>>Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb....

First I'd heard of that. How old was Peter?

On 4/2/24 6:34 PM, panther2020 wrote:
>>> Re: Peter Nyikos dies 18 Feb....
>
> First I'd heard of that.  How old was Peter?
>
He was 78.